Genetically engineering marijuana

MKGROW · Mar 2, 2013

just google "most evil company in the world" see what u get....
sorry but i live on a small island and monsanto has a lot of seed corn crops here. cancer rates are way high as are birth defects.
they spray all kinds of crap. u should also look into GMO the whole process where they use cancer growth on a plant to inject the DNA o be
combined w the mother plant. its scary crazy the way it all works.
also watch who is and has been in charge most r former Monsanto employees. that fact...
sorry about the rant but i see it every day first hand.
mahalo
tom

MKGROW · Mar 2, 2013

got carryed away should have said whos is in charge of the FDA mostly former Montanto employees

PJ Diaz · Mar 2, 2013

Uncle Ben said:
I wouldn't trust that far left progressive bunch for anything. Man, you guys need to get away from these wacked out fringe sites. If there was any credibility, it would be all over the news outlets, even liberal ones like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNC, The View, etc.

How about the Associated Press?

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9SADUU80.htm

Argentina's tax agency has raided a Monsanto Co. contractor and found what it calls slave-like conditions among workers in its cornfields.
The AFIP tax agency says Rural Power SA hired all its farmhands illegally, prevented them from leaving the fields and withheld their salaries. They had to de-tassel corn 14 hours a day and buy their food at inflated prices from the company store.
AFIP says it will hold the American agro-giant responsible for its contractor's slave-like labor conditions.
Monsanto didn't immediately respond to calls Monday to its headquarters in Buenos Aires and in St. Louis, which was closed for the Martin Luther King holiday.
Argentina's congress last month gave farmhands an 8-hour day and other benefits long denied under a dictatorship-era law.

PJ Diaz · Mar 2, 2013

When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it's even WORSE than he feared.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

PJ Diaz · Mar 2, 2013

Trousers said:
I'll just wait for a peer reviewed study.

Here you go..

http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

And here's a small snippet of the entire study. Follow the link for more..

[h=3]Abstract[/h][h=4]Purpose[/h]We reviewed 19 studies of mammals fed with commercialized genetically modified soybean and maize which represent, per trait and plant, more than 80% of all environmental genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated on a large scale, after they were modified to tolerate or produce a pesticide. We have also obtained the raw data of 90-day-long rat tests following court actions or official requests. The data obtained include biochemical blood and urine parameters of mammals eating GMOs with numerous organ weights and histopathology findings.
[h=4]Methods[/h]We have thoroughly reviewed these tests from a statistical and a biological point of view. Some of these tests used controversial protocols which are discussed and statistically significant results that were considered as not being biologically meaningful by regulatory authorities, thus raising the question of their interpretations.
[h=4]Results[/h]Several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects in the above-mentioned experiments. This was confirmed by our meta-analysis of all the in vivo studies published, which revealed that the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted parameters).
[h=4]Conclusions[/h]The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection. We are suggesting that the studies should be improved and prolonged, as well as being made compulsory, and that the sexual hormones should be assessed too, and moreover, reproductive and multigenerational studies ought to be conducted too.

DrKingGreen · Mar 2, 2013

"Why do you see girls in grade school with d cups?"
"I don't. Why are you looking?"
I've only made it to page 2 of this thread, but everyone in my house is laughing their asses off right now! The dog even shit his pants!

PJ Diaz · Mar 2, 2013

MKGROW said:
got carryed away should have said whos is in charge of the FDA mostly former Montanto employees

	Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office,Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.
	The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.
	The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.
	The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.
	The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)

In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.

MKGROW · Mar 2, 2013

thank u PJ for that
people need to wake up and realize whats going on

Corso312 · Mar 2, 2013

Exactly PJ, just like Enron running the energy agenda.

PJ Diaz · Mar 2, 2013

merkzilla said:
Not sure why you would want to genetically modify weed. For the record, theres nothing wrong with GMO.

Edit : http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/22/the-top-five-lies-about-biotech-crops decent posting on the subject

Uncle Ben said:
Yep, it is another lie perpetuated by the greenie wackos, and, I like Monsanto products. There is no truth that they wish or will ever take over the seed source of the world. That is plain fear-mongering.

Great article!

You guys need to wake up and connect the dots.

Here's a snip from the first paragraph of that study:

A 2004 report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.

OK, let's look at the NAS real quick..

----------------------

Michael Phillips . . . recently with the National Academy of Science Board on Agriculture . . . now head of regulatory affairs for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

----------------------------------

Dr. Robert T. Fraley
Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer

Responsibilities

Oversees Monsanto's integrated crop and seed agribusiness technology and research with facilities in most every world area

Technical advisor to numerous government and public agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Science Foundation, Office of Technology Assessment, CAST, Agency for International Development, the National Academy of Science and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications

----------------------------

http://www.slowfoodusa.org/index.php/slow_food/blog_post/study_on_ge_crop_sustainability_co_authored_by_monsanto/

Study on GE crop sustainability co-authored by Monsanto

The National Academy of Science recently released “the first comprehensive assessment of how GE [genetically engineered] crops are affecting all U.S. farmers.” That’s exciting news—if you follow the controversy surrounding GE food crops, you know that the lack of scientific consensus on either side is a source of constant debate.
One reason it’s so hard to sort out the science behind GE crops is that major chemical companies and food industry giants often sit on research committees. Take the study that the National Academy just released. Out of the study’s three authoring bodies, one included a representative from Monsanto, another had a representative from Cargill.
I’m not saying that there’s no way for public and private interests to work together to produce good science. For example, themuch-lauded IAASTD report, for which the World Bank, the FAO and the UNDP brought together 400 leading natural and social scientists, representatives from government (including the U.S.), private sector and non-governmental organizations to ask how we would feed the world in 2050. The scientists concluded that genetically modified crops and chemical agriculture had failed to show much promise in feeding the world. (Although it’s worth noting that before the report was released, Monsanto and Syngenta withdrew from the project.)
Instead I’m calling for more transparency. Pointing out potential conflicts of interest will allow scientists, consumers, environmentalists, and farmers to make more informed decisions. And where transparency isn’t offered, it’s up to everyday people to create it, and spread the word.

Uncle Ben · Mar 3, 2013

PJ Diaz said:
Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office,Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.

Let's just take one of your half truths and analyze it.....Thomas.

Monsanto, the Government, Monopoly Claims

The film states a Supreme Court decision involving plant patents was written by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who once worked for Monsanto. The film suggests the decision was influenced by Thomas’ previous employment with Monsanto.

The case in question was Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. J.E.M Ag Supply and involved a Monsanto competitor. Monsanto was not a party to that case.

Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto for a few years but has not been employed by Monsanto since the 1970s, long before the company was involved in biotechnology or owned a seed business.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer v. J.E.M. upheld the ruling of the appeals and lower court decisions that plants are indeed subject to patent protection under U.S. patent law. The Supreme Court agreed with both lower courts.

While Justice Thomas indeed wrote the majority opinion, this was a 6-2 decision. Justice Thomas was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsberg – none of whom have or had any association with Monsanto. Justices Breyer and Stevens dissented, and Justice O’Connor did not participate in the decision.

In short, while one former Monsanto employee was involved in a Supreme Court case to which Monsanto was not a party, the decision in that case merely confirmed the substantial prior case law and U.S. Patent Office precedent to the effect that plants are subject to patent protection under U.S. law.
Farmers have the option not to purchase biotech seed and also have the option not to purchase seed from Monsanto.

One choice is to purchase organic seeds. Advocates for organic farming claim consumer demand for organics is on the rise, and there is some reliable data to support that claim. The global market for organic food and beverages was worth $22.75 billion in 2007, after more than doubling in five years, according to market research firm Euromonitor International. The United States accounted for about 45 percent of that total. (Source: "How green is my wallet?", Reuters, 01/28/2009). This apparent increase in demand could lead to even more growth in the organic seed market, and thereby even more choice for organic farmers.
Farmers could also choose to purchase conventional, non-organic seed. Farmers can purchase seed from over 200 different seed companies, many of which sell both conventional and biotech seed. In addition, Monsanto will produce conventional seed for farmers who desire to order it from Monsanto.
Finally, farmers who want the benefits of biotech seed, but want to purchase their seed from a company other than Monsanto, have that option as well. Biotech seed is available from more than 200 different seed companies. In addition, some of the biotech seed available in the marketplace contains traits developed by companies other than Monsanto – such as DuPont, Syngenta, Dow and others.

Monopoly Claims - over 90% of soybeans in the U.S. contain Monsanto’s patented gene.

Authorities approved the commercialization of biotechnology applied to soybean seeds in 1996, and many farmers waited to purchase the technology until they saw how it performed the first few years. Farmers are businesspeople who choose seeds that will provide them with the best yield and highest profit. The Roundup Ready soybean technology delivered excellent results and proved to be extremely popular with farmers. As a result, thousands of farmers decided it was in their best financial interest to make the switch from conventional soybean seeds to Roundup Ready soybean seeds.

As farmer demand for Roundup Ready soybeans increased, Monsanto made the technology available to more than 200 other seed companies – so farmers can access the technology from a multitude of other companies. In addition, and in light of the clear popularity of the technology with farmers, many of Monsanto’s competitors have developed or are developing other biotech products for soybeans.

Nice try!

PJ Diaz · Mar 3, 2013

Uncle Ben said:
What in the hell is "fair food"? 'Organically' grown so alternative suckers of the world are suckered into paying 4 times as much for a product that is usually less healthy and nutritious as conventionally grown crops?

Um, how is organic food less nutritious? Don't be so foolish.

Uncle Ben · Mar 3, 2013

PJ Diaz said:
Um, how is organic food less nutritious? Don't be so foolish.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255/NSECTIONGROUP=2

If you think paying a little more for organic food gets you a more nutritious and safer product, you might want to save your money.

A study led by researchers at Stanford University says that organic products aren’t necessarily more nutritional than conventional varieties, and they’re no less susceptible to contamination from disease-causing microbes like E. coli either.

The findings run counter to the commonly believed wisdom....

.....But the latest results, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest that buyers may be wasting their money. “We did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or healthier than conventional foods,” says Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, an instructor in the division of general medical disciplines at Stanford.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/04/is-organic-food-more-nutritious-and-healthier-than-conventional-varieties/#ixzz2MUjm9YsD

Is organic food more nutritious than non-organic food?
12 December 2012Harriet Brewerton

Scientists in Denmark have compared how organic and non-organic diets affect dietary mineral uptake in humans, focusing on copper and zinc. They found that there is no difference between the two diets when it comes to uptake and how the minerals are processed in the body.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/12/organic-foods-no-more-nutritious-non-organic-foods

Trousers · Mar 3, 2013

PJ Diaz said:
You guys need to wake up and connect the dots.

Stop being rude. There is no call for that bullshit. Maybe you should wake up.

PJ Diaz said:
Here you go..

http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

And here's a small snippet of the entire study. Follow the link for more..

Thanks, I'll read it.
corso, you can keep posting nothing to back up your claims, or you can just keep acting like a 16 year old that thinks he knows it all.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html

In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques."
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml

Uncle Ben · Mar 3, 2013

Great link, even the Euro scientific community is on board:

"The European Commission (EU) recently concluded, based on more than 130 studies covering 25 years of research involving at least 500 independent research groups, that genetic modification technologies “are not per se more risky than…conventional plant breeding technologies.” Occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals can cause health problems have not stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny, AAAS said."
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml[/QUOTE]

PJ Diaz · Mar 3, 2013

You can believe whatever you want. I could care less if you get tumors or pesticide poisoning from eating that crap.

Corso312 · Mar 3, 2013

Agreed, trousers n ub ...have @ it...like I said good luck.

I know how corrupt people are when billions are @ stake...maybe I change my mind in 20 years..but for now I take a pass.

Trousers · Mar 3, 2013

PJ Diaz said:
You can believe whatever you want. I could care less if you get tumors or pesticide poisoning from eating that crap.

Got a link?
Hey Mr. 140 IQ. I bet my diet is better than yours.
It just does not seem like your claims are backed by science.
Why should I take your word for it over the AAAS?

Using the phrase "pesticide poisoning" in this context shows that you have a limited understanding of pesticides.
Tumors? Got a link?

PJ Diaz · Mar 3, 2013

What part of "I could care less" don't you understand?

Trousers · Mar 3, 2013

MR 140 IQ said:
What part of "I could care less" don't you understand?

Besides you playing fast and loose with the facts, it does not make sense.
I think you meant, "I couldn't care less," Mr. 140 IQ.

Genetically engineering marijuana

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member