Just Say NO to GMO

Genetically Modified Organics/OrganismsExhibit
Ref:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Genetically-modified

The human manipulation of the genetic material of a cell.

Genetic engineering involves isolating individual DNA fragments, coupling them with other genetic material, and causing the genes to replicate themselves. Introducing this created complex to a host cell causes it to multiply and produce clones that can later be harvested and used for a variety of purposes. Current applications of the technology include medical investigations of gene structure for the control of genetic disease, particularly through antenatal diagnosis. The synthesis of hormones and other proteins (e.g., growth hormone and insulin), which are otherwise obtainable only in their natural state, is also of interest to scientists. Applications for genetic engineering include disease control, hormone and protein synthesis, and animal research.

genetic engineering (noun) a carbon copy created by genetic engineering, a copy created by genetic engineering, a double created by genetic engineering, a facsimile created through genetic engineering, an exact copy created through genetic engineering, clone, duplication created by genetic engineering, production of a copy, production of a copy through genetic engineering, production of multiple identical copies, propagation asexually, propagation from a clone cell, replication created by genetic engineering, replication through genetic engineering, reproduction asexually

Associated concepts: bioethics, computer clone, embryo splitting, human cloneBurton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Exhibit
Ref:
Weeding Out Marijuana
Uploaded on Sep 17, 2009
University of MinnesotaIn a first step toward engineering a drug-free Cannabis plant for hemp fiber and oil, University of Minnesota researchers have identified genes producing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive substance in marijuana. Studying the genes could also lead to new and better drugs for pain, nausea and other conditions. The lead author is David Marks, a professor of plant biology in the College of Biological Sciences.

The study revealed that the genes are active in tiny hairs covering the flowers of Cannabis plants. In marijuana, the hairs accumulate high amounts of THC, whereas in hemp the hairs have little. Hemp and marijuana are difficult to distinguish apart from differences in THC.

This video is part of the Expert Perspectives series at the University of Minnesota.

• Category
  • Science & Technology
• License
  • Standard YouTube License

Just one of many United States Patents

Exhibit
Ref:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

Titled: Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Inventors: Hampson; Aidan J. (Irvine, CA), Axelrod; Julius (Rockville, MD), Grimaldi; Maurizio (Bethesda, MD)

Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)

Family ID: 26767641 Appl. No.: 09/674,028
Filed: February 2, 2001 PCT Filed: April 21, 1999
PCT No.: PCT/US99/08769
PCT Pub. No.: WO99/53917
PCT Pub. Date: October 28, 1999

Just one of many Patents on Cannabis owned by our Government,  Universities  and Corporations…  Who are waiting for full ownership and control over this plant and it’s seed so they can clean up on the profits of Stopper Gene Technology…

As they continue to Regulate it to you… = Feeding the Monster = The Synthetic Industrial Military Prison Complex they call Medicine and Democracy.

It’s total Hypocrisy and Genocide for Domination and Profit

Not to mention an Abomination!!!

The Breakdown of Regulation: Genetic Inventions and Patents in the United States

Exhibit
Ref:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Genetically-modified

In 1980 the Supreme Court created an economic incentive for companies to develop genetically engineered products by holding that such products could be patented. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 100 S. Ct. 2204, 65 L. Ed. 2d 144, the Court held that a patent could be issued for a novel strain of bacteria that could be used in the cleanup of oil spills. In 1986, the u.s. department of agriculture approved the sale of the first living genetically altered organism. The virus was used as a pseudorabies vaccine, from which a single gene had been cut. Within the next year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that nonnaturally occurring, nonhuman, multicellular living organisms, including animals, were patentable under the Patent Act of 1952 (35 U.S.C.A. § 101).

The Department of Agriculture formally became involved in genetic engineering in April of 1988, when the Patent and Trademark Office issued the first animal patent, granted on a genetically engineered mouse used in cancer research. U.S. scientists began experiments with the genetic engineering of farm animals, such as creating cows that would give more milk, chickens that would lay more eggs, and pigs that would produce leaner meat. These developments only raised more objections from critics who believed that genetic experimentation on animals violated religious, moral, and ethical principles. In spite of the controversy, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Transgenic Animal Patent Reform bill on September 13, 1988. The bill would have allowed exempted farmers to reproduce, use, or sell patented animals, although it prohibited them from selling germ cells, semen, or embryos derived from animals. However, the Senate did not vote on the act and so it did not become law.

New Harmful Super Pot Coming to the U.S?
By Gmmarijuana:

   If Franken Pot does get you Higher… It will only do it for one generation of the plant. Thanks! to THC,  TERMINATOR and stopper gene technology.

The goal is… They own and control all the seed and the THC and you will buy it from them at the THC Levels they try to control and decide you can have and when…

By the way Cannabis Sativa L is pollinated on or by the wind like corn. Remember Monsanto suing Farmers because their corn had blown on the wind into other farmers field’s… Pollinating their crops with G.M.O.’s owned by Monsanto, so Monsanto sued them for not paying them for the seed in their fields… Farmers all over the globe committed suicide and natural corn is extinct in many places as just a few of the results.

Exhibit
Ref:
http://filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminator.htmlThe “terminator technology” is the biggest–and the most controversial–news in seed research this year. In March, the U.S. Patent Office granted the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land Company (DPL) a patent for genetic engineering processes that kill seeds. Described as a “technology protection system” by DPL and as the “terminator technology” by the Rural Advancement Foundation International, the patented processes will be used by seed companies to prevent farmers from saving seeds to plant the following year. The strategy behind the patent is to kill only the embryos–leaving other important seed components such as oils and proteins intact.

Exhibit
Ref:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/Gene-silencing.aspx

Developed at CSIRO’s Plant Industry division the hairpin RNA interference (hairpinRNAi) technology is used to silence genes by turning the activity of the gene off or down.

hairpinRNAi is already used extensively in plant genetics and CSIRO scientists are also applying this technology in the animal world.

Exhibit
Ref:
http://www.preventdisease.com/news/11/063011_GMO_marijuana.shtml 

Exhibit
Ref:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Genetically-modifiedCertain states have passed laws restricting genetic engineering. By the early 1990s, six states had enacted laws designed to curb or prohibit the spread of genetically engineered products in the marketplace (see Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 430, § 95/1 [Smith-Hurd 1995]; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 7, § 231 et seq. [West 1995]; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 116C.91 et seq. [West 1995]; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-765-780 [Supp. 1991]; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, §§ 2011–2018 [West 1996]; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 146.60 [West 1996]). North Carolina’s law sets the most comprehensive restrictions on genetic engineering. Resembling the earlier measures proposed by organizations such as England’s Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group, it requires scientists to hold a permit for any release of a genetically engineered product out-side a closed-containment enclosure. The North Carolina statute has been cited as a possible model for advocates of comprehensive federal regulations.

Exhibit
Ref:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Genetically-modifiedAn international code of ethics for genetic research was first established in the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki in 1964. The guide prohibited outright most forms of genetic engineering and was accepted by numerous U.S. professional medical societies, including the American Medical Association (AMA).

In 1969 the AMA promulgated its own ethical guidelines for clinical investigation, key provisions of which conflicted with the Helsinki Declaration. For example, the AMA guidelines proposed that when mentally competent adults were found to be unsuitable subjects for genetic engineering studies, minors or mentally incompetent subjects could be used instead. The Helsinki Declaration did not condone testing on humans.

The growth of genetic engineering in the 1970s aroused international concern, but only limited measures were taken by governments and medical societies to control it. Concern focused on the production of dangerous bacterial mutants that could be used as harmful eugenics tools or weapons. The Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group was established in England based on the recommendations of a prominent medical group, the Williams Committee. Scientists were required to consult this group before carrying out any activity involving genetic manipulation in England. Additional measures required scientific laboratories throughout the world to include physical containment labs to prevent manipulated genes from escaping and surviving in natural conditions. These policies were subsequently adopted in the United States.

Exhibit
Ref:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/scientists-find-thc-gene-hempIn one of the few scientific developments likely to interest both the Governor of North Dakota and Method Man, scientists at the University of Minnesota have identified the genes in cannabis that allow the plant to produce THC. Finding the genes opens the path to either create drug-free hemp plants for industrial purposes, or to develop plants with much higher concentrations of the psychotropic chemical.

I HEAR THIS ONE ALL THE TIME… “HEMP EXTINCT PLEASE!!!”

PLEASE???

Exhibit
Ref:
http://www.globalhemp.com/1994/01/fiber-wars-the-extinction-of-kentucky-hemp.html

Fiber Wars: The Extinction of Kentucky Hemp
January 1, 1994

Chapter 10: The Extinction of Kentucky Hemp

The tragic element of this story is that as a result of the pariah status to which hemp was relegated in the US, Kentucky hemp is now extinct. The germplasm produced in Dewey’s breeding program and all that collected by the USDA is lost. The National Seed Storage Laboratory, located in Fort Collins, Colorado, is charged with the preservation of germplasm as a safeguard against national disaster, such as nuclear war. In the early 1960s, ten bags of hemp seed, the only known remnant of the Kentucky hemp varieties, were transferred there from the USDA. A USDA Yearbook report noted that “Flax and hemp are no longer produced for fiber in this country, but seed stocks of the best varieties that have been developed by research agencies are maintained.”178Fortunately for flax, a responsible effort was made to preserve its germplasm. Sadly, the hemp remnant was neglected. At the request of the author, NSSL searched and found these bags of hempseed. Apparently, they were never logged in as accessions of the lab. Consequently, they were not properly preserved. The bags are only labeled with numbers whose import was not recorded, so we cannot know which varieties they might have been. The seed was last grown, as far as can be determined, in 1948. It’s dead!179

This completes the extinction of Kentucky hemp and its derivatives. Nor is this germplasm found in the collections of other nations, as far as I have been able to determine.180 DeMeijer and van Soest, writing of the Cannabis germplasm collection in Holland, say, “Lacking in the collection are fiber cultivars grouped under the name Kentucky hemp which were cultivated until the nineteen-fifties in the USA… It is doubtful whether viable germplasm of these cultivars still exists.”181 All that remains of this genetic resource is the feral hemp which our National Guard is seeking with helicopters (to the chagrin of at least one Wisconsin dairy farmer).

In 1929 three selected varieties of hemp-Michigan Early, Chinamington and Simple Leaf-were grown in comparison with unselected common Kentucky seed near Juneau, Wis. Each of the varieties had been developed by 10 years or more of selection from the progeny of individual plants. The yields of fiber per acre were as follows: Simple Leaf, 360 pounds; Michigan Early, 694 pounds; Chinamington, 1054 pounds; common Kentucky, 680 pounds.182 These and the other varieties, Ferramington, Kymington, and Minnesota 8 among them, the entire lineage of Kentucky hemp, our unique American hemp, are lost, their only survivors reduced to ditchweed. When Mr. Rens closed his doors in 1958, the government required that the hemp seed remaining in his possession be sterilized to kill it before it could be sold to birdseed suppliers.

Today, a great deal of attention is given to the loss of germplasm in tropical rainforests. It is in the context of that concern for global genetic resources that the loss of Kentucky hemp should be framed. Our chemically-dependent, petroleum-addicted world is not sustainable. Inevitably, we will be forced to return to agricultural sources for our material and energy needs. The chemurgic vision will ultimately triumph and hemp will once again be called upon. But it is a long way from ditchweed to an agricultural crop.

The process of becoming weedy is a degenerative process from the point of view of plant breeding. Traits, such as fiber to hurd ratio, selected by the plant breeder through many generations are degraded as natural selection takes over emphasizing weedy characteristics. And hemp has an extremely malleable genetic makeup. The once valuable germplasm has been eroded in the feral state. We cannot know how “wild” this germplasm has become until it can be studied in an agricultural setting.

The loss of this germplasm is a setback to hemp in North America. The situation from a plant breeding point of view is roughly equivalent to turn-of-the-century. If hemp varieties adapted to North America are to be recreated, we will have to start over with the feral germplasm and plant introductions from China, Italy, and the former Soviet block. Since all domestic long-fiber spinning machinery was sold off for scrap metal, for this, too, we will have to look to the East.

Because of the legal definition of hemp as a drug plant, all hemp used in the US is imported. Nonetheless, trade is exploding for articles made with hemp. Beginning as a means to vote against prohibition when public discussion is suppressed, people are rediscovering the attributes of this durable natural fiber. And there is a great deal of interest in hemp’s potential for building materials and, of course, paper. Hemp might also be grown for fiber on polluted lands as part of the remediation process.183 It has also been discussed as a potential source of biomass energy because of its high productivity.184 For its unique ability to suppress weeds alone, hemp has a place in the crop rotation, particularly in sustainable and organically-oriented farming systems.185

Growing public weariness with crime which always attends a prohibition may soon result in the rationalization of laws affecting hemp agriculture. Such changes are already underway in England, Canada, Australia and Germany. But the forces which found it necessary to force hemp into the “drug” classification still hold sway in the US. As awareness spreads, exposing the misinformation, grassroots efforts are moving to save the endangered Kentucky hemp germplasm. Hopefully, it is not too late to recover Kentucky hemp from the feral populations.

A 1975 study of feral cannabis growing in Kansas reported:

The major hallucinogen, delta-9-THC, occurred in all plant parts and ranged from 0.0001 to 0.06% of plant dry matter in the time study. Concentration was highest in flowers, leaves, petioles, stems, seeds, and roots, respectively. Plant parts containing the most delta-9THC also contained the most CBD, but delta-9-THC concentrations were ten times lower than CBD in all plant parts. Delta-9-THC and CBD in leaf tissue exhibited similar seasonal changes, except that delta-9-THC fluctuations came about two weeks later than those of CBD and had the lowest concentration (0.004%) in mid March and the highest (0.046%) in early July.186 The highest THC levels (0.046%) reported by this study for feral hemp is far below the 0.3% internationally accepted threshold for drug potential.

In 1992, a retired IBM employee with a hobby-farm in Kentucky was arrested for cultivating a Schedule One drug when 5000 cannabis plants were found in one of his fields. The charges were subsequently dropped (after $15,000 in legal fees) when lab results came back showing the plants had 0.05% THC. This case confirms that Kentucky hemp never did have drug potential. The THC percentage of the feral hemp from Kansas and Kentucky are equivalent, 0.05%, an order of magnitude below the international standard. (The Kansas study had a high mean THC percentage of 0.5%, but the highest THC in the timeline experiment– a subset of the larger survey of feral hemp in one Kansas county–was 0.05%.) There is not, nor was there ever, a need “to free hemp of the drug marihuana.” The promulgation of this misinformation was a hoax perpetrated by an agency of government for reasons not yet fully revealed. All we know for sure is that during the 1930s, a branch of Henry Morgenthau’s Treasury Department targeted a specific group of companies to entangle in government redtape. We know that hemp’s association with marijuana was forced at that time because it was expedient. The bias in the enforcement of the Tax Act is exposed by the fact that the Wisconsin industry was spared while the Minnesota industries were overrun by FBN agents. We know the public was misled. What motivated this subterfuge remains a matter for speculation.

The THC Stopper Gene

Exhibit
Ref:
http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/p/monsanto-connection-george-soros_27.html

Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative this blog takes an intelligent approach to evaluating the 2010 tax cannabis initiative proposed for california’s november ballot. STONER BEWARE: this initiative is NOT what you think it is. if you are passionate about marijuana and legalization, read this blog and see what the initiative really says. then just vote KNOW.

• WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19
• MARIJUANA MARTYR EDDY LEPP OPPOSES PROP. 19
• THE MONSANTO CONNECTION: GEORGE SOROS DONATES $1M TO PROP. 19 CAMPAIGN: WHY GEORGE SOROS WANTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZED
• LEGALIZE IT, DON’T CORPORATIZE IT!
• STUDENTS AND PROP. 19: JAIL TIME AND LOSS OF FINANCIAL AID
• ATTORNEY SAYS Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19’s Impact on Patients
• An Alternative to Prop 19: CCHHI (A Comparison)
• READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE: PROP. 19, A PANDORA’S BOX OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

THE MONSANTO CONNECTION: GEORGE SOROS DONATES $1M TO PROP. 19 CAMPAIGN:
WHY GEORGE SOROS WANTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZED GEORGE SOROS IS A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER IN MONSANTO. SO WHAT’S IN IT FOR HIM IF PROP. 19 PASSES? THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU. READ ON TO SEE WHY MONSANTO WANTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZED AND THE REAL REASON BEHIND SOROS’ ONE MILLION DOLLAR DONATION TO PROP. 19…

PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND GMO TERMINATOR CANNABIS ~ By Conrad Justice Kiczenski

Is Monsanto working to create GMO marijuana?
Exhibit
Ref:
http://www.examiner.com/article/is-monsanto-working-to-create-gmo-marijuana

US Patent Pending for Genetically Modified Marijuana

Exhibit
Ref:
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/9027/US-Patent-Pending-for-Genetically-Modified-Marijuana.aspx