Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Cool story bro
RPM371
Well-Known Member
It becomes a "Monsanto plant" as soon as it's pollinated by a Monsanto plant. Any seed or clones are Monsanto intellectual property. I know it sounds insane, but that's the way it is. Seriously, look into what Monsanto did with Soybeans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
No...
first off I suggest you spend some time reading basic biology on plant reproduction. If a plant becomes pollinated it doesn't alter the genetic structure of that plant.. the only place you'd find the gmo DNA would be in the seeds
Even then it wouldn't be all the seeds to get to a situation where you run afoul of Monsanto's lawyers you would need to grow several generations killing off all stock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser
The article you linked to does not support what your saying
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
Oh now TW 'don't make me come back there' and show you all over again how 'nature' and or all that exists can be translated in to numbers...numbers that are continually adding up to whatever 1+1 etc is in any given moment, therefor nothing is 'random' in nature, everything adds up...even human disconnect and consequence etc...therefor it is entirely 'natural' for humans to genetically engineer anything they so choose, its just not a very wise thing to do if you dont know the numbers and what they add up to etc...and we dont...so that makes GE (Genetic Engineering) about as smart as GC (General Custer) rushing in when he also had no clue of the numbers
Dear deer Doer...first of all if you really think you have 'shredded' anything then you are clearly either off your meds or just punch drunk from shadow boxing with yourself lol...name one 'article' or 'study' or 'opinion' I have advocated for as fact?...you can't because I haven't...and even more relevant they are merely as they claim to be = 'articles', 'studies' and 'opinions', not fact, do you understand the difference deer Doer?
These articles and so forth are only posted because someone finds them relevant in their opinion and so it all adds' to the discussion just as it should...maybe such free flowing availability of differing view points offends you deer Doer?
In any case whatever you thought you were 'debating' I can't be certain, but the intended discussion for this thread was stated and clarified early on...maybe you came late?
Anywho it all goes to that which you have responded to apparently by writing this: "Name one fact. You have presented nothing factual."...hehe your joking right?
Are you seriously claiming that everything that exists could not be translated into numbers?
Are you also stating that when those things that exist then interact it doesn't result in even more numbers etc?
The numbers are everything deer Doer, for every action there is a reaction etc...this is all very simple fundamental facts of life stuff....hmmm, hey wait! maybe you have figured out all the numbers and how they interact and thats why you take your position?
If that is true then where were you when the SHDT needed you most...that would be back a good many pages when Doni settled any so called 'debate' with the deadly quote of destiny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw
Maybe also see post #693
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/602854-monsanto-cannabis-yes-no-dna-70.html#post8505599
Maybe for you it would be better understood in this version deer Doer;D
...
[video=youtube;_w5JqQLqqTc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_w5JqQLqqTc[/video]
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
responsible testing before selling to consumers. . .do all the genetic whatever you want, i don't agree with it but that's a non point what i think doesn't matter in the long run . . . .dont feed it to me and not tell me that its modified genetically . . . . its very simple if theirs nothing to hide and GMO foods are great then there should be tons of research on how great they are over non GMO foods as well as
but i deserve a choice . . . . and proper responsible research deserves to be done, long term studies . . . .. not studies paid for by the companies that want to make money off of the possible results . . .that is a obvious conflict of interest
so you can go on about how selective breeding is like this or that . .cause it aint like genetically modifying foods . . . in a lab. . . your control thing . . .im not sure where control lends any credence to your argument ., .. . crops have been growing and feeding people without lab control for thousands and thousands of years . . .wired selective breeding seemed to work for them . . . why role the dice with a variable like genetic coding and it is a variable . .not proven yet or we would have GMO food packaged and marked so to show its superiority or particular attributes that make it better then the rest
and last but not the least issue i have with the progress of GMO foods in our supermarkets is . . we dont want it . . .. and they know it . . .
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
monsanto does own your crop if their genetics are found in it . . . they own teh genetics . .if you have their genetics in your crops they own a piece of you . . . . .it may seem ugly but its true . . .
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
well to start here is a article where monsanto says pollen doesn't drift . . .
http://monsantoblog.com/2012/09/13/the-myth-of-pollen-drift-compromising-organic-farms/
oh so a court only bound them from not sueing cause they don't sue people . . for their genetics being in crops . . apparently
http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantocafcdecision.htm
"A three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled today that a group of organic and otherwise non-GMO farmer and seed company plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from Monsanto's transgenic seed patents "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower’s land).'"
http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantocafcdecision.htm
"Corporations did not create seeds and many are challenging the existing patent system that allows private companies to assert ownership over a resource that is vital to survival and that historically has been in the public domain," said Debbie Barker
http://monsantoblog.com/2012/09/13/the-myth-of-pollen-drift-compromising-organic-farms/
oh so a court only bound them from not sueing cause they don't sue people . . for their genetics being in crops . . apparently
http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantocafcdecision.htm
"A three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled today that a group of organic and otherwise non-GMO farmer and seed company plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from Monsanto's transgenic seed patents "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower’s land).'"
http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantocafcdecision.htm
"Corporations did not create seeds and many are challenging the existing patent system that allows private companies to assert ownership over a resource that is vital to survival and that historically has been in the public domain," said Debbie Barker
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
"Regarding the question of patent rights and the farmer's right to use seed taken from his fields, Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the intentional replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally. Schmeiser insisted on his "farmer's rights" to do anything he wished with seeds harvested from any plants grown on his field - including plants from seeds that were accidentally sown - and that this tangible property right overrides Monsanto's patent rights."
results of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
results of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
Doer
Well-Known Member
They did all that. The hippies set up these straw dogs with no science applied what so ever. You are the guys just woke up yesterday. Not Monsanto and not the US FDA or the Dept Ag. all that. This entire study is not owned by Monsanto. WE have our own labs. WE have our own research universities. We don't worry about the final commercialization.
WE have all that non-commercial independent Federal research infrastructure, funded by mucho tax dollars, so that we don't have to listen to mush brained hippies that have never done science, and have no idea what it is.
BTW, we do want it and that is why we have it.
BTW, the lists of what has GM is widely available. Anyone who cares and has been panicked by the hippies can not buy. Sam don't buy.
Labeling is un-con when no harm can be shown. DUDE.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Bolded the important part
Its funny I linked to the wiki on that case just a few posts ago
Are you deliberately leaving out the part where he used roundup to select out the roundup ready seeds?
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
I know its not strictly related to GM, but what do you think of lab-grown / stem cell meat or the Google burger
is this progress ?
[video=youtube;gyxPxcE_4to]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyxPxcE_4to[/video]
perhaps by the year 2029 Apple inc will be making lab grown chicken nuggets in China
drive through Google burger restaurants in every town
McDonalds will be making Eyephone clones on the Moon if they don't get on board soon !
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
no . . . you asked me to show they sue and try to own peoples farms for having patented a genetics . . .and i did
i know you already knew that .. monsanto has patented a gene and claims that pollen from these crops cant travel . .and pollinate other fields . . . i mean what is their to support . . all they wnat to do is make money off screwing other farmers
my county is highly agricultuiral so maybe it effects me more . .or it effects more people i know . . .in a indirect way . . . . .
the debate on who can own a gene is simple to me . .and you cant or shouldnt be able to
do testing (proper unbiased testing)
advertise GMO on foods so we know what we eat
and do whatever the fuck else for all i care
im nto here to suggest a hualt in technologies
i just think progressing responsibly is a better choice them
hastily
Doer
Well-Known Member
What evidence do you have to this bold claim. And there has been no claim of that. That issue is not even part of the debate.
The seed corn has to be purchased not gathered and re-planted. That's it. If you thought it through you could see, it is a control, of what you want controlled.
AFAIK, it is not capable of pollenating. You should like that control.
But, see the luddist don't want control the tech. They want the absolute control to shut it all down, as if it was sinful. Oh, you won't admit it. Everything the crazies scream, is no need for science this is a sin. You see it as an affront unto the Earth Mother, and you know it.
Trousers
Well-Known Member
Health Ranger launches 3-minute 'GMOs Explained' video to introduce new people to the dangers of genetically modified foods
Thursday, August 15, 2013
(NaturalNews) Now there's an easy way to introduce new people to the topic of GMOs. Here at Natural News, we've just completed a fascinating new video that reveals the story of GMOs in just three minutes.
Check it out on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8qvskYvnH8
The video reveals where GMOs come from, why they're used and why they cause organ damage and cancer in mammals. It also explains how to avoid GMOs by shopping for USDA certified organic foods.
The short duration of the video makes it perfect for viewing by new people who either aren't familiar with the problem of GMOs or who don't want to sit through a long-duration documentary.
Also covered in the short video is the concept of "genetic pollution" -- how GMOs threaten the viability of global agriculture by turning the entire planet into a mad science genetics experiment with potentially catastrophic results.
The video also plugs some of the top websites covering GMOs including GM Watch (www.gmwatch.org), the Organic Consumers Association (www.organicconsumers.org) and the Institute for Responsible Technology (www.responsibletechnology.org).
Watch it here and either share this page or share the video:
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041645_GMOs_explained_video_genetic_pollution.html#ixzz2cEMiwPk4
[video=youtube;b8qvskYvnH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8qvskYvnH8[/video]
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041645_GMOs_explained_video_genetic_pollution.html#ixzz2cEMQ44v9
More lies and junk science and freaking blogs. The "study" that claims organ damage was a complete sham.
You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading all those lies.
Trousers
Well-Known Member
all complaints/criticisms should be submitted to the authors of whatever articles that are posted = not me...lol...i only work here...
god i love sweathogs
thanks for keepin this train fueled and runnin strong...
You are posting blogs, junk science and lies. You are either ignorant, a liar or a blend or the two.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
not surprising how golden'cheesrice seems to love your trousers trout logic lol...and apparently what is so very important to you is all but irrelevant to me...and if you bothered to read what I actually write instead of focusing on what others write then you would know that silly trout...maybe read post #2834 to help you up the fish ladderin the mean time here's more of what I didn't write
| [h=1]New European food safety guidelines affirm methodology, findings of Seralini's GM corn lab rat study[/h] Thursday, August 22, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer |
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041728_food_safety_guidelines_Seralini_study_GM_corn.html#ixzz2ckvd6dFe
(NaturalNews) After vehemently criticizing a researcher's groundbreaking study and inappropriately calling into question the validity of his rigorous scientific research methods, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA) has made a surprising about-face. According to new reports, the agency recently vindicated Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini's published paper on the long-term health damage caused by eating Monsanto's genetically-modified (GM) NK603 corn, affirming that the study is, in fact, valid.
As reported by GMOSeralini.org, the EFSA's indirect approval of Prof. Seralini's study comes as the agency issues new guidelines for how long-term feeding studies are to be conducted in the European Union (EU) moving forward. Believe it or not, the EFSA, which is essentially Europe's version of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is modeling these guidelines after the very same ones that Prof. Seralini used to show that GMOs cause organ failure and cancer.
As you may recall, the EFSA came out like an attack dog following the publishing of Prof. Seralini's controversial study back in 2012, claiming that he failed to apply appropriate research methodology in his work. As previously pointed out by GMWatch.org, these claims were completely unfounded and hypocritical, as none of the industry-backed safety studies used by the EFSA to approve GMOs applied these standards, either.
But now the EFSA is essentially admitting that Prof. Seralini was right all along, and that his research methods are, in fact, more robust than currently accepted methods. So, the agency is adopting many of them and making them official standards for modern food safety research, which is a major victory not only for Prof. Seralini's work, but also for the entire independent research community that seeks truth rather than corporate propaganda.
"This is a fascinating document which largely validates the methodology and choices of Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini in his 2012 study on GM maize NK603 -- methodology and choices that EFSA and countless other critics previously attacked him for," explains GMOSeralini.org about the release of the EFSA's new guidelines.
You can review these new guidelines for yourself by visiting:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3347.htm
[h=1]EFSA affirms almost every research method used by Seralini[/h] Some highlights from the new EFSA guidelines include a pronouncement that the type of rat species used by Prof. Seralini, the Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat, is, indeed, appropriate for use in long-term food safety studies. Prof. Seralini had previously been criticized for using SD rats in his study, but according to the EFSA, SD rats are fitting for this type of research.
The EFSA also now agrees that long-term food safety studies do not necessarily need a narrow and fixed hypothesis, another criticism that was levied against Prof. Seralini's work. Since GMOs themselves are still technically a novelty as far as the scientific literature is concerned, constructing studies in a more "exploratory" fashion, just like Prof. Seralini did, is completely acceptable.
The new EFSA guidelines do much more than just exonerate Prof. Seralini's work, however. They also take aim at the misguided use of historical controls in safety testing, a practice often used by Monsanto and others to essentially arrive at pre-determined outcomes. According to the EFSA, historical control data "should be considered with caution," as it can lead to false outcomes.
"Overall, we're pleased to see EFSA taking on board our cautionary lessons on spurious 'reference' control groups and historical control data (even if in the same document EFSA subsequently allows the use of both), as well as validating the aspects of Seralini's experiment that he was most criticized for."
You can read a review of the major points of the EFSA's new guidelines by visiting:
http://gmoseralini.org
Sources for this article include:
http://gmoseralini.org
http://www.gmwatch.org
http://www.efsa.europa.eu
http://science.naturalnews.com
Someacdude
Active Member
I dont need any paperwork to know what these things do, i saw it with my own two eyes, Farmers FORCED to grow that garbage , back when people still had integrity . When they still wanted to make a quality product with good nutritional value.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
"They also take aim at the misguided use of historical controls in safety testing, a practice often used by Monsanto and others to essentially arrive at pre-determined outcomes."
huh what did they infere . . . .bias testing by companies for companies may not have the proper procedures we all would think . . . .. huh ..
huh what did they infere . . . .bias testing by companies for companies may not have the proper procedures we all would think . . . .. huh ..