Monsanto cannabis yes or no? The DNA Protection Act of 2013
- Thread starter DNAprotection
- Start date
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I don't think all GMO's are safe, but all the commercially available ones are tested rigorously for safety by the scientific community.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
omg frank is this the beginnings of an actual discussion?
ok im no trout but i'll bite
firstly, what makes you think some GMO's aren't safe?
secondly, if the corps 'bidding' for FDA approval is required to do their own testing which is then not double checked by FDA testing but just taken at face value, how is that really a standard you're comfortable with?
thirdly, can you really say with a strait ferret face (sorry i fell of the wagon there) that money doesn't call the shots at the end of the day when it comes to these Monsanto et al study results achieving exactly what they are suppose to?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Lots of independent studies were done for the purposes of trying to find problems, these experiments are rigorously controlled and repeatable (oh and are they repeated!) or else they're simply not published. This is the process of peer review and it is the cornerstone of human knowledge moving forward.omg frank is this the beginnings of an actual discussion?
ok im no trout but i'll bite
firstly, what makes you think some GMO's aren't safe?
secondly, if the corps 'bidding' for FDA approval is required to do their own testing which is then not double checked by FDA testing but just taken at face value, how is that really a standard you're comfortable with?
thirdly, can you really say with a strait ferret face (sorry i fell of the wagon there) that money doesn't call the shots at the end of the day when it comes to these Monsanto et al study results achieving exactly what they are suppose to?
Not all GMO's are guaranteed safe, but with the minuscule changes being made and the process of review, the dangerous ones simply don't make it to market, the market would kill the product with capitalism.
Pro-GMO doesn't mean pro-Monsanto or pro-dangerous GMO.
The engineering/review process needs to be vigorously controlled by the lab, but the research needs to go on.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
finally something we agree on frank
as for your fast and loose use of the word 'independent' i'm sorry to say we are still worlds apart.
do we need to revisit the history of the dependability of corpsgov cannabis studies?
what about all the 'mishaps' with pharmaceuticals that have made it through all the 'rigorous' testing etc, if your family hasn't already been directly effected in some way, one only need flip on the tv to witness the litany of commercials for class action suits...what does that say about the testing and peer reviews etc?
imo the risks are far greater to the general public (including all other life here) when considering gmo's etc and so the testing etc should be more 'rigorously controlled and repeatable' and peer reviewed etc than any other area of industry regulation not withstanding nuclear...
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
glad you were at least able to help clear that up for us deer Doer...kinda suspected as much...
Doer
Well-Known Member
BTW, this question is only the idea of calling someone frank. I don't care about the event of it or the person behind it....just the very idea.
I prefer to discuss ideas since there are no people here just anonymous forum entities and certainly no frank.....meaning French? Like, sit down Frenchy...., like that?
It just seems so personal, but you also use lower case.
More on the idea? Was Cotter's friend named Frank?
I prefer to discuss ideas since there are no people here just anonymous forum entities and certainly no frank.....meaning French? Like, sit down Frenchy...., like that?
It just seems so personal, but you also use lower case.
More on the idea? Was Cotter's friend named Frank?
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
sheeesh Doer why so upset?
what goes on between me and frank shouldn't bother you...frank knows its a term of endearment and 'frankly' i have come to like frank despite of his tattle tale ways of your
i should also let you know that i'm turning over a new leaf thanks to a good human reminding me to be a better human...thanks GreenSummit
what goes on between me and frank shouldn't bother you...frank knows its a term of endearment and 'frankly' i have come to like frank despite of his tattle tale ways of your
i should also let you know that i'm turning over a new leaf thanks to a good human reminding me to be a better human...thanks GreenSummit
Doer
Well-Known Member
sheeesh Doer why so upset?
what goes on between me and frank shouldn't bother you...frank knows its a term of endearment and 'frankly' i have come to like frank despite of his tattle tale ways of your
i should also let you know that i'm turning over a new leaf thanks to a good human reminding me to be a better human...thanks GreenSummit
What howling mind cloud sees me as upset? Funny. I just wonder why it is so personal. And why you seem to think someone's real name is frank, frankly. And I am only asking about the idea not the event. I have no idea who is frank. So it can't bother me about "what goes on" can it? The idea of calling someone by a first name as if you know them.
The Idea of that is to be personal, right?
Tattletale....that is weird. Did someone tell the teacher on you? For what? Such harmless drivel.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
again Doer i'm sorry you are so upset...
Doer
Well-Known Member
This a passive agressive technique. You are lying when you say you are sorry. I see it in my work. I stop the meeting. I might even stand up, slowly and carefully.
And I say the truth. No one is upset. Only the passive aggressive say that as aggression. No one is upset, we are laughing at you. So comical that a Mod got on your ass, I guess, and you have to Blame.
It is just the punk ass with nothing to say....Oh I've upset you. No, not possible. You only dodge the question as to why you have let this be so personal and then you attack with p-aggression. The day will not come when these forum entities can make anyone but the very weak, upset.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
Doer even though your 'who's frank' question was entirely insincere and dishonest, i assure you my apologies for making you so upset are very sincere.
Doer
Well-Known Member
I don't know why you are calling someone by a made up first name. A Cultural thing?
You seem to be referring to Hark, reading back....whatever....stupid hippy
ChroniComedian
Well-Known Member
Yes you can, it's already been done last year buy a college in Texas if I'm correct on the location. If I remember correctly they patented an heirloom tomato variety. And secondly my point did not refer to that, it referred to the fact that they are going to pick all your favorite varieties of marijuana (which nobody owns) stick some new pesticide and herbicide resistant genes in them and re-sell them to you as better, and the sad fact is people will buy them so they can spray them to death with pesticide and guarantee a perfect crop each time. My reply to Dr. Kynes, dur!!! Of course there is no Monsanto gmo program, but if I am correct was the forum not originally a question of a "theoretical Monsanto dope program". I believe it was, but it seems like you skimmed past that part in an effort to sound smart replying to my posting, not even reading the original forum post. Thirdly you are horribly wrong, GMO "is" designed to be sprayed with more pesticides and herbicides, you are only thinking of the fact that they are designed to be more bug resistant. To continue my point, you are talking about "seed breeders" as if Monsanto doesn't own 85% of all the seed companies on earth. Wake up buddy, they do. Over the last 10 years Monsanto has gone around the world buying up almost every seed company on earth, right now they own all the seeds in your garden, and most the crap you eat, even if they haven't yet genetically modified it. And finally where are these "studies" of GMO crops being good? I can tell you that Europe deems them as dangerous and a few countries have banned their use in the last couple years. Are you referring to the shitty studies by the FDA or by Monsanto about themselves? Continue to listen to them if you want, they're in cahoots. The government has gone out if its way the last 30 years to "convince you" that GMO's are okay, keep in mind that Americans are the fattest, unhealthiest people on earth, and we consume the most GMO's.
Doer
Well-Known Member
1 - Roundup ready means ready to spray with RoundUp.....correct. That is indeed the point.
2 - seems like a serious charge, but I haven't seen any indication. Do you have any main source of evidence you could point me to? I'd like to see that for myself, please?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh I saw another, feckless claim about patenting natural genes in that post. False.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-patient-advocates-and-researchers-cheer?lite
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-patient-advocates-and-researchers-cheer?lite
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
to what are you replying? there is a quote feature...
further, someplace in texas you think did something, but you cant say who what where or when..
that makes no sense no matter how i read it.
the entire thread has consisted of repeated allegations of ACTUAL GMO dope programs despite not one shred of evidence that there is such a thing. the first post is still sitting there, and you can read it again. it makes no mention of "theoretical" GMO dope programs it deliberately implies that there is such a thing, an implication which was expressly stated by the Originating Poster numerous times which he has as yet failed to offer a shred of evidence for.
no, YOU are wrong. "pesticides" are chemicals designed to kill PESTS such as insects, insect larvae, rodents, vermiforms, and whatnot.
Herbicides kill plants.
NOBODY makes a plant resistant to pesticides, because plants are not harmed by pesticides. pesticide related GMOs are an attempt to create crops which produce their own pesticides, like BT, and a few others thus REDUCING the need to spray.
some GMO plants are also being modified to make them unpalattable to certain pests, or to make them resistant to pest damage, but this does not result in MORE pesticide spraying, the goal is LESS pesticide spraying.
even DNAProtection hasnt made that idiotic claim, he is far to smart to slam his own dick in a car door like that.
no, they dont.
Place evidence supporting this claim here _________________________________________________________________________________________________
just off the top of my head... 30 seconds on google got this easy to read report detailing the great success of india's experience with BT cotton, despite monsanto's displeasure.
http://www.apaari.org/publications/bt-cotton-in-india-a-status-report-2nd-edition.html
europe can say whatever they like.
science isnt based on whats popular in europe, it's based on evidence, which your side is sorely lacking.
.
DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
hold on a sec doc, i dont think anyone has stated definitively that Monsanto has a gmo cannabis program (at least i dont remember such)...and as far as my opinion goes its all a matter of going where the money is and if cannabis is where the money is then why on earth would they not pursue it?
ok i just went back to this that was the closest thing i can think of that resembles your claim doc...
ok i just went back to this that was the closest thing i can think of that resembles your claim doc...
- Originally Posted by buckaroo bonzai
I can tell you absolutely that this conspiracy conjecture IS true--
after having lived deep within the cannabis culture in Mendocino for years....Monsanto has ALL the patents and turpenes patented within cannabis--
they have a 'kill' gene cannabis plant that will effectively wipe out any outdoor cannabis growing and cross pollinate with their genetically modified version--thus giving them ownership rights like they pulled on Percy schmeiser in Canada
they are going to follow the path they took with corn--
it is common knowledge in and around mendo and some of these UC folks used to come around talking about it --a lot of them enjoy erb too
i also have a very close friend who's brother is a very high profile and at the top of his field Dr. that told us about the meetings he was privileged to in Colorado where the tax and regulate folks were networking on strategies and Monsanto was bringing the donuts to the meetings---he thought it was funny when he told us and he is a closet 'head'
monsanto is definately at the top of the nefarious corporations list and an extreme threat to humanity and our existence with their control of our food and food supplies---
if you think GMO is good look at how Russia 'banned' it and Europe now made it mandatory to label it and India is now in a huge battle over gmo food as most of the country is vegetarian
GMO food has excito toxins and neuro toxins in it and is the reason the average IQ has went from 120 in the 70s to below 100 now
the dumbing down of the population
i mean would you spray round up on your salad and then eat it? or on your cannabis and then smoke it?
keep drinking soda with GMO corn syrup or your fast foods that areuthanasia for the masses--
most of the sugar beets that we use to extract sugar for most of the food we it is GMO--
what floors me is all the people that still believe this is benign and harmless and actually a good thing--
its NWO stuff and with all the facts it ain't no conspiracy--
beware Monsanto !
Similar threads
