GMO, Monsanto, and the future of cannabis?

[HempKat]

You might also get a kick out of reading the Forum piece What Happened to Science on p.66. The author, Taffy, makes a point but I personally think each and every "study" needs to be read with huge skepticism these days. And that sucks.

A lot of "scientific studies" these days turn out to be just some telephone survey of 50 people in Bum-fuck Arkansas and sponsored be some shit company like Monsanto. Then they also make preconceived conclusions and use only that data that just supports their bullshit hypothesis. That's back-asswards at the start. Usually they are also authored by some PhD who actually just wrote his dissertation about the social norms of inner-city butt whores or something too. Then it was an independent DOCTOR? run scientific study?

Most of that shit is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. I think these big-ass mother raping companies like Monsanto ASSUME people are stupid.

I once worked for a company that did these studies over the phone. Now to be fair they typically call more then just 50 people and in more places then just Bum-Fuck Arkansas. That's how they can call it a scientific study because they pick the participants using what is called a "Scientific Sampling" which does generate a sampling that is roughly representative of the demographics of the larger group the sampling represents. What that means is if say the sample size is 100 and the group the sample represents is 25% Catholic or 25% Hispanic for example then there will be 25 people out of the 100 that are Catholic or Hispanic. Now that's a simplification. The sampling goes deeper then just religion or ethnicity to also be reflective of age, income levels and other factors.

They really do have it down to a science too because not only can they pick people representative of the group being studied but they can also identify people likely to answer a particular way. The scientific part gets misused though because by saying it's a scientific study people assume the science is more then just who the people polled are. They also bank on the idea that most people believe science is unbiased and based solely on facts because most "real" science is.

Ultimately though these places that do these studies are a business and their customers are the people wanting particular studies done. Like any business they want to be profitable and so they use the proven formula of success which is to give the customer what they want and so the vast majority of these "studies" will support the desired conclusion because the company doing the study will pick people likely to answer the way the customer wants and the questions asked will be designed to get the response the customer wants.

 

[dddaver]

I once worked for a company that did these studies over the phone. Now to be fair they typically call more then just 50 people and in more places then just Bum-Fuck Arkansas. That's how they can call it a scientific study because they pick the participants using what is called a "Scientific Sampling" which does generate a sampling that is roughly representative of the demographics of the larger group the sampling represents. What that means is if say the sample size is 100 and the group the sample represents is 25% Catholic or 25% Hispanic for example then there will be 25 people out of the 100 that are Catholic or Hispanic. Now that's a simplification. The sampling goes deeper then just religion or ethnicity to also be reflective of age, income levels and other factors.

They really do have it down to a science too because not only can they pick people representative of the group being studied but they can also identify people likely to answer a particular way. The scientific part gets misused though because by saying it's a scientific study people assume the science is more then just who the people polled are. They also bank on the idea that most people believe science is unbiased and based solely on facts because most "real" science is.

Ultimately though these places that do these studies are a business and their customers are the people wanting particular studies done. Like any business they want to be profitable and so they use the proven formula of success which is to give the customer what they want and so the vast majority of these "studies" will support the desired conclusion because the company doing the study will pick people likely to answer the way the customer wants and the questions asked will be designed to get the response the customer wants.

Yeah man, I knew that. Sorry I stepped your toes. I had to learn a lot about that in college. I was just using hyperbole to make a point.

But I see you came to mostly that same conclusion explaining how those studies are often bent just to support a forgone conclusion so therefore are not truly scientific. So what I got out of reading what you wrote is that you can't really believe what scientific study/phone surveys say. They hammered on that in statistics in school. They showed how the same set of statistics can usually be used to support both sides of an argument.

I also liked what that Playboy article said too about internet searches having tailored results that match your desires from your prior searches and results are tailored even by what you have said in google email. Like nobody ever changes their mind? Isn't that what learning is? I personally don't see any real benefit to any of that and rebel against manipulation like that.

Also the article pointed out how the wording of a search is biased in itself so results will just reflect that search wording. And how all that screws with the very foundation of the scientific principles.

 

[HempKat]

Yeah man, I knew that. Sorry I stepped your toes. I had to learn a lot about that in college. I was just using hyperbole to make a point.

But I see you came to mostly that same conclusion explaining how those studies are often bent just to support a forgone conclusion so therefore are not truly scientific. So what I got out of reading what you wrote is that you can't really believe what scientific study/phone surveys say. They hammered on that in statistics in school. They showed how the same set of statistics can usually be used to support both sides of an argument.

I also liked what that Playboy article said too about internet searches having tailored results that match your desires from your prior searches and results are tailored even by what you have said in google email. Like nobody ever changes their mind? Isn't that what learning is? I personally don't see any real benefit to any of that and rebel against manipulation like that.

Also the article pointed out how the wording of a search is biased in itself so results will just reflect that search wording. And how all that screws with the very foundation of the scientific principles.

You didn't step on my toes, it sounded like you weren't sure about what you were saying with regards to these studies and so I was just trying to confirm your beliefs with a somewhat inside perspective although I haven't worked for any such place in years.

But yeah, bottomline is that phone studies and surveys and polls are all crap and the only science involved is the science of picking people likely to give you the desired result whatever it may be.

 

[purple_man]

dang, seems like gmos lead to a rise of phone surveys

blessss

 

[MJPassion]

Wait...what? You must be joking but I'm afraid I missed the punch line.

If a bug is unsuspecting of the shoe coming at him I guess he is playing victim then, is that what you mean?

First, how many citizens in any country are paid enough so they don't have to buy whatever is available.

There's not a person on this planet that must get their food from the store.
Apparently I didn't make my point clear enough. I'll attempt to muddy the waters some more...
If you think you must purchase ALL of your food then you have made a choice! A possibly slowly fatal choice.
What did mankind do for food before they thought about trading with their neighbors? They were into "wild crafting" (searching for) their food throughout the waters and lands.


Secondly,

I see your point of how people spend their income is what drives the economy but what about the pollution being generated and actual patenting genes and the life forms they engineered. Is that economically driven too? Please enlighten me.

Do like Method Man said...

READ THE LABELS!!!

or rather
Ya gotta research the items you are considering purchasing, especially when it comes to what you are putting into your body.
If you know a particular brand contains GMO products then look for an alternative, even if you have to shop around.

Since you already know that 90%+ of the corn grown is GMO, find some heirloom seeds and grow your own! Same for any other vegitables.

Common folks... If you can grow weed in a closet then why cant you grow some tomatoes in the windowsill?

If peeps did simple little things like grow even part of their vegi demand at home, it has the potential put a huge dent in the wallets of the powers that be.

As far as us carnivores go... learn to hunt! Even if you don't like the idea of killing an animal, it still has to be done to get the meat on the table so you may as well know how to do it yourself. If you can't find a competent butcher and KNOW where the animals originate from.

If customers make these demands the markets WILL acquiesce eventually.

Also... If there are two things making food prices go through the roof it is,
#1, government programs like Cropland Reserve Program (CRP), in the US. CRP pays farmers to NOT farm their land. HOW IGNORANT IS THIS??? Can you say "ARTIFICIAL FOOD SHORTAGE"?
Guess who foots that bill??? YOU AND ME since the program is upheld with taxes!!!
#2 Replacing cropland for food with cropland for fuel!!! Along with the fact that this reduces the amount of acreage available for food production, driving up prices, this ethanol craze is fucking ridiculous and causes a whole bunch of issues with older vehicles that still use rubber gaskets in their fuel systems.*


*Rubber and alcohol do not mix under any circumstances. Alcohol degrades rubber seals faster than plain old gasoline does so older cars that still have rubber gaskets and seals suffer from premature failures within fuel delivery systems.

 

[MJPassion]

I once worked for a company that did these studies over the phone. Now to be fair they typically call more then just 50 people and in more places then just Bum-Fuck Arkansas. That's how they can call it a scientific study because they pick the participants using what is called a "Scientific Sampling" which does generate a sampling that is roughly representative of the demographics of the larger group the sampling represents. What that means is if say the sample size is 100 and the group the sample represents is 25% Catholic or 25% Hispanic for example then there will be 25 people out of the 100 that are Catholic or Hispanic. Now that's a simplification. The sampling goes deeper then just religion or ethnicity to also be reflective of age, income levels and other factors.

They really do have it down to a science too because not only can they pick people representative of the group being studied but they can also identify people likely to answer a particular way. The scientific part gets misused though because by saying it's a scientific study people assume the science is more then just who the people polled are. They also bank on the idea that most people believe science is unbiased and based solely on facts because most "real" science is.

Ultimately though these places that do these studies are a business and their customers are the people wanting particular studies done. Like any business they want to be profitable and so they use the proven formula of success which is to give the customer what they want and so the vast majority of these "studies" will support the desired conclusion because the company doing the study will pick people likely to answer the way the customer wants and the questions asked will be designed to get the response the customer wants.

This is a perfect example of "Social Engineering"... IMO.

Tell the people what they want,
poll a selected target group,
reveal the intended results and market toward those ends!

It's typical scenario for social engineering... They all follow a common theme...
Problem... Reaction... Solution...
or
Thesis... Antithesis... Synthesis...

 

[castout]

Is Monsanto Ready to Enter The Medical Marijuana War?

Is Monsanto Ready to Enter The Medical Marijuana War?

http://www.chicagonow.com/wild-side-chicago/2013/08/monsanto-ready-to-enter-medical-marijuana-war/

Is Monsanto Ready to Enter The Medical Marijuana War?

As legally allowed medical marijuana becomes more widespread, it is no surprise that many are realizing there is legal money to be made off of this traditionally illegal cash crop. Even Illinois has adapted medical marijuana laws, and soon it will be legal to buy weed in Chicago as long as you have a prescription. With so many dollar signs hanging in the air, ready to be snatched, it is no surprise to see agriculture giant Monsanto getting poised to jump into selling genetically modified marijuana as well.

Is Monsanto Evil?

Monsanto has been getting a lot of bad press recently due to the way it has dominated the food agriculture business and for being suspected of playing a role in the mass death of honeybees. Monsanto is a publicly traded Missouri-based company, and is the leading provider of genetically altered seeds for US agriculture. Monsanto was also recently named the world’s “Most Evil Corporation” by the NaturalNews website. Monsanto garnered 51% of the votes with second runner up, British Petrolium, or BP getting only 9% of votes.

The Monsanto GMO seeds are genetically modified to produce plants that are resistant to chemical herbicides, and the most commonly known one is Round-Up. The herbicides kill all other plants, but the genetically altered plants are able to resist the herbicide and are able to planted closer together than traditional crops allowing farmers to gain greater yields from the same amount of farmland. These seeds are known as being “Round-Up Ready,” and farmers are required to purchase new seed each season for their crops. The company has pursued litigation against small farmers in the past for growing plants from seeds that were not properly purchased. In one case, a farmer received an eight year prison sentence for conspiracy to commit fraud against Monsanto because he saved seed from one growing season and used it the next without purchasing new seed from the company.

The genetically altered seeds are also suspected in playing a large role in the 2012 epidemic that swept through commercial bee colonies. During this epidemic, nearly 50% of the nation’s bee population was wiped out, with farmers in California being hit the hardest. It is suspected that the neonicotinoids that are bred into the seeds are causing the bees to die after coming in contact with plants that sprouted from the genetically altered seeds.

Monsanto and the Medical Marijuana War

As the largest producer of GMO plants, moving into medical marijuana may seem a logical next step for the agriculture giant. US labs already use strains of genetically modified cannabis for testing and research, and the growing demand for legally obtained medical marijuana is sure to spike in the near future. It looks like Monsanto is already ahead of the game due to their research into RNA interference.

The company is investing millions of dollars into this new technology dubbed “RNAi.” With RNAi, it is possible to manipulate everything from the color of the plant to making the plant indigestible to insects. With medical marijuana, RNAi could be used to create larger, more potent plants effectively cornering the market and exceeding the legal demand for the plant. In Canada, this scenario is one step closer to becoming reality due to new laws that will allow large-scale growers to distribute their plants via mail order. The genetically manipulated marijuana may reach consumers sooner than thought possible due to these changes.

While the company maintains that its products are safe for human consumption, it has been widely debated that this isn't truly the case. While moving into medical marijuana may be a winning move for Monsanto stockholders, it may also be a strong case of “buyer beware” for the end consumers of the product.

 

[castout]

Torturing Animals with Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Feed

By Katherine Paul
Organic Consumers Association, August 8, 2013




"A Culture that views pigs as inanimate piles of protoplasmic structure to be manipulated however cleverly the human mind can conceive will view its citizens the same way - and other cultures." – Joe Salatin, Restoring Health, Wealth and Respect to Food and Farming

We associate food with at most, pleasure, at the very least, survival. It's not too different for animals. Lambs turned out on new grass move "quickly over certain grasses to get to others – to nosh on clover and mustard grass, avoiding horse nettle and fescue along the way," writes Dan Barber in A Chef Speaks Out . Wild pigs, capable of seeking out the nutrients they need,"enjoy eating nuts, roots, fruits, mushrooms, bugs, rabbits, and, occasionally, dead animals."

But what happens when animals are confined in cramped, filthy environments and force-fed monoculture diets of genetically modified corn and soy?

A lot can happen. Calves are born too weak to walk, with enlarged joints and limb deformities. Piglets experience rapidly deteriorating health, a "failure to thrive" so severe that they start breaking down their own tissues and organs – self-cannibalizing – to survive. Many animals suffer from weak, brittle bones that easily fracture. Dairy cows develop mastitis, a painful udder infection. Beef cattle develop liver abscesses and an excruciating condition referred to as "twisted gut."

It all adds up to a lot of misery for animals unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of industrial agriculture's Big GMO Experiment.

The spotlight on animal rights in CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) is typically focused on cramped spaces and blatantly inhumane treatment. But some scientists, farmers and veterinarians are talking about another form of animal abuse: stuffing animals with feed grown from genetically engineered crops drenched in glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's RoundUp.

What they've uncovered should give us all pause. Because the symptoms veterinarians and researchers have observed in animals are not unlike many of the chronic, and increasingly prevalent, health problems plaguing humans today. Digestive disorders. Damaged organs. Infertility. Weak immune systems. Chronic depression.

"We've got a real mess," says Dr. Art Dunham, an Iowa veterinarian who has treated farm animals for several decades. Dunham is a staunch believer that GMO crops are wreaking havoc with the health of animals and humans. His daughter, Leah Dunham, who tagged along with her father on many a farm visit over the years, recently wrote America's Two-Headed Pig . Drawing on her father's clinical notes, and the work of scientists like Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus in plant pathology at Purdue University, Leah Dunham outlines some of the ways in which humans are adding to the suffering of farm animals by feeding them a glyphosate-tainted, GMO diet.

Leah Dunham would like to see the CAFO model drastically overhauled or abandoned. Her father believes it's more realistic to tackle the issue of GMO feed without attacking CAFOs. But father and daughter agree that the problems associated with today's industrial agriculture model extend beyond the health and well-being of animals:

" My father has pored over thousands of research papers in attempts to remedy the underlying causes of the illnesses described in this book. His work has embodied a commitment to healthy lands, creatures, and farms, as well as the hard work necessary to sustain them. After years of listening to him talk about his attempts to solve reoccurring health problems, I realized that most people don't have a clue as to how modern disease complexities affect farm animals. We both hope that this book will help all medical professionals, farmers, and consumers better address the true roots of various medical conditions, including nutrient deficiencies, clostridial infections, diabetes, and Parkinsons disease."

Leah Dunham says consumers are alarmed by news reports that focus on outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. But most are unaware that industrial GMO crops are "damaging our health in other, far more insidious ways – among them, by damaging the health of animals raised for food."

Here are a few examples, from America's Two-Headed Pig , of how Art and Leah Dunham believe genetically modified feeds, and particularly glyphosate, inflict suffering on farm animals.

Skeletal deformities

In his many years of practice, Art Dunham hadn't seen a single case of manganese deficiency in the herds he treated. But that changed in about 2000, when he started seeing more and more calves being born with skeletal deformities – a symptom of a manganese-deficient diet. Initially skeptical, Dunham experimented by adding manganese to the calves' diets. Their health improved. His hunch was confirmed when lab results on some of the dead calves' livers revealed little or no manganese.

Dunham was confused. A diet of corn, soybean meal and hay should contain enough manganese for hogs, dairy and beef cattle. But it started to make more sense when he came across a study conducted in 2007 by Dr. Huber. Huber found that by spraying manganese on soybeans 10-14 days after the soybeans were sprayed with glyphosate, farmers could increase crop yields. Why? Huber postulated that the glyphosate caused some crops to become manganese-deficient because it was binding to nutrients in the soil and plants. Crops sprayed with glyphosate were less able to metabolize the nutrients needed for proper plant function, which made the plants susceptible to disease.

Could this be why calves fed manganese-deficient crops sprayed in glyphosate showed their own symptoms of manganese deficiency, including enlarged joints, deformed limbs and crippling weakness? The evidence was convincing and the theory plausible, if unproven.



Failure to thrive

It's both disturbing and increasingly common in North America in recent decades, according to Leah Dunham. About five to 10 days after normal, healthy piglets are weaned off their mother's milk, they become gaunt, pale, anorexic. Their health goes south, rapidly. It's called "post-weaning failure to thrive syndrome" or PFTS. It causes piglets to catabolize, or break down, their own tissues and organs, essentially self-cannibalizing. Next comes emaciation. Then euthanasia.

Does a virus cause PFTS? Studies suggest not, says Dunham. More likely, the cause is diet-related, as the disease manifests when the piglets begin eating food. The diet theory is supported by post-mortems showing that the affected piglets have lesions in their stomachs and intestines.

Could PFTS represent another case of something essential missing from the piglets' diets? Possibly. Liver analyses of hogs reveal "rock-bottom" low levels of cobalt. In fact, out of 522 livers tested, none hit the normal range for cobalt, established before GMO feed came on the market. Perhaps not coincidentally, according to Dunham, researchers at Texas A & M University have found that glyphosate ties up cobalt at 102-103 times more than it ties up manganese.

Twisted gut, ulcers and other digestive disorders

Nature intended for cows to eat grass. But today, most cattle spend at least the last six months of their lives on feedlots, where they're fattened up with a combination of grains, mostly corn, and industrial byproducts including corn distiller, a product of the ethanol manufacturing process. This mixture is supplemented with preemptive antibiotics and growth hormones, to keep the stressed animals from getting sick while making them grow larger, faster. It's an unnatural diet that often leads to digestive disorders. Factor in the glyphosate used to grow the GMO corn, and you've got a recipe for a host of painful conditions, from twisted gut to bloody diarrhea, ulcers, and bloat. All of which contribute to a weak immune system, Dunham says.

A cow's stomach has four parts: the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum. A twisted gut, or medically speaking, a displaced abomasum, occurs when a cow's abomasum fills with gas, causing it to balloon up to the top of the cow's abdomen, where it can become twisted. Remedies can include surgery or repositioning the abomasum by rolling the cow on its back.

That's bad enough. But sometimes trapped gas causes a cow's stomach to bloat. To relieve the animal's pain and keep it "productive," a veterinarian will insert a hollow needle into the cow's rumen to try to release the gas. If the cow doesn't recover enough to then start relieving the gas on its own, it will be fitted with a permanent port, similar to what a chemo patient has in order to receive regular doses of chemotherapy.

According to Dunham, twisted gut and bloat are usually related to inadequate nutrition, which leads to bacterial imbalances in the gut, which cause gas. Not unlike humans, cattle host large quantities of bacteria which they need in order to digest plants and grains and absorb available nutrients from their food. Alter the bacterial content of the cow's gut, and the gut can become extra acidic, irritated and inflamed, says Dunham.

Consumers know that CAFO cows are routinely fed preemptive antibiotics, which alter the animals' gut bacteria. But what many people don't realize, says Dunham, is that the animals are consuming far more antibiotics than just those intentionally administered at the feeding lots. In fact, many of the pesticides, including glyphosate patented under the number #7771736, act not only as broad-spectrum pesticides, but as broad-spectrum biocides. And these antibiotic chemicals are applied to millions of acres of plants that end up in animal feed, Dunham says. The result? Some of the animals' gut bacteria and parasitic organisms are no longer able to carry out important metabolic processes, says Dunham.

Is it a stretch to say that force-feeding animals GMO feed amounts to a form of torture? Damaged livers. Too weak to walk. Needles jammed into stomachs. Failure to thrive. All unnecessary suffering, all diet-related.

Leah Dunham stops short of using the word "torture," but in her book, she argues that we can do better:


" As other food advocates have pointed out, we have learned how to dissociate what we spend from the farmers and citizens our food dollars affect. In doing so, we can avoid thinking about how our actions affect actual creatures.

I suspect that one day future generations will remember the last three decades as a ridiculous age in American agriculture. This has been an age during which too many human beings treated animals and children like guinea pigs, feeding them genetically modified, chemically coated, antibiotic resistant experiments, despite the overwhelming evidence that these foods are serious risk factors for illness and disease. In today's world of widely accessible research and technological advances, the ability to produce abundant amounts of food without threatening biodiversity and our basic biological rights should be an expectation, not a goal.

And let's not forget the basic biological rights of the four-legged creatures unfortunate enough to be part of industrial agriculture's CAFO systems.

Katherine Paul is Director of Development and Communications for the Organic Consumers Association.

 

[castout]

Tell the FDA: GMOs Aren't Natural




Angry consumers who have learned about the dangers of genetic engineering are suing so-called “natural” brands that have been hiding GMOs in their favorite foods. In an effort to stall the lawsuits, defense lawyers have convinced at least one judge that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), not the courts, should decide whether GMOs are “natural”.

It’s a clever strategy, given that the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods is none other than Monsanto’s former lawyer, Michael Taylor. Whose side do you think the FDA will take?

Please use the form below to tell the FDA: GMOs aren’t natural!

The FDA says “natural” means “nothing artificial or synthetic … has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.”

Who would guess that food marketed as “natural” contains the engineered genes of insecticide-producing and/or herbicide-resistant bacteria?

Background

Here are the top 10 reasons the GMOs aren’t natural.

1. Genetic engineering is an imprecise technology. It creates unpredictable changes in the DNA, proteins and biochemical composition of the resulting genetically modified organism (GMO), including unexpected toxic, allergenic and nutritional disturbances.

2. GMOs are created by using a gene gun to shoot foreign genes into millions of unrelated cells, or by linking the foreign genes to bacteria that can infect the cells’ DNA. Most of the foreign genes won’t make it into the cells’ DNA. When the foreign genes successfully penetrate the cells’ DNA, it is impossible to predict where they will hit or what the unintended consequences will be for the cells’ original genes.

3. Genetic engineers do not “check their work” to look for potential collateral damage, even though the genetic engineering process can be expected to rearrange, delete or change the function of important genes.

4. The engineered DNA of GMOs produce new proteins that can be toxic or allergenic. GMO proteins that are relatively benign can still be foreign enough to the body that the human immune system will respond to them as foreign invaders. This can trigger allergic reactions, immune system disorders and digestive problems.

5. The new genes introduced to the body by genetically engineered foods don’t get broken down during digestion; they can be taken up across the intestinal wall, transferred to the blood, and as one scientist explains, be “left in the blood, muscle and liver in large chunks so that they can be easily recognized.”

6. The pesticide companies had two main goals when they began to genetically engineer plants. One, to invent novel organisms that could be patented, and two, to sell their insecticides and herbicides.

7. Over 75 percent of genetically engineered crops have been engineered to resist an herbicide. Foods that contain the herbicide-resistant GMO trait also come with an extra helping of herbicides. Between 1996 and 2011, herbicide-resistant crop technology led to a 527-million pound increase in herbicide use in the U.S.

8. The most widely grown genetically engineered crop is soy engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Roundup causes birth defects in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying. It is also implicated in hormone disruption, DNA damage, cancer and neurological disorders.

9. Roundup has been detected in air, rain, groundwater, people’s urine and women’s blood.

10. Bt corn crops are genetically engineered to produce a toxin from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium that ruptures the intestines of insects, causing pests to die quickly after ingesting the GMO corn. The Bt toxin has been found in 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their babies.

 

[wantaknow]

I just refused to haul a load of Monsanto product from iowa this past week

 

[castout]

Could Medical Marijuana Be Monsanto's Next Target? Genetically Engineered Weed Isn't So Far-Fetched
By Anthony Rivas | Aug 14, 2013 10:24 PM EDT




(Creative Commons) Marijuana is a $1.5 billion industry. Why wouldn't biotech companies want to manufacture medical marijuana?


Illinois became the 20th state in the country to legalize medical marijuana earlier this month. As more doctors and people begin to see evidence of medical marijuana’s possible health benefits, more states will undoubtedly begin to approve of the drug. But one issue is starting to raise questions: Could biotechnology giant Monsanto and other bioengineering companies target genetically modified marijuana next?

Monsanto is the world’s largest producer of genetically engineered (GE) seeds. In the U.S., the company has provided genetically altered seeds for corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat, among others. In fact, GE corn, soybeans, and cotton account for about 90 percent of all such crops in the U.S., according to the FDA.

Genetically engineered foods come with potential benefits, such as added nutrients, added flavor; drought, disease, and insecticide resistance; and when farming, the crops can be closer together, maximizing land usage. In recent years, the health effects of GE food has become a large part of public discourse because of concerns that they aren’t tested effectively. The FDA currently relies on studies provided by the developers of GE foods to determine whether or not they’re safe.

RNA Interference
Monsanto has effectively cornered the GE food market. Now, it’s researching a process known as RNA interference (RNAi). This process allows gene regulation through double-stranded RNA. In 2006, researchers published a study in which they were able to shut down, or silence, certain genes within a nematode worm. They reported in the same study that they were also able to upregulate, or activate, certain genes through a process known as RNAa.

As it applies to plants, biologists were able to regulate the pigment-producing gene in a purple petunia. By using RNAi, the colors of the petunia weren’t a solid purple, but instead, a mix of white and purple.

Gentically Engineered Medical Marijuana
Medical marijuana has been around for quite some time now, however, it was done through interbreeding strains, and not through modern biotechnology. As medical marijuana becomes more popular, companies like Monsanto might see the plants as the next opportunity. By using RNAa, Monsanto would be able to upregulate the genes responsible for the potency of the active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This could create a scenario in which the plant’s DNA becomes completely controllable. In addition to this, using its other technology, the company would be able to outgrow competitors in both yields and crop size. In Canada, a new law allows large-scale growers to distribute marijuana by mail, opening up a major market for companies like Monsanto, according to Chicago Now.

Monsanto hasn’t announced any plans to enter the market, but considering their dominance in agribusiness, a step into the medical marijuana world wouldn’t be unfounded, especially since medical marijuana is a $1.5 billion industry. Of course, all this speculation could just be drummed up by small-scale growers, worried about losing their business.