I am not rude. Direct maybe .it really does scare me that pwople do not understand damage to the earth and the earths ocupents are one in the same. I oppose any gmos untill long term researxh is done on the egfevts on humans as well as the enviorment. What worries me most is our lack of understanding of the earths systems and any unforseen conseqenses. To think we kno better than mother nature is crazy and is the same kind of thinking that got us here to begin with.
But what about GMOs that aren’t plants? Like yeast that only live in a reactor that produce a chemical, like CBD/THC/CBN, and that’s it. And since the chemical they produce is identical (NMR/FTIR/MS), we know it’s safe. Do you still find issue with that?
1 Like
Lol we obviously dont understand all the forces at play but how do you not see the potwntial of GMO in reducing the impact humans have had on the planet.
And you came off as rude when you said “Wow what an obviously flawed argument”
2 Likes
I’m confused, do you not have an opinion or have you confined yourself to only spouting published facts?
No scientific consensus on GMO safety
Angelika Hilbeck, Rosa Binimelis, Nicolas Defarge, Ricarda Steinbrecher, András Székács, Fern Wickson, Michael Antoniou, Philip L Bereano, Ethel Ann Clark, Michael Hansen, Eva Novotny, Jack Heinemann, Hartmut Meyer, Vandana Shiva, Brian Wynne
Environmental Sciences Europe 27 (1), 4, 2015
A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UN’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests.
The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.
3 Likes
I come from the caribean and a few years ago due to a huricane a lion fish aquarium breeder lost Some fish in the oceaan
The caribean seas are now infested
What If a yeast gets lost out of that reactor
Yeast are at the botom of the food chain
Could be Intersting
8 Likes
@Roguelab I’d be ok with the fish I eat getting me high 
2 Likes
I undeestand rhe argument. We need to feed a growing population topped with crop lose at high levels due to the chanhing climate. I apoligize if i was rude.
3 Likes
One good solution thats currently being employed is the vertical hydroponic farms. They produce much more food per acre than tradtional farms and a much more standardized product, with these kinds of farms GMO food crops aren’t even necessary because pests like weeds and insects can be controlled without the use of synthetic herbicides and pesticides. They also utilize water much more effectively and keep agricultural nutrients out of the aquifers.
4 Likes
Btw, got the original paper! Thank god for younger siblings with university journal access!Nature biosyntheis.pdf (7.6 MB)
5 Likes
Thank you 
@munkdooligan
2 Likes
GMOs have wonderful potential for us. What has happened is GMOs can be patented and abused. What I mean by abused is once a particular sequence of genes are patented farmers and producers have to fear being sued or forced into contacts. Unfortunately once genes are put into an organism said organism can pass on patented sequenced genes. Back when I was studying environmental science my professor brought up how Monsanto forces many farmers into contracts that they do not want. Monsanto is able to strong arm these farmers once they are able to get ONE farmer in the area to buy there seeds nature does the rest. After a few harvest Monsanto comes knocking on the doors of farmers who did not want to use their seeds. Hands them some fancy paper work showing they stole there product to increase their productivity with out paying contributions to Monsanto for their genes. They give them the option of going to court and trying to fight it for several years to come and farmer usually goes under from lawyer and court fees or sign a contract and start using there seeds and returning any seeds they got from harvest to sell back to the farmers.
2 Likes
Looks like they’re making at least a few assumptions about how the plant manages to make these compounds. I’m at least partially convinced these unknowns and assumptions are how we end up with “improper synthesis” of molecules.
Did you guys know that the difference in sugars has to do with where the hydrogen placements are? Just one or two “out of place” hydrogen atoms leads to a sugar that our body cannot effectively process.
2 Likes
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn’t cite a single instance in which this had happened.
The idea, however, is inspired by a real-world event. Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company’s Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or “technology fee.” Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else. But where?
Article continues after sponsor message
Canola pollen can move for miles, carried by insects or the wind. Schmeiser testified that this must have been the cause, or GMO canola might have blown into his field from a passing truck. Monsanto said that this was implausible, because their tests showed that about 95 percent of Schmeiser’s canola contained Monsanto’s Roundup resistance gene, and it’s impossible to get such high levels through stray pollen or scattered seeds. However, there’s lots of confusion about these tests. Other samples, tested by other people, showed lower concentrations of Roundup resistance — but still over 50 percent of the crop.
Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he’d actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor’s Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto’s resistance gene — and when Schmeiser’s hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.
This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto’s patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn’t owe Monsanto any money. (For more details on all this, you can read the judge’s decision. Schmeiser’s site contains other documents.)
So why is this a myth? It’s certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser’s — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don’t belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.
3 Likes
@ScoobyDoobie that was a nice read. I don’t have any instances of Monsanto suing my professor made it seem like the farmers get strong armed into contracts to avoid getting sued. From that article I’m having second thoughts if they will pay to remove crops that pick up the genes. The question becomes how much profit do they lose(if any) when Monsanto does this to a farmer
They likely wouldnt remove the crops from someones land if they found someone growing them unlicensed, seems like they would lose money enforcing something like that.
But all the same it just hasnt occurred yet and we wont know what monsanto will try to do to these farmers when it does happen. In that article though it was stated that the judge dismissed the case against the farmer because the judge saw that the farmer wasnt going to make any more profit from the GMO plants on the farmers’ land.
What is the consequences of this being released to the environment?
When faced with new technology: caution is usually advised. Production of thc in this form is like a black box. It might be applca
Let’s start from a holistic view:
The endocannaboid system is found in all higher organism with nerves. Research presented in Austria that these receptors on cells influence the production of energy and coding of DNA to synthesis function.
Theoretically cannoboids effect cells memory and function. Overloading has not been studied but reduction causes a decrease of communication between the mitochondria and nucleus. This gradually happens in healthy organisms. Cannaboids reduce this miscommunication. Reducing metabolic problems.
Nature and Co evolution perspective
Is nature chaos or systemic?
Nature as pointed out above by “EXTEC90” , works on a complex system of regulation by cocompounds. This is seen clearly in single compound side effects. Pharma can not pattern nature so patterns compounds or techniques.
Modern science views things multidisciplinary at best. The world is holistic what effects one part or organism effects the world. TRANSGENESIS GMO is a good example by changing the cotton and corn DNA to produce the BT toxin. It effected the whole fuel web forcing organism to adapt creating new resistance. Nature goal of every living thing is to survive. The consequences of the advancement is now questionable.
Biology and nutrition
What is healthy?
Each individual has different requirements for optimum health. Too much or too little effects us to our DNA. Why breeding program consider environmental factors. Changing the level of thc as in yeast can trickle down hold ecosystems and food chains. Effecting us in ways unknown to science . Science is about pushing boundaries but new is not always better.
Physiological and politically
Why new better?
There is a reason why we are only gradually reaching the 40% thc ratio. Nature builds in genetic limits. Physiology , why do we feel that we can improve on a system built over thousands of years in a matter of moments. Our environment is a big science experiment on its own.
Politically , it is easier to limit something new through legislation and over complexity. New methods require research and limit availability. Over 10000 years of history is with the plant all over the world. Yet it is still illegal but only recently. Patents on this industry is astonishing but not in use.
There is even the complex simple reasons why not to go this path. There is still various cannaboids that we don’t know how to synthesis or extract. Beyond that drugs like racetams that are produced from the roots are a growing industry.
Final thought how can we better something that we don’t understand enough .
6 Likes
Yeah I mean that’s possible but i’m guessing that expensive lactone wasn’t available in 10% yields from easily grown outdoor crops. What are you feeding these yeast? Corn derived sugars most likely, which is yielded 60% per weight of corn crop. I know the economy of scale on corn is huge but hemp is not hard to grow and the price should continue to tank massively as larger farms come on. Nobody tries to get yeast to biosynthesize a cheap extractable commodity like canola oil and CBD could easily be entering that territory soon, especially if other uses for hemp start coming back into vogue.
4 Likes
Fact is creating things that are extracted from animals is more viable for these systems. Lactose or animal derived compounds require huge inputs for mediocre or substantial yields of biocompounds. Even the production of feed and water to meat is high.
Cannabis plants produce these biomolecules at a very efficient cost and is coeveloution with our species. The reason the plant is many cultures found and in some sacred. Everything produced can be used from seeds to flowers. What all can be used by the yeast?
you are fundamentally missing the process at hand. Cannabis plants are incredible at producing large fractions of their total mass in one specific molecule, good thing humans do not do this. But any way you dice it up you could extract cannabinoids at a fraction of the space it would take to extract it from hemp. Needless to say you can make the yeast only make one cannabinoid at a time to make custom medicines for people or recreational concoctions. It is a specific yeast with a specific genome that generates these cannnabinoids then they are isolated from the yeast. The yeast are cultured and it is simple enough most people could figure out how to culture yeast. It is not now but it will be in the next ten years incredibly more efficient than growing hemp. But again, have no fear your business ventures will succeed because there will always be the hippie type that want to pay more money for “natural” products (extracted rather than created via genetically altered yeast) especially if the plant is “sacred”.
5 Likes