bitches and pimps

[idiit]

this thread's purpose is to discuss the possible/potential misuse of "cannabis dna projects".

lots of warm hearted individuals are submitting their rare landrace genetic seeds for dna testing. it's my understanding that with scientific type germination techniques including tissue cultures very very old seeds can be successfully germinated.

^ great. i'm all about that.

what many of the forum members might not understand is that the dna from these strains can be patented.

the patent owners can then actually sue the original source of the strain seedstock for illegally growing without authorization the very seed strain they generously gifted for "dna testing".

Sprouting Evil: How Monsanto Endangers Heirlooms

Documentaries like Food, Inc. and The Future of Food give audiences a staggering glimpse into how Monsanto, a biotech corporation responsible for the majority of food production in the United States, turned the simple, age-old act of farming into a highly industrialized, genetically engineered endeavor. In its quest to acquire more seed companies, claim more seed patents, and bully more competing farmers out of business, Monsanto has made sure that the vast majority of crops grown in the United States will be from their lab-made seeds.

What’s worse, if Monsanto finds out that any of their patented materials landed in non-authorized fields, even if it’s by an act of nature, they can sue

http://www.divinecaroline.com/life-etc/home-food/sprouting-evil-how-monsanto-endangers-heirlooms

bitches and pimps.

the cannabis seed game has been and probably will continue to be a very dirty biz (for the unscrupulous types).

 

[idiit]

Treating Yourself - Meet Dr. Frankenbeanstein
Konsupsa's picture
Mon, 06/29/2009 - 08:24 — Konsupsa

Are your expensive Dutch female seeds hard to clone, or when you try to breed them, all you get are hermaphrodites?

Thank Dr Frankenbeanstein, aka the Skunkman, real name David Watson.

A bit of history:
At a 1997 Vancouver Hemp conference, Watson spoke of his research. His main focus was to stop growers from cloning nor being able to create any seeds, from strains being bred in Amsterdam. The funding for this research came partially from the Dutch Government, the rest from DEA. Watson had been busted for growing in Santa Cruz California 3-20-85 and resurfaced in Amsterdam to start his seed company Cultivator’s Choice. DEA supported the Skunkman’s application for a license to grow for research in Holland, even though they should have been extraditing him back to Cali for his 1985 in Santa Cruz grow bust! DEA endorsement was so strong that he was the first to be granted a permit in Holland when several universities and domestic research groups with PHD’s and legitimate reasons for research were denied! The Dutch government even supplied three greenhouses for Dr. Frankenbeanstein to do his heinous experiments, while normal Dutch growers lost all their equipment and had to serve murder-like sentences at that time! Dutch seed companies have become the Monsanto of the cannabis seed industry, and hope to make us all seed junkies at $20 a seed.!

The license gave Hortapharm/Skunkman/DEA control over what researchers are allowed access to pedigreed seeds of predictable quality! The object is to patent up every possible combination of cannabinoids and terpenes with efficacy for every possible disease they can treat, and every possible genetic sequence! Once ready to make the move, they will shut down every medical cannabis grower for patent fraud, and those they can’t will be run out when they produce a more effective product for significantly less than $250 an ounce the growers are getting! The Skunkman’s company Hortapharm, is the only private organization approved by the Drug Enforcement Agency to supply genetics to researchers to this day!

linkhttps://www.*********.com/community/threads/the-untold-story-of-the-dutch-cannabis-seed-industry.14751/

 

[Halonium]

What about this thread?

How much of all that is true and so on... Too many conspiracy theories around.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=199373&highlight=skunk

 

[Madjag]

What about this thread?

How much of all that is true and so on... Too many conspiracy theories around.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=199373&highlight=skunk

It helps if you know someone personally before you rant on them.

Personal experience deserves a special place in all feedback, even if it ultimately turns out to be untrue, because it's one person's view of what happened (supposedly) to them. We have to at least listen.

Next best is to know someone, a personal friend, who knows the person in question quite well. We can ask deeper questions of a friend if they know we are asking something important to us. We wwill at minimum get more info to make our own jusdgement upon.

Beyond that, haters gonna hate and the truth is difficult to ascertain.....

 

[idiit]

this thread's purpose is to discuss the possible/potential misuse of "cannabis dna projects".

i've posted on the possible misuse of cannabis dna projects re patenting.

Monsanto has tried to patent heirloom genetics.

when we submit heirloom cannabis genetics for dna sequencing are we protected from copyright problems? what kind of protection do we have?

I am a custodian of some landrace cannabis genetics. I have a right to make sure that these heirloom genetics are in safe hands (protected) from unscrupulous types ( not referring to anyone in particular, anyone). I feel we should all ask these questions if we are truly concerned about preserving the rare landraces.

this is a forum and the members are free to make comments so that we can have an intelligent conversation about ensuring the preservation of these landrace heirlooms.

has hortafarm ever tried to patent cannabis dna? this is a legitimate question. these type of questions should be researched in advance for any and every company we are submitting heirloom genetics to for dna sequencing imo.

 

[paulo73]

Very interesting reading and you have reasons to worry imo.
I´m gonna keep reading now.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[idiit]

(NaturalSociety.com) The big bad boogeyman of modern health and agriculture is at it again (although, has never really stopped being at it). This time, Monsanto’s latest endeavor involves taking advantage of loopholes in European laws that would allow them to patent common fruits and vegetables- produce that the GMO-giant has no business “owning”. Worst of all, the European Patent Office (PAO) has allegedly given their approval to the venture.

Natural News reports that Monsanto is exploiting these loopholes to give itself exclusive rights over conventional seeds. These are seeds they had nothing to do with creating or altering (yet), but are existing seeds being used across Europe


Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-patent-common-european-crops/#ixzz3WwC4UDj8
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

New Level: Monsanto Tries Patenting Natural Tomatoes

http://naturalsociety.com/new-level-monsanto-tries-patenting-natural-tomatoes/

Tens of thousands of cultivars are being patented that are not GM. The average review process for seed patenting lasts 6 minutes. Current U.S. law allows corporations to patent whatever they wish, whether or not they developed it or "discovered" it.

This patenting is one of the things that has accelerated greatly after the consolidation of the seed industry that we have recently experienced. (http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/Comm90GlobalSeed.pdf)

There is even nothing to stop the patenting of heirloom varieties. After the fact, if somebody can confront the patent office with evidence that the seed was produced in the public domain and provide a preserved sample from before the patent date for genetic analysis, the patent will not hold.

Syngenta (the world's largest vegetable seed company) was recently purchased by Monsanto and is currently trying to globally patent 30,000 gene sequences in rice to create monopoly control of the world's most widely used grain, and is making similar attempts with wheat, corn and sorghum. These are not only GM seeds, and in the case of rice, they include the seed stock of over 90% of the seeds currently being planted.

http://forums.gardenweb.com/discussions/2117059/

Another Heirloom Sweet Potato patented
The variety Mahan or Mahon is an old heirloom variety. I have also discovered a sweetpotato here in Oklahoma that has been grown by a man for over 30 years which also appears to be identical to mahon.

Another variety that received a patent was "Stokes Purple" which I don't think is a "New and Distinctive" variety as there was no breeding work on it whatsoever.

I hate it when this kind of thing happens! Patents are out of control

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/PP20666.html mahon

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/PP17976.html stokes Purple
__________________
DuckCreekFarms.Com

^ http://www.tomatoville.com/showthread.php?t=16536

 

[Gram Paw smurf]

What's it matter unless your own intents are commercial?
Not like everyone's got time to waste on ppl growing anything patented for personal consumption.
If it's a case of don't let the big scary multinational corporations reap profits "I" can be making, I don't think I could give much less of a shit tbh.

cheers,.......................................................................gps

 

[idiit]

What's it matter unless your own intents are commercial?

^^

What’s worse, if Monsanto finds out that any of their patented materials landed in non-authorized fields, even if it’s by an act of nature, they can sue

commercial or personal by my read.

that's why we should all be concerned.

we do need to get the facts right, that's for sure. that's what the forum is for imo.

I've seen documentaries from third world countries where the ppl donated an heirloom strain to big agra for "scientific study" and then later were told they could no longer grow that strain because it was now patented. just because this is not going on now in my particular country, nor your particular country does not mean we should not be concerned.

read post #7 carefully. if that doesn't alarm us then .....

if the quoted remarks in post #7 are accurate then we got a BIG PROBLEM.

 

[Madjag]

Synthetic Biology summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C726wUGLdL4

 

[Madjag]

Two Popular Home Brands making Dish Detergent, etc

Two Popular Home Brands making Dish Detergent, etc

http://www.etcgroup.org/content/open-letter-ecover-method

re: decision to use ingredients derived from Synthetically Modified Organisms

02 June 2014
02 June 2014

Philip Malmberg, CEO
Ecover
Industrieweg 3
Malle, 2390 Belgium

Adam Lowry, Co-Founder
Method Home
637 Commercial Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 9411
USA

Dear Philip Malmberg and Adam Lowry,

RE: Ecover and Method’s decision to use ingredients derived from Synthetically Modified Organisms (SMOs) in its products

We are writing as representatives of several international environmental, consumer and social justice organisations to formally ask Ecover and Method to reconsider its decision to use ingredients derived from synthetic biology in its products.

On April 2nd 2014, Ecover announced that it would replace some of the palm oil used in its laundry detergent with algal oil produced by Solazyme Inc. of California (USA), which is derived from the fermentation of Brazilian sugarcane. As you are aware, Solazyme’s proprietary product is ‘genetically tailored oil’ fermented in vats of bioengineered algae that were created using the tools of synthetic biology – often referred to as ‘extreme genetic engineering.’ Subsequent discussions with your employees, including the leadership at Method, have confirmed to us that Method also is exploring using these ingredients.

Synthetic biology is still a new and poorly defined industry; however, since it uses techniques that go beyond recombinant DNA and may pose new risks as well as cause significant disruptions in production and supply chains, there is growing international recognition of the need to bring it under proper oversight on a precautionary basis. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which will discuss synthetic biology in depth at its June scientific subcommittee meeting, currently urges governments to take a precautionary approach, and 117 civil society organisations from around the world have called for a moratorium on the commercial use and environmental release of synthetically modified organisms (SMOs). It is our view that, given the significant gaps in knowledge, it is premature to bring synthetic biology and its products into commercial use. There are no developed or agreed protocols for adequate biosafety assessment of SMO’s . Existing risk assessment, traceability and containment measures for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be inadequate for novel organisms produced through synthetic biology. There are also significant concerns about the impact of such highly novel organisms on ecosystems should they escape and on the livelihoods of tropical farmers and on biodiversity.

We are alarmed that a new generation of synthetic biology-derived ingredients is now being developed for foods, cosmetics and other consumer products in the absence of any oversight framework. Although a number of such ingredients (e.g. nootkatone, resveratrol) are known to be entering the consumer market, unlabelled and unassessed, it has been difficult to identify specific brands incorporating these products. Ecover will be the first international consumer brand to identify itself as using a synthetic biology-derived ingredient. In doing so, your company will be on the forefront of the public debate over synthetic biology’s risks to the environment, biodiversity, human health and livelihoods.

We are surprised that Ecover and Method’s decision-makers believe that the company’s green-minded consumers will welcome a synthetic biology-derived product, and we would question any ‘natural,’ ‘green,’ ‘ecological’ and/or ‘sustainable’ claims if they are applied to a product containing bioengineered algal oil. (Opinion surveys carried out over the last several years in North America by Hart Research Associates have found that the public tends to associate synthetic biology with something ‘manmade or artificial,’ and while current knowledge of synthetic biology is low among the public, concerns about associated risks increase as more information about the technology is relayed. Eurobarometer polls have revealed that the need for information about the possible risks associated with synthetic biology is the main priority of the European public.)

We do not believe that engineered algae fed on sugarcane are a ‘green,’ ‘ecological’ or ‘sustainable’ solution to the problems of palm oil use. While we share your concerns about the forest destruction associated with palm oil (in this case palm kernel oil), we do not regard a switch to Brazilian sugarcane feedstock to be the solution. As you are no doubt aware, sugarcane production on Brazil’s fragile Cerrado eco-region is associated with significant biodiversity loss and CO2 emissions from both land use change and burning of the bagasse, as well as poor working conditions that can resemble slave-labour practices. The rapid expansion of land devoted to growing sugarcane in Brazil is moving back the agricultural frontier, driving forest destruction into the Amazon. It is our understanding that Ecover and Method could have chosen to source the relevant oleochemical ingredients from coconut oil, thereby supporting small and sustainable coconut farmers and not requiring the use of synthetically modified organisms.

We also understand that Ecover intends its North American products to be derived from synthetic biology-derived algal oil fermented from North American corn sugar. Will this be genetically modified corn? We remind Ecover of its existing commitment to not use genetically modified crops in its products.

We further understand that Ecover has not undertaken any independent safety tests of the new algal oil ingredient (e.g., with regards to allergenicity), does not intend to label the products to inform consumers of the synthetic biology-derived ingredient and does not intend to seek regulatory approval for this ingredient. This is disappointing to learn.

We support Ecover’s determination to move away from using unsustainable palm oil, but would ask your company to reconsider the false solution of using ingredients derived from the new genetic engineering – synthetically modified organisms (SMOs). Specifically, we are asking Ecover to:

• Pledge not to use SMO-derived ingredients in its products;

• Acknowledge that descriptors such as ‘natural,’ ‘green,’ ‘ecological’ and ‘sustainable’ cannot apply to the products of synthetic biology;

and

• Join us in calling on the Convention on Biological Diversity and national governments to establish a moratorium on the commercial use and environmental release of synthetically modified organisms.

Please contact Jim Thomas, Programme Director, ETC Group at [email protected] or by telephone 1 514 2739994 by close of business Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday 3rd June so that we may discuss this matter further.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Thomas, Programme Director - ETC Group (International)

Dana Perls, Food and Biotechnology Campaigner - Friends of the Earth (USA)

Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst - Center for Food Safety (USA)

Maria José Guazzelli, Executive Director - Centro Ecológico (Brazil)

Beverley Thorpe, Consulting Co-Director - Clean Production Action (International)

Michael Hansen, Senior Staff Scientist - Consumers Union (USA)

Nina Holland, Campaigner - Corporate Europe Observatory (Europe)

Ricarda Steinbrecher, Co-Director - Econexus (UK)

Kerstin Lindgren, Campaign Director - Fair World Project (USA)

Jonathan Matthews - GM Watch (UK)

Devlin Kuyek, Senior Researcher - GRAIN (International)

Gopal Dayenini - Movement Generation (USA)

Marciano Silva, Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores (Brazil)

Alexis Baden-Mayer, Political Director - Organic Consumers Association (USA)

Lim Li Ching - Third World Network (International)

Erin Switalski, 
Executive Director - Women’s Voices for the Earth (USA)

Winnie Overbeek, International Co-ordinator - World Rainforest Movement (International)

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch (USA)

Tina Stevens, Director, Alliance for Humane Biotechnology

Claire Barnett, Healthy Schools Network, Inc.

Judy Braiman, President, Empire State Consumer Project (Rochester, New York)

Colleen Cordes, Director of Outreach and Development, The Nature Institute

Carol Westinghouse, President, Informed Green Solutions

Steve Suppan, Senior Policy Analyst, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Related Issues:
Farmers' Rights & Food Sovereignty
Biodiversity & Cultural Diversity
Synthetic Biology
Genomics & Biotechnology
The Bioeconomy

About ETC
Issues
Resources
International Fora
Collaborations
News & Blogs

Get ETC Updates

 

[idiit]

a couple of relevant documentaries were linked in post #1. I saw the first one and saw a pbs hour long interview with the author/director of doc. #2.

complex subject. even strong scientifically trained minds tested acumen wise re the subject matter.

Monsanto produces genetically engineered organisms (ge). the pollen from these fields hits adjacent fields. Monsanto has repeatedly won in court battles where a once adjacent organic garden/field is contaminated with the ge pollen from an adjacent authorized Monsanto ge field. Monsanto has won in court repeatedly their (Monsanto's) assertion that the adjacent field (contaminated against the organic farmer's will) now belongs to Monsanto's copyright protection. adjacent field is no longer organic and must buy Monsanto's ge seed or go out of biz. dirty, dirty, dirty.

^ point here is that the system is dirty and a mega transnational corporation can, has and will have the resources to bully the little guys. this was extensively documented in both documentaries.

in this thread i'm concerned about the heirloom genetics falling into the hands of "Babylon". quite a few members here are justifiably concerned.

just because the person you gift your heirloom seeds to for dna testing does not intend to patent the heirloom genetics does not mean "problem solved".

we all have had personal data collected from medical, retail, financial, etc... and later realized that that personal data was sold to third partys without our permission.

once these genetics are out of our hands we lose control of what happens from there. I highly recommend anyone who considers themselves an heirloom custodian to consider the possibilities before sending out seeds. asking hard questions of the dna testing labs is just preliminary enquiry. what legal recourse do we have if we get lied to?

 

[Seaf0ur]

dna patenting is but one issue...

how about giant law enforcement databases of cannabis dna used to implicate growers in "international drug smuggling rings" for growing cuts known to be sourced from outside their country... or simply for growing cuts that have crossed borders completely independent of that grower...

 

[mojave green]

dna patenting is but one issue...

how about giant law enforcement databases of cannabis dna used to implicate growers in "international drug smuggling rings" for growing cuts known to be sourced from outside their country... or simply for growing cuts that have crossed borders completely independent of that grower...

or implicate them in juvenile consumption of their plants.

 

[Dkgrower]

thanks for sharing the info and thoughts

 

[VerdantGreen]

hi guys, i can understand people's caution and suspicion about something like this, up to a point... but also this work is likely to be really helpful and valuable to the canna world.

some stuff was explained in a recent thread, i think its only fair to post it here in the name of balance.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many people have asked us questions about our projects. The questions below are the ones we hear again and again. We want our work to be a force for good, and we intend to be transparent about how and why we’re doing it.

Why is Phylos sequencing the DNA of all these Cannabis strains?

A few reasons. First we have some scientific questions we just want answered. We want to know how Cannabis has evolved, what its history was like, and how it has co-evolved with humans. And we want to know what domestication does to the shape of evolution.
We also want to understand today’s crazy mix of hybrid strains. We want to know where they came from, why they’re so different, and what makes each one unique.
Ultimately we want to use this information to transform the Cannabis industry, by making it so people know exactly what they’re getting when they work with or buy a specific strain of Cannabis.

Will Phylos make and sell genetically modified Cannabis?

No. Absolutely not.

Will someone else make and sell genetically modified Cannabis?

Maybe. But it won’t be us.

Will Phylos grow or sell the strains that are submitted?

No. We have no ownership or rights over plants that are submitted for identification, and we will never grow any of them. It’s also not possible to use DNA sequence data, DNA itself, or dead plant tissue to regenerate a living plant. It is possible to clone from fresh leaf tissue, but if we accept samples of this type we destroy them in the DNA collection process.

Will Phylos patent the strains that are submitted? Doesn’t sequencing the DNA of something let you control it or patent it?

We won’t patent anything that is submitted to us for sequencing. We don’t believe that anyone should (or can) patent existing Cannabis strains. Here are a few important facts about patents and plants:
* Intellectual property protection for a plant variety can be obtained through the USDA Plant Variety Protection Office, but only for plants on their official list. Cannabis is not on that list, and likely won’t be on it until it is legal at the federal level
* Intellectual property protection for plant varieties can also be obtained through the US Patent Office. To apply for a plant patent you have to declare that you successfully grew your a unique and novel Cannabis variety somewhere on U.S. soil. This would be both difficult to prove, and an admission of violating federal law. We don’t believe plant patents will be available for Cannabis varieties until it is legal at the federal level.
* If it were possible to obtain patent protection over a Cannabis variety, having the DNA sequence would not allow you to do so. You would need a great deal of other information, and of course the plant itself.
* It is also not possible to patent Cannabis DNA. After the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, it is no longer possible to patent naturally occurring DNA sequences.
* Only things that are NEW can be patented. Once something is publicly known, or sold commercially, patent protection is no longer available. Once something has been sold commercially, it’s too late. Cannabis strains that are currently in the public domain will stay there forever and cannot be patented. Which is a good thing.

But doesn’t Big Agribusiness want to patent all the Cannabis strains in the world and then make it illegal for me to grow any of them?

Maybe. But existing varieties in the public domain cannot be patented.

If someone genetically modified a Cannabis strain, could they patent it?

Maybe. But it won’t be us. Also, if someone genetically modifies a particular strain and then patents it, that still gives them no control over the original strain.

What will happen if it DOES become possible to patent Cannabis varieties?

People will probably breed new strains and patent them. This could be a positive thing for small breeders, because they could require large producers to pay them licensing fees for genuinely new strains. If this is ever possible, we believe Cannabis strains should be protected only for commercial use – private and non-commercial use of any strain should be unrestricted.

What will Phylos do with the information it collects from sequencing the DNA of different Cannabis varieties?

We are using it to construct an evolutionary map of the history and relationships of Cannabis varieties. We will publish this data and make it available to the research community. The individual data from each sample will also be freely available to the person who submitted it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

VG
[/FONT]

 

[idiit]

^ great post and exactly the disclosure any company doing dna tests from seed should provide. phylos leads by example.

in the usa public domain land and water rights are being taken from the public.

Monsanto is attempting to patent existing indigenous plant strains according to what I've read/documentaries. i'm not just referring to gmo tainted heirlooms. i'm talking untainted heirlooms.

Please understand that Monsanto only owns the trademark names for these “heirloom” varieties. This stretegic move holds two advantages for Monsanto:
1.) prevents new companies from naming new varieties with these or very similar names.
2.) it is an effort to stop lucrative sales by these other companies trying to leverage the heirloom name and consumer loyalty for those heirloom varieties.

http://againstthewall.info/2013/04/09/monsanto-owned-heirloom-seednames-to-watch-out-for/

look, there are many ways that the game can be played. right now it looks like Monsanto can patent the trademark names; panama red, chocolate thai, highland oaxacan gold.....

basically, it could turn out that Monsanto comes in and buys the dna results, leftover seeds and then copyrights the strain names. no one else could use these names in describing the make-up of their hybrids and puros. Monsanto could also potentially tissue culture the remaining seeds and grow them out and make fresh beans from them.

ic has the best database of heirloom landrace genetics. perfect place to come in and clean up ($ cha ching).






I don't know. I want the forum to discuss this issue if they think it is an issue.

 

[Mikell]

Phylos has always looked very above board and while a few of those answers do raise an eyebrow, my distrust stems from the one pushing the project here, not the company directly. Maybe just smoke and rumour, but enough for a red flag.

 

[idiit]

this thread's purpose to discuss the possible misuse of the cannabis dna testing.


I've watched several documentaries on this subject. mosanto makes ridiculous claims, farmer has to take 'em to court to stay in biz. farmer loses $millions before case even decided and has to settle out of court; over and over and over again.



what's to keep Monsanto from purchasing the dna testing companies and all their stuff including dna results, leftover seeds, etc....? the original dna testing lab comes out clean and Monsanto has patented the heirloom strains. who's got the money to fight one of the biggest, richest transnational corporations in the world? who even thinks that the court system at that level isn't already bought and paid for? Clarence Thomas (supreme court justice ) was legal counsel for MONSANTO before being appointed scj.

 

[Seaf0ur]

this isnt new though...

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/06/grass-roots

LaNier told Forensic the DNA database was established to support law enforcement in linking wholesale and retail outlets or those in the marijuana production distribution business. The database is there to support all law enforcement, and those assigned to special drug task forces.

“We would use it in either seed or cloning operations,” LaNier said.

LaNier has already used the DNA database to prosecute marijuana cases in the San Diego area. In one case, a group of individuals were found to have multiple indoor grow houses.

“The seized marijuana was tested and we were able to determine that the houses all used a cloning operation, thus establishing connections to the houses and the growers,” LaNier said. The defendants all plead out in this case.

LaNier said using the database also helps authorities determine the seed stock being used throughout the world.