Mr. Nice Forums  
Home History Strains Media Web Community Medical Marijuana Contact us Auctions

Go Back   MNS Forums > MNS Forums > 3. The daily news

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-31-2010, 03:58 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 626
Default Blessings

Good luck with the paperwork. Red tape blows! Positive energy your way Ronin. Stabbed in neck? You sound like a survivor to me. _~ KB
"He could have added fortune to fame, but caring for neither, he found happiness and honor in being helpful to the world."
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 06:54 PM
brock1's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a field full of nature
Posts: 1,285

sorry to here your news Ronin i hope thing get better for you mate. hope they pay for the shit they caused you and your poor family. i dont think there's enough bad karma for these people. they know there killing people but they just dont care.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 10:36 PM
quinxstar's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: France
Posts: 489

THX a lot for this links

i has be baned from a french forum because
i say somethings" feminized is like monsanto "

and guys who grow feminized are ass hole
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 10:39 PM
"#" "#" is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,655

Originally Posted by quinxstar View Post
THX a lot for this links

i has be baned from a french forum because
i say somethings" feminized is like monsanto "

and guys who grow feminized are ass hole


Nice one!.

Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 12:55 PM
Posts: n/a

GMO Crop Sabotage on the Rise: French citizens destroy trial vineyard

Posted on August 24, 2010 by Rady| Leave a comment
GMO grapevines destroyed (AFP)

By Rady Ananda
Food Freedom Aug. 16, 2010
Early Sunday morning, French police stood helpless as sixty people, locked inside an open-air field of genetically modified grapevines, uprooted all the plants. In Spain last month, dozens of people destroyed two GMO fields. On the millennial cusp, Indian farmers burned Bt cotton in their Cremate Monsanto campaign. Ignored by multinational corporations and corrupt public policy makers, citizens act to protect the food supply and the planet.
The French vineyard is the same field attacked last year when the plants were only cut. But the security features installed after that incident kept authorities at bay while the group accomplished its mission on August 15th.
Speaking for the group, Olivier Florent told Le Figero that they condemned the use of public funds for open-field testing of GMOs “that we do not want.”
Pitching tents in the rain near France’s National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA) site in Colmar the night before, the group waited until 5 AM before converging on the site and locking the gates behind them. They uprooted all 70 plants, then submitted to arrest.
This is the second attack on GMO crops to make international news this year. In July dozens of people destroyed two experimental corn crops in Spain. In an anonymous press release, they wrote, “This kind of direct action is the best way to respond to the fait accompli policy through which the Generalitat, the State and the biotech multinationals have been unilaterally imposing genetically modified organisms.”
In the late 1990s, Indian farmers burnt Bt cotton fields in their Cremate Monsanto campaign. Monsanto did not disclose to farmers that the GM seeds were experimental. “Despite the heavy use of chemical fertiliser, traces of which still can be observed in the field, the Bt plants grew miserably, less than half the size of the traditional cotton plants in the adjacent fields.”
After the Haiti earthquake this year, Monsanto offered 475 tons of hybrid corn and terminator vegetable seeds in partnership with USAID. In June, 10,000 Haitian farmers marched in protest of the “poison gift” which produces no viable seeds for future plantings and requires heavy chemical inputs. Haitian farm leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste observed that the biotech plan makes farmers dependent on multinational corporations.
In the US, GMOs were secretly foisted on the public in the mid-1990s, and only now is the US Supreme Court addressing the scourge. In June, the high court upheld partial deregulation of GM alfalfa, which permits limited planting while the USDA prepares an Environmental Impact Statement. Natural and organic alfalfa supply is threatened by the very real potential of GM contamination. This would destroy the organic meat and dairy industry.
Last Friday, a federal court took a tougher position on GM sugar beets. Judge Jeffrey S. White revoked USDA approval of the GM beet, while allowing for its planting this year only.
Also this month, a British farmer exposed that milk and meat from cloned animals had secretly entered the food supply.

Public opposition to GM crops has grown in recent years as more evidence surfaces that DNA-altered crops: Meanwhile, President Obama has stacked his Administration with biotech insiders going so far as to appoint Islam Siddiqui as Agriculture Trade Negotiator. Siddiqui is a former pesticide lobbyist and vice president of CropLife America, a biotech and pesticide trade group that lobbies to weaken environmental laws.

The US is pushing hard at the world to accept GM foods. Recently, the American Farm Bureau Federation called for stronger sanctions against the European Union for its GM crop ban.
But as governments and trade agreements circumvent the will of the people, some take matters into their own hands. The rise in GMO crop destruction is a clear indication that the world’s people reject chemical and genetic pollution of the food supply and the environment.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 01:15 PM
Posts: n/a

Many of the foods available today in the US could in fact be the product of GMO crops, however do not expect to see a label on any of them stating as such, because of the "Principle of Substantial Equivalence of GMO's." I believe this subject has been covered in the video's on the front page, and with a google search there have been studies stating harmful effects to internal organs from the consumption of some of these modified products.


The Principle of Substantial Equivalence of GMOs

The principle of “Substantial Equivalence” features in a paragraph of the FDA regulations which are central to the controversy surrounding GMOs, as follows:
“In most cases the substances expected to become components of food as a result of genetic modification will the same as or substantially similar to substances commonly found in food such as proteins, fats and oils, and carbohydrates.”

In effect, this principle of substantial equivalence is not based on any scientific proof. It is just an abstract idea invented by the policy-makers in order to introduce GMOs into the food chain without the tests for toxicity which are normally required before any new food product can go on the market.

It’s also an idea with very significant consequences because it allows a law, added to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by Congress in 1958, to be bypassed. Called the “Food Additive Act” this required toxicological testing of food additives. But substances said to be “Generally Recognised as Safe” or GRAS, either because they were “used in food products before 1 January 1958” or because “scientific procedures” have proved that they in fact posed no problem to health, are excluded from the definition of “food additives” and so not subject to toxicity testing. These include additives like salt, pepper or sugar, and today, the addition of extra genes to a plant. This concept has been the subject of intense debate within the scientific community.

Last edited by JessE; 09-01-2010 at 01:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 03:09 PM
La Buena Hierba's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 139

Originally Posted by JessE View Post
Speaking at the International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS) conference in Montpellier, Dr Geoffrey W Guy, Chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals, said that HortaPharm will provide GW with exclusive access to its entire range of cannabis varieties for the development of medicines. The worldwide rights acquired by GW for an undisclosed sum cover varieties grown to date with certain exceptions and all varieties to be bred in future.

In addition GW will fund HortaPharm's botanical research and HortaPharm scientists will assist in the UK Glasshouse propagation, cloning and cultivation programme.

Dr Guy, said: "There has been much speculation as to the exact role of the various chemical components of cannabis in treating patients with illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis and AIDS wasting syndrome. In particular THC (the psychoactive constituent chemical) has received much attention. Historical medical reports and more recent work may point to the influence of cannabidiol (CBD) in epilepsy and stroke for example. We wish to explore the therapeutic benefits and the potential for reduction in unwanted effects that may be offered through administration of complete extracts containing various defined ratios of the principal cannabinoids."

Mr David Watson, Chief Executive of HortaPharm commented "HortaPharm leads the world in its understanding of cannabis botany and has built up over many years the most extensive 'Living Library' of Medicinal Cannabis varieties. As soon as Dr Guy's clinical research indicates the exact desired composition our scientists can breed and register new medicinal varieties".

Mr David Watson isnt this Sam ?
i think Wernard tolt me some time ago?
ore it looks like this dont rember good
Think of it from the plants
point of view
and see how it has you trained
to water and feed it..





GENESIS 1:29-30

Last edited by La Buena Hierba; 09-01-2010 at 03:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2010, 03:52 AM
Posts: n/a

DNA patent ruling hinders Monsanto

Lawyers debate a European court decision on patents involving genetic material.
Richard Van Noorden

A decision by the European Court of Justice on a DNA patent held by global seed company Monsanto has caused a stir in the biotechnology industry, with concerns that the ruling could limit the protection companies enjoy on their European patents. Nature explains more.
What is the judgment all about?
Since 1996, Monsanto has held a European patent on genes that give soya beans resistance to the company's Roundup herbicide — specifically the active ingredient glyphosate. But the firm has not managed to obtain a patent in Argentina, where soya-bean crops (known as Roundup Ready) expressing the glyphosate-resistance genes can be cultivated without a licensing agreement. Argentinian growers are exporting soya meal — harvested and processed from these crops — to Europe, especially the Netherlands.

A ruling on Monsanto's Roundup Ready soya could have wider repercussions for the biotechnology industry.

In an attempt to recoup payments it has not yet managed to get from Argentinian growers, Monsanto had sued importers such as Cefetra, based in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, to try to prevent this practice, claiming that the imported soya meal contained the DNA sequence that it had patent protection for in Europe.
The European Court of Justice — Europe's top court, based in Luxembourg — ruled on 6 July that Monsanto couldn't bar imports of the soya meal. It argued that citing the fact that the DNA in the soya meal was not performing the function for which Monsanto had gained patent protection in the first place.

Why does it matter?

The decision reflects a wider question about the scope and strength of DNA patents: how easy is it to infringe a European patent on genetic material? The court said that such a patent can be enforced only when the DNA is performing the function for which it was originally patented — known as purpose-bound protection.
The ruling is being viewed as the first test of the European Union's biotechnology directive, passed in 1998, which set down policy on what kind of genetic material was patentable, and on what protection that patent enjoyed. Lawyers disagree about the wider impact of the court ruling, but some feel that it will restrict the scope of European patents on DNA.

Is the decision a surprise?

Not really. Monsanto were hoping for a broad interpretation of the biotechnology directive, which says: "The protection conferred by a patent on a product containing or consisting of genetic information shall extend to all material ... in which the product in [sic] incorporated and in which the genetic information is contained and performs its function."
Patent lawyer Devanand Crease, who works at the London-based law partnership Keltie, says that most people would have interpreted this wording as narrowly as the European court has done. "Continental Europe, especially France, really favours purpose-bound limitations, whereas the UK has as yet resisted," he says.
Indeed, Monsanto had already withdrawn its complaint against Cefetra after an undisclosed out-of-court settlement in June, following a preliminary opinion on the case from one member of the European Court of Justice.
Still, the court continued with its final ruling in order to clarify and harmonize decisions on purpose-bound patent protection across the European Union — and to remove any doubts within the biotech industry.

What wider impact will this decision have?

It "marks a significant restriction on the powers biotech companies can wield with their patents", says Jonathan Radcliffe of UK law firm Nabarro in London. Although lawyers will have to be careful about how they file patents for products containing genetic material, most contacted by Nature feel that the ruling will probably not dampen innovation or investment in the European biotech industry as a whole. If anything, notes Radcliffe, the court decision shows that DNA patents are acceptable in Europe, even if their scope is quite narrow.

"There will be a number of patentees nervously casting an eye over the other independent claims of their patents in order to gauge the degree of protection that remains for their invention," says Gareth Morgan of London legal firm DLA Piper. He thinks that diagnostic firms and other agribusiness companies might be affected if they cannot gain patents in some countries, as Monsanto have failed to do in Argentina.
However, most patents incorporate other legal claims that could be used to enforce protection on products containing genetic material — without resorting solely to claims over DNA sequences as Monsanto had to do, notes Martin MacLean of intellectual-property lawyers Mathys and Squire in London.

The court decision also highlights existing uncertainties in the biotechnology directive, such as its hazy definition of 'genetic material', and whether the DNA's 'function' is the production of a particular protein (with all its uses), or a specific use of that protein. The ruling might push these uncertainties higher up lawyers' agendas, notes Radcliffe.
As for the wider impacts on Monsanto, the company stated that overall patent protection of the company's Roundup Ready soya bean was not at issue, and that it is continuing to work in Argentina "for a fair and equitable solution".

Last edited by JessE; 12-15-2010 at 03:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2010, 04:15 AM
joshuahazen's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,546

Originally Posted by Ronin View Post
Thanks guys, it is a hard pill to swallow.

I hope it isn't cancer but it is growing and changing shape and a second lump has started to grow.

There is zero doubt in my mind that those mints caused this, I had one in that spot for a couple of years. I always bragged "at least they are sugar free"when people would comment on me always having them and buying 10 cases at a time (yay ocd!).

I will let yas know what they say after the biopsy and if they have to cut my face off.


edit - I have had skin cancer twice before ...
Shit Dude, I'm so sorry man. Will say a prayer for you friend. Thank you for sharing this, I never trusted that shit. Now I will avoid it like the plague.
Good luck.

Hi Friends,
Check it out:
The Bonsai Sultan Method: Typological Breeding for the Non Breeder, Beginner, or Pro with Little Space.
"The secret of improved plant breeding, apart from scientific knowledge, is love." --Luther Burbank
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2010, 10:36 AM
Cernunnos's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tir Nan Og
Posts: 269

Here's some links to another great doco about GM food and Monsanto feature largely in it. The You Tube name of this is called Must See Documentary About GMO. Near the end of the eighth part and into the ninth it focuses on the indigenous corn farmers in Oaxaca, Mexico and how the landrace corn there has become contaminated with gentically modified shite.

Part 1









Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All rights reserved, MR NICE SEEDBANK, NL