Connect with us

Cannabis News

The Rise of GMO Hemp – The Latest Approval by the USDA on ‘Badger G’

Published

on


gmo hemp

The Rise of GMO Hemp!

 

There’s a critical difference between traditional breeding of cannabis plants and genetically modifying them through biotechnology. Today, we’ll explore this distinction by examining the latest development in the cannabis industry – the USDA’s approval of a genetically modified (GMO) hemp strain.

 

Genetic modification involves directly altering the genes of an organism, introducing desirable traits not found in that species. This is different from breeding, which relies on selecting plants with advantageous genes that arise through natural genetic variation and crossbreeding them over multiple generations.

 

GMOs are already heavily utilized in major agricultural crops like corn, soy, and cotton. Given that industrial hemp falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), it’s unsurprising that hemp would follow this trend toward genetic engineering as the industry seeks to optimize traits and increase profits.

 

In this article, we’ll take a close look at the USDA’s recent approval of a GMO hemp strain called “Badger G” from the University of Wisconsin. This hemp variety has been genetically edited to eliminate the production of THC and CBD – the two most abundant and commercially significant cannabinoids found in cannabis plants. Instead, Badger G has been modified to increase levels of the lesser-known cannabinoid CBG.

 

By scrutinizing this landmark case of an approved GMO hemp cultivar, we can better understand the potential implications – both positive and negative – that genetic engineering could have on the rapidly evolving hemp industry. Key issues we’ll examine include potential cost savings, regulatory compliance, ethical concerns, and how this differs from traditional cannabis breeding programs.

 

 

Badger G is a genetically modified variety of hemp that was recently approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for cultivation in the United States. Developed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin’s Crop Innovation Center, it represents a pioneering step in the genetic engineering of cannabis plants.

 

As detailed in the USDA announcement, Badger G has been genetically edited to knock out the expression of the CBDAS gene, which is responsible for producing the cannabinoids CBD and THC. By eliminating this gene, the modified hemp strain does not contain any detectable levels of CBD or THC. Instead, Badger G produces elevated levels of the lesser-known cannabinoid cannabigerol (CBG).

 

So what problem does a non-THC, non-CBD hemp variety solve? One of the primary challenges facing hemp growers since its federal legalization in 2018 has been maintaining THC levels below the allowable 0.3% limit. Hemp crops testing “hot” over this threshold are considered non-compliant and subject to destruction – a costly error. By removing THC entirely from its genetic makeup, Badger G provides hemp farmers with a bio-engineered solution to ensure legal compliance without this regulatory risk.

 

Furthermore, Badger G highlights how genetic engineering could enable specialized hemp cultivars tailored for different applications. While the source plant is extremely versatile with uses spanning textiles, food, supplements, biofuels and more, certain traits may be optimized for particular industries. A CBG-rich strain like Badger G could focus on pharmaceutical or nutraceutical markets, while other GMO varieties may enhance fiber quality for textiles, increase seed oil yields, or boost nutrition profiles for animal and human consumption.

 

This capacity for genetic differentiation supports the notion that hemp is not a one-size-fits-all crop. By harnessing biotechnology, the hemp industry could develop multiple distinct varietals suited for diverse commercial streams – textiles, food and beverage, dietary supplements, industrial materials, livestock feed, and so on. Growers and businesses could strategically select the specific traits and cannabinoid/terpene profiles best aligned with their product goals.

 

Of course, Badger G represents just an initial foray into genetically engineered cannabis. While targeted for industrial hemp, this development begs the question – when might we see GMO marijuana strains tailored for the adult-use market? breeding programs have already produced specialized cannabis chemovars high in THC, CBD, and lesser-known molecules like THCV and CBG. However, precise gene editing could take this even further, allowing scientists to truly customize cannabinoid and terpene profiles with immense specificity.

 

Most cannabis industry experts agree that genetically modified marijuana cultivars are an inevitability, despite the current uncertainty surrounding regulations. The FDA has already approved synthetically producing individual cannabinoids like THC and CBD. Given the immense commercial prospects, it seems only a matter of time before biotech firms develop patented GMO cannabis strains optimized for pharmaceutical or recreational markets. So while Badger G may be the first, it likely foreshadows many more genetically engineered varieties to come across the entire cannabis genus.

 

 

While both involve altering the genetics of an organism, there are critical differences between selective breeding and genetically modifying (GM) a plant through techniques like gene editing or genetic engineering. Selective breeding relies solely on natural methods to produce desired traits, whereas genetic modification directly manipulates an organism’s genes using biotechnology.

 

Selective breeding takes advantage of the natural genetic diversity present within a plant species. Breeders select parental plants with specific favorable traits and cross-pollinate them over successive generations. By consistently choosing offspring with the most desirable characteristics, conventional breeding programs can gradually concentrate useful genes and weed out unfavorable ones. However, this is limited to the genetic variation already present in that species’ gene pool.

 

In contrast, genetic modification allows plant scientists to directly add, remove, or edit specific genes from completely different organisms – capabilities far beyond what selective breeding can achieve through natural processes. Common GM techniques include inserting a bacterial gene to confer insect resistance, knocking out genes to disable certain pathways, or using gene editing tools like CRISPR to precisely tweak genomic sequences.

 

This added power brings added risks as well. Critics of GM crops raise concerns about potentially unintended consequences of altering an organism’s genes in unpredictable ways. There are also ethical debates around combining genes from vastly different species in ways that wouldn’t occur naturally. Some worry about potential health or environmental impacts we may not yet understand.

 

Proponents counter that GM crops are extensively tested and there is no evidence of harm from commercially-approved varieties. They argue genetic engineering is simply an extension of the genetic modification humans have done through breeding for millennia, now with far greater precision.

 

Regardless of one’s stance, the advent of gene editing tools like CRISPR have made genetically modifying plants drastically easier, faster, and cheaper than past methods of genetic engineering. With the right knowledge and equipment, virtually any gene sequence can now be disabled, edited, or swapped between organisms – including introducing animal or bacterial genes into plants with pinpoint accuracy.

 

As these biotechnologies become increasingly accessible, genetic modification will likely play a growing role in agriculture alongside conventional breeding programs. While more research into long-term impacts is still needed, GMOs seem poised to become a standard method for optimizing crop traits and developing plant varieties difficult or impossible to achieve through breeding alone.

 

 

 

As we’ve explored, the USDA’s approval of Badger G ushers in a new era of genetically modified hemp. But the broader implications extend far beyond this solitary GMO cultivar – it signals that genetic engineering has arrived for cannabis crops in a major way. While Badger G represents an initial step for industrial hemp, other bioengineered marijuana strains seem inevitability as the technology pervades agriculture.

 

This prompts the perennial debate – are GMOs an ethical and safe application of science, or a risky overreach of humanity manipulating nature? As with many issues, the reality lies in a nuanced middle ground. Genetic modification is simply a technology, and like any powerful tool, it can be leveraged for either beneficial or harmful ends.

 

Critics raise valid concerns around potential unintended consequences of altering organisms’ genes in unpredictable ways that could impact health or the environment. At the same time, supporters rightly point out that GMOs are already ubiquitous and there is no evidence of issues from commercially approved bioengineered crops to date.

 

Ultimately, it’s a philosophical question of what truly constitutes “natural” versus “unnatural”. Humans tend to view our own creations and impacts as distinct from nature. But we are an expression of nature – biological beings inexorably intertwined with the systems we inhabit. Our technological innovations, no matter how staggeringly advanced, emerge from the natural world.

 

Even our most seemingly “unnatural” acts like factory farming cattle or mass incarceration stem from the nature of our species and its capabilities. Genetic modification is simply one manifestation of humanity’s natural propensity to ceaselessly manipulate its environment and push evolutionary boundaries.

 

That’s not to say all applications of biotechnology are ethical or risk-free by virtue of being “natural”. Catastrophic misuse of this powerful technology could absolutely imperil ecosystems and human welfare in disastrous ways. As with any transformative scientific breakthrough, genetic engineering demands rigorous oversight, robust testing, and a judicious, morally-grounded approach.

 

For the legal cannabis industry, GMOs appear inevitable as companies race to optimize strains and stake out intellectual property claims. Whether cultivating specialized pharmaceutical cultivars, enhancing psychoactive profiles for the adult market, or increasing hemp’s myriad commercial outputs, genetic modification provides a lucrative avenue that corporations will be hard-pressed to ignore.

 

So as the era of bioengineered cannabis dawns with Badger G, how this unfolds will be a complex interplay of technological progress, commercial incentives, consumer backlash or acceptance, regulatory oversight, and our collective approach to harnessing nature’s awesome power responsibly. Whichever path we traverse will simply be the latest expression of our own human nature.

 

MORE ON GMO WEED, READ ON…

GARLIC COOKIES GMO CANNABIS

GARLIC COOKIES CANNABIS STRAIN IS GMO, TRUE OR FALSE?



Source link

Cannabis News

California Appeals Court Rejects Marijuana Grow Permit, Citing Federal Illegality

Published

on

By


In a landmark decision that highlights the tension between state and federal cannabis laws, a California appellate court ruled on October 29th that property owners can refuse to allow the transportation of cannabis across their land via easements, even when the cannabis operation is approved by local authorities.

The Second District Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision draws attention to private property rights in a context where cannabis remains federally illegal, but state law allows licensed cultivation, distribution and sale. Presiding Justice Albert Gilbert stated, “No matter how much California voters and the Legislature might try, cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law.” JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara, Case No. B333201, 2024 WL 4599304, Oct. 29, 2024.

Unless the California Supreme Court grants review – which I would not rule out – the decision empowers private property owners to refuse to contract with cannabis businesses, and restricts local government from approving cannabis operations that implicate the property rights of neighbors who object.

The case at hand

The dispute centered around a cannabis cultivation operation in Santa Barbara County, where JCCrandall LLC challenged a conditional use permit granted by the County to its neighbor, Santa Rita Holdings Inc. The critical issue was that Santa Rita Holdings could only access its 2.5-acre cannabis farm via an unpaved road crossing JCCrandall’s property through a pre-existing easement. JCCrandall grows oats and barley.

JCCrandall’s primary concern? It raised a number of complaints with the Santa Barbara County Supervisors about truck traffic and night operations, which did not gain traction, but in the Court of Appeal JCCrandall focused on what it claimed was potential liability associated with having federally illegal substances transported across its property, even though County regulators found that the Santa Rita operation was fully compliant with state and local laws.

Key legal findings

The appellate court’s decision hinged on several crucial points:

  1. Property Rights: The court emphasized that “the right to exclude others is the essence of the right of property ownership” and classified it as a fundamental vested right.
  2. Federal Supremacy: The panel determined that allowing cannabis transportation across private property “defies the Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.
  3. State vs. Federal Law: While cannabis might be legal under California law, the court ruled that federal law’s prohibition takes precedence in this context.

California cannabis industry implications

Legal experts suggest this ruling could have far-reaching consequences for California’s cannabis industry. Section 1550.5(b) of the California Civil Code makes contracts within California involving cannabis lawful and enforceable, and Santa Rita Holdings bet the ranch on that argument. But the Court of Appeal held that the statute could not compel a landowner to allow cannabis to travel across its property on a pre-existing easement. Licensed operators may find it harder to do business because neighbors who have property rights affected by a cannabis business can object, and, under the JCCrandall ruling, local government must yield to those objections.

An example might be a cannabis dispensary that depends on access to its parking lot via an easement or is located in a shopping center where other lessees have rights to object to tenants notwithstanding the approval of the landlord. In cultivation, many cannabis farms depend on vehicular access through easements because they are remote and do not always have direct access to public thoroughfares, or they depend on water sourced from other properties pursuant to agreements made by prior owners who grew traditional crops. These neighbors might not need to show any negative impact on their property, but can argue that they could be found complicit in federally illegal activities.

I think the most problematic language in the JCCrandall ruling is the following, which might draw the attention of the California Supreme Court and cause it to grant review: “For as long as an easement is enjoyed, its mode and manner of use shall remain substantially the same as it was at the time the easement was created. The County argues the easement was used for agricultural purposes. But there is a vast difference between legal and illegal agricultural purposes.” (Emphasis added.) If California has determined that cannabis cultivation is legal – as it has – and state courts routinely enforce contracts involving cannabis, it is a pretty bold step to declare the use of a lawful pre-existing easement illegal simply because the agricultural crop is cannabis and take away easement access from Santa Rita.

Looking ahead

This decision creates new challenges for cannabis businesses in California, and will result in more disputes among neighbors. While the Biden administration has shown signs of easing federal marijuana restrictions, this ruling demonstrates that the federal-state law conflict continues to create significant legal hurdles for the cannabis industry.

California court decisions also can be persuasive authority in other states, so we might see similar litigation (and decisions) elsewhere in the country where cannabis has been legalized.

The case serves as a reminder that despite California’s progressive stance on cannabis, federal prohibition continues to cast a long shadow over the industry’s operations and development. As the cannabis landscape continues to evolve, this ruling may prompt businesses to reassess their property arrangements and local governments will certainly have to reconsider their permitting processes to give more careful consideration to objections by neighbors who claim that their property rights are implicated by cannabis operations.

Note: This post was first published earlier this month on the Alger ADR Blog.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Autoimmune Conditions Are Rising Fast in American Medicine, Can Cannabis Help?

Published

on

By


cannabis autoimmune problems

Why Are Autoimmune Conditions On The Rise? And How Cannabis Can Help

 

Autoimmune diseases refer to a group of medical conditions that occur as a result of the immune system attacking your own tissues.

 

In a normal human body, the immune system is responsible for protecting the body by producing antibodies that prevent toxins, cancer cells, and viruses from harming the body. However, when one is struck by an autoimmune disorder, the immune system is no longer able to distinguish the difference between dangerous cells and healthy cells. As a result, the healthy cells are attacked, too.

Today, we know of around 100 different kinds of autoimmune conditions. Some of the most common examples of autoimmune conditions include rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS), and the Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Others include Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, psoriasis, and vasculitis.

 

According to the National Health Council, around 50 million Americans are affected by autoimmune diseases today. This is a conservative estimate, considering that several autoimmune conditions are tricky to treat and so many people go undiagnosed for long periods of time. It’s worrisome to note that there are more people developing autoimmune diseases these days, many of which have reached levels comparable to epidemics.

 

But cannabis can help!

 

How Cannabis Can Help Curb And Manage Autoimmune Diseases

 

Not one single cause is responsible for the alarming growth of autoimmune diseases, though there are several factors at play. While there isn’t just one cause we can point at, it’s certain the reasons lie in our environment. After all, human genetics haven’t changed significantly yet the chemicals, toxins, and pollutants in our food and everyday items have risen dramatically.

 

In addition, people are getting less sleep than ever; stress rates are through the roof, and people are constantly worried. There is a clear link between psychological stress and physical health as well as immunity, which is why it isn’t unusual – it’s even common – to see many autoimmune disease cases flare up after people experience severe stress caused by grief, an accident, job loss, or the death of a loved one. These highly stressful and traumatic conditions wreak havoc on the body’s immune response, causing inflammation all over the body.

 

Conventional treatments prescribed to treat autoimmune conditions are focused on taming inflammation; these usually include steroids but also some non-steroidal drugs. These drugs often come with unwanted side effects, but research has shown that cannabis can work with the endocannabinoid system through THC and CBD, as well as other cannabinoids, to simulate similar results. In one study for example, we can see the clear association of the endocannabinoid system for neurodegenerative and inflammatory processes seen in Multiple Sclerosis and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.


There has also been an increasing number of studies proving the efficacy of cannabis for treating several autoimmune conditions.

 

Cannabis For Multiple Sclerosis

 

Multiple sclerosis is one of the autoimmune conditions where a growing number of studies have come out supporting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for. In a 2024 study, patients with multiple sclerosis reported several improvements in quality of life after using cannabis-based medical products (CBMPs). For the study, British investigators analyzed the impact of cannabis based medicinal products made from either oil or extracts in 141 patients who were enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.

 

The researchers then analyzed the changes in patient outcomes after a month, then three and 6 months after. According to the patients themselves, they were able to sustain improvements in their mental and physical health after marijuana therapy.

 

“This case series demonstrates a potential association between the initiation of CBMPs and improved patient reported outcomes in sleep, anxiety, and general HRQoL [health-related quality of life] measures, over six months,” said the study authors. “Additional measures for HRQoL, including various physical and mental health subdomains, also exhibit improvements up to six months when compared to baseline,” the authors concluded.

 

In another study from 2023, patients with multiple sclerosis reported significant improvements in symptoms after cannabis use. For the study, researchers from the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, New York, analyzed the medical records of 141 patients with multiple sclerosis, who were also legally authorized to consume medical marijuana products. They then analyzed data from the patients after one up to 4 follow-up sessions after the initial session of cannabis therapy. Sixty-five percent of patients consumed 1:1 THC:CBD tinctures.

 

According to the authors: “The results of this study indicate that use of MC [medical cannabis] to alleviate symptoms of MS is largely efficacious, with improvement in pain (72 percent of patients), muscle spasticity (48 percent of patients), and sleep disturbance (40 percent of patients) frequently reported.”

 

“More than half of opioid users at baseline were able to either discontinue or decrease their opioid use after starting MC. The mean daily MME [morphine milligram equivalents] was significantly reduced from the initial visit (51 mg) to the last follow-up visit (40 mg). This is consistent with previous literature showing that MC legalization is associated with decreased opioid use and that MC use is associated with decreased opioid use in patients with chronic pain. These findings indicate that MC may represent an alternative analgesic to opioids for some patients,” they wrote. 

 

Anecdotal Evidence

 

While more studies are needed to determine cannabis’ effect on other autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, we can rely on anecdotal evidence. In 2020, data from the medical journal, Rheumatology, revealed that patients who have this condition, along with those who have lupus and fibromyalgia, consume cannabis.

 

In fact, it was reported that marijuana was extremely common especially for patients with fibromyalgia. “In this meta-analysis, we found that one in six patients suffering from rheumatologic disease actively consumes cannabis, reducing pain reduction… A favorable effect of cannabis on pain in our meta-analysis reinforces the idea that cannabis could be used for analgesic purposes,” the authors concluded.

 

Conclusion

Cannabis is a safe and natural way to help prevent and treat the symptoms of autoimmune disease. It targets inflammation at its root, and is a proven natural way to help cope with stress, pain, insomnia, and inflammation all while protecting the brain. However, it’s important to ensure you medicate with clean, organic sources of marijuana.

 

AUTOIMMUNE AND CANNABIS, READ ON…

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES THAT CANNABIS CAN HELP

CANNABIS FOR 9 DIFFERENT AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Hemp and the New Senate Farm Bill

Published

on

By


The U.S. Senate’s version of the Farm Bill finally landed this week. They’re calling it the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024 (the “Senate bill”). The Senate bill follows on the House’s proposal, called the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 (the “House bill”), offered in May. Neither the Senate bill nor the House bill would preempt state or Indian law regarding hemp or the regulation of hemp products. This means states and tribes will retain a lot of latitude in regulating hemp and hemp-derived products– which gets people fired up.

Aside from giving states some runway, the Senate bill and the House bill differ in key respects regarding hemp. Therefore, these august bodies must confer and reconcile their sundry proposals. That could happen in 2024, but seems more likely in 2025 when the new Congress convenes. As of this week, though, we finally have a framework.

The Senate Bill re-defines “hemp” and defines “industrial hemp”

Section 10016 of the Senate bill (“Hemp Production”) amends the definition of “hemp.” Hemp was defined in the 2018 Farm Bill and removed from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), taking us on a truly wild ride. See: What Happened to Hemp? (“What Happened”). The Senate bill also gives us a definition for “industrial hemp.” Here are those definitions, with points of emphasis in bold:

(1) Hemp. The term “hemp” means (A) the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 total tetrahydrocannabinol concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; and (B) industrial hemp.

(3) Industrial Hemp. The term “industrial hemp” means the plant Cannabis sativa L. if the harvested material (A) is only (i) the stalks of that plant, fiber produced from those stalks, or any other manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of those stalks (except cannabinoid resin extracted from those stalks); (ii) whole grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, or any other compound, manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the seeds of that plant (except cannabinoid resin extracted from the seeds of that plant); or (iii) viable seeds of that plant produced solely for production or manufacture of any material described in clause (i) or (ii); and (B) will not be used in the manufacturing or synthesis of natural or synthetic cannabinoid products.

The new regime

Again, the definitional stuff in bold is what I want to emphasize.

First, the Senate bill keeps the THC threshold at 0.3 percent, which is an arbitrary number we’ve been advocating against for years. The Senate bill mirrors the House bill in this respect, though, so we are stuck with this, unless Ron Paul gets his way.

Second, the Senate bill keeps the 2018 Farm Bill’s total THC standard, including THCA. The House bill does this too. This was fairly predictable: in What Happened, I wrote that we could “expect the total THC standard to remain, which means that actual Delta-9 THC won’t be the only metric for calculating THC content.”

We’ve also explained on this blog that the 2018 Farm Bill and USDA rules mandate total THC testing on pre-harvest hemp batches, but do not mandate such testing on post-harvest hemp or hemp products. The Senate bill doesn’t change this paradigm, which means the “loophole” for gas station weed remains open. This proposal is a big win for opponents of the House bill’s “Miller Amendment,” which would narrow the definition of “hemp” to exclude intoxicating hemp-derived substances.

Third, the Senate bill introduces a new definition and framework for industrial hemp. The House bill does this too, albeit slightly differently. The idea here is to invite farmers to grow hemp for fiber and grain purposes, while freeing them from regulatory burdens with the Department of Agriculture and criminal exposure with the Department of Justice. More specifically, for “industrial hemp” growers, the Senate bill:

  • removes background check requirements;
  • instates “relaxed regulatory requirements” for sampling and inspection methodologies (which will need to be adopted by rule); and
  • develops a certified seed program. 

The Senate bill also makes any hemp producer ineligible to grow hemp for five years if that producer, “with a culpable mental state greater than negligence, produces a crop of hemp that is inconsistent with that license.”(Hint: use the seed program.) The proof standard here seems like it could be an issue, and even if anyone has been adjudicated as growing marijuana under the guise of hemp, Farm Bill ineligibility seems like a far-off concern.

Bottom line

The big takeaway for me is that the Senate bill leaves the door open for intoxicating hemp products, whereas the Miller Amendment to the House bill does not. Something’s gotta give. And it needs to happen soon, because we’re already long overdue. As I explained in a webinar last week, the Farm Bill deals with the nation’s entire food supply, not just hemp. Therefore, this is not like with the SAFE Banking Act, where we have a proposed law specific to cannabis that may or may not ever pass. The Farm Bill must pass, and soon.

Stay tuned and we’ll keep you updated on any major happenings. For more on this topic, check out our massive hemp and CBD archive, or these specific, recent posts:



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media