Just in case you were in any doubt about the UK Governmental support for GM trails:

Source:

Food: Scientists want top security for GM crop tests

· Both trials approved in UK this year were attacked
· Demand for 'freedom to gain knowledge'

Since 2000 almost all of the 54 GM crop trials attempted in Britain have been vandalised to some extent.

Trials of genetically modified crops should be conducted within a national high-security facility or in fields at secret locations across the country to prevent them from being attacked and destroyed by anti-GM activists, scientists said yesterday.

Researchers spoke out after protesters ripped up crops in one of only two GM trials to be approved in Britain this year, and ahead of a meeting with government ministers, which has been called to discuss ways of providing better protection for crop trials in future.

Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming, and whether GM variants will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests.

Since 2000 almost all of the 54 GM crop trials attempted in Britain have been attacked to some extent.

In a meeting planned for early September environment ministers will be asked to consider establishing a secure GM crop facility at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (Niab) in Cambridge, where the last remaining GM crop trial - of a blight-resistant potato developed by the German company BASF - is being conducted. Security for that trial, which includes a perimeter fence and 24-hour security guards, has cost more than £100,000. An identical trial at the site last year was damaged by activists in a night raid. In other proposals scientists will be seeking permission to conduct small-scale GM crop trials at undisclosed locations, and possibly a secure register to hold full details of their trials, instead of making them public. Under an existing EU directive GM crop trials in Britain can only go ahead once a full description of the crop, along with a six-figure grid reference that effectively pinpoints the planned location of the trial, have been made public.

Last month a Leeds University trial of cyst-resistant GM potatoes was destroyed by anti-GM activists. Howard Atkinson, who led the research, said the trial, which involved only 400 plants, was too small to be considered a threat to the environment, and that paying for costly security "to protect against zealots" was hard for a university to justify.

Atkinson called on the government to adopt a strategy similar to that in Canada, where small experimental trials of a few acres and less can be conducted in secret, with full disclosure only required for larger commercial trials. "We demand the academic freedom to gain knowledge and a society that doesn't allow scientists to do that has got a problem," he said.

Wayne Powell, director of Niab, backed the calls for greater security of GM trials, adding that the exact locations of trials was originally required to inform local farmers and growers that GM crops were being planted close by. "We have to look at the way we're doing trials in a way that ensures they don't get vandalised," he said. "The consequence of not having field trials is you reject these crops before society has had a chance to consider the benefits."

While North America and other countries have adopted mass growing of GM soya, cotton and maize, there are no GM crops grown in Britain.

Clare Oxborrow, a food campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: "The government must stand firm and resist this attempt to keep the public and farmers in the dark over GM crop trial locations."

The New World Order & Codex Alimentarius

The UN plan to eradicate organic farming & to destroy the Natural Health Industry:

The recording of this Codex presentation has now been posted on YouTube.

If you would like to support my Codex Awareness Initiative , please consider purchasing the higher quality DVD version.

Thank you

Ian R Crane

Big Pharma in a Frenzy to bring Cannabis-based Medicines to Market

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted July 5, 2008.

While the the American Medical Association claims pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is busy getting patents for marijuana products.

The US government's longstanding denial of medical marijuana research and use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this point, few Americans disagree. As for the question of "why" federal officials maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that's another story.

One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds' seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither the US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical marijuana because they can't patent it or profit from it.

It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accurate nor persuasive. Here's why.

First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for -- and has already received -- multiple patents for the medical properties of pot. These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain's endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH paper (pdf), "The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in the underlying science has been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004." In other words, at the same time the American Medical Association is proclaiming that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.

Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most notably, GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken directly from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)

Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what's good for them. Let me explain.

First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration -- a process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific merit. Chances are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.

A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health Products Regulatory Agency's recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug in the United Kingdom. (Sativex's parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is based in London.) In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypically hard-line against the recreational use of marijuana -- culminating in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's declaration that today's pot is now of "lethal quality." (Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning to up to five years in jail.) In such an environment is it any wonder that British regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based medicine, even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex? Conversely, Canadian health regulators -- who take a much more liberal view toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution to authorized patients -- recently approved Sativex as a prescription drug.

Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The real hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here again, a culture that is familiar with and educated to the use therapeutic cannabis is likely going to be far more open to the use of pot-based medicines than a population still stuck in the grip of "Reefer Madness."

Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the use of medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one becomes legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise only a fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will -- including many older patients who would never the desire to try or the access to obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of whether pot is legal or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a broad appeal.

But wouldn't the legal availability of pot encourage patients to use fewer pharmaceuticals overall? Perhaps, though likely not to any degree that adversely impacts Big Pharma's bottom line. Certainly most individuals in the Netherlands, Canada, and in California -- three regions where medical pot is both legal and easily accessible on the open market -- use prescription drugs, not cannabis for their ailments. Further, despite the availability of numerous legal healing herbs and traditional medicines such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and Eastern hemlock most Americans continue to turn to pharmaceutical preparations as their remedies of choice.

Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever warrant or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior relief from natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private sector continues to move forward with research into the safety and efficacy of marijuana-based pharmaceuticals, it will become harder and harder for the government and law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of total pot prohibition.

Of course, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades to legalize medical cannabis, it's unlikely that anyone -- most especially the pharmaceutical industry -- would be turning their attention toward the development and marketing of cannabis-based therapeutics. That said, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any royalty checks.

Oh yeah, and as for those who claim that the US government can't patent medical pot, check out the assignee for US Patent #6630507.

See more stories tagged with: big pharma, medical marijuana, theory

Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.