Would You Like Drugs in Your Rice? 310
Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the scoop on a new type of rice that was just approved for production by a narrow vote. 'Ventria believes growing drugs that produce proteins like lactoferrin and lysozyme in rice could be a cheaper way to develop drugs than building and maintaining expensive manufacturing plants... Opponents say growing the crops in open fields endangers organic and conventional crops, as well as human health...'" Update: 03/30 23:15 GMT by T : That should probably read "growing rice that produces proteins like lactoferrin and lysozyme."
Pharmin Phool (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pharmin Phool (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pharmin Phool (Score:2, Funny)
SON >DAD ILL MOW THE LAWN !!!!
DAUGHTER> NO DAD I WILL !!!
Son and Daughter get into fight over who gets to mow the lawn.
Re:Pharmin Phool (Score:3, Interesting)
Im being as serious as a heart attack about this,
Re:Pharmin Phool (Score:3, Funny)
Don't forget anthrax producing cattle and syphilis producing sheep.
Re:Pharmin Phool (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Timothy's update (Score:2)
Think of it as a changelog.
Hey dude... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey dude... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who has bought bulk rice is familiar with the fact that harvested rice is contaminated with bits of debris and wild rice. Speaking in a practical sense, it is clearly inevitable that this GM rice will get mixed in with the food supply.
Even eating organic rice will not save you, since small amounts of rice seeds will surely drift on the winds and contaminate all crops. Do we really want to risk our young daughters eating abnormal quantities of lactoferrin and risking a higher rate of gigantomastia and breast cancer?
Re:Hey dude... a couple basic questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a couple of questions of the kind that often get overlooked
Since when was rice eaten raw?
Since when did cooked (i.e., denatured) proteins retain the hormonal/enzyme activities of the native protein?
There's a whole lot of wild imagination going into the stories of these so-called risks.
-wb-
Re:Hey dude... a couple basic questions (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to think that too, since most proteins do seem to be denatured by cooking (or even by digestion, which is why diabetics can't just take an insulin pill). But it seems some proteins are remarkably heat-stable. Like those nasty prion proteins. Cooking your cattle brains before eating them doesn't seem to protect against BSE.
Re:Hey dude... a couple basic questions (Score:4, Informative)
As for prions, not a lot is understood about them. It seems like they work by denaturing proteins, thus shutting down cell functions and generating more prions. They only seem to be a problem for nerve tissue, perhaps because of its low rate of division, but no one really knows. Also, while they do seem to be a large problem for herbivores (mad cow, chronic wasting disease, and a few other variants) they don't seem to have much of an effect on the carnivores that eat those herbivores. This seems to be true of people as well. Despite the fact that many millions of people (in Britain and elsewhere) have been exposed to BSE contaminated beef, there have only been a few thousand reported cases of vCJD.
Some researchers believe that natural herds of animals rely on carnivores to remove the animals with chronic wasting. While human hunters usually select the largest, healthiest animals, carnivores typically target the smallest, or weakest animals. This is a theory that will be soon put to the test as the elk herds in Yellowstone become infected with the chronic wasting epidemic that is sweeping northward through the Rocky Mountains. Researchers have noted chronic wasting starting to appear in the elk herds in Teton National Park, which borders Yellowstone on the south.
Also, CJD (the original kind of CJD which hits people in the later years of their life) seems to be tied to prions, but doesn't seem to be a problem for young people. CJD hasn't been tied to exposure to BSE, it seems that some people just get it later in life.
Re:Hey dude... a couple basic questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Rice is eaten raw when it is used in the form of ground up rice flour and not cooked.
As for cooked proteins, does the word 'prion' ring a bell? It not a law of nature that proteins loose their shape or their function just because they are heated.
The problem with GM is not so much the danger of accidentally misusing the products, but the very real danger of genetic pollution, which can happen in many more ways than most people imagine. Just to mention a couple:
1. Bacteria and other microorganisms routinely swap genetic material or even incorporate genetic materials from cells of other species, plants included. This is why the multiresistent bugs are not just an isolated problem - it has been found that the resistance to antibiotics can wander between different species.
2. Many of our most important crop plants have near relatives in the wild. Imagine eg. that we have a genetically modified oat field, which produces some dangerous substance. Wild oat is a common weed in oat fields, so we will very soon have a wild plant which produces a dangerous substance. Wild oat spreads very easily - the seeds are light and blow around in the wind - so soon this trait gets into oat meant for human consumption. Even worse - we don't even need a scenario where a wild species acts as intermediary - many crops are wind pollinated, and their pollen can travel for huge distances, perhaps all around the globe.
Only a ruthless, boneheaded and ignorant idiot would let genetically modified crops loose on the world at present, when we don't know nearly enough about the consequences. Unfortunately this is the kind of people that are in power.
Re:Hey dude... (Score:5, Informative)
I think you mean gynecomastia. [m-w.com] Women don't get it, so I'd be more concerned about our young sons looking like young daughters, more than anything else. But your point is taken. Messing with the natural way of things hasn't always worked in ways we have intended. Putting iodine in salt worked pretty well, but the creation of a rice-based pharmacy when a substantial number of people depend on rice as their sole staple does merit some cause for concern, IMHO.
Re:Hey dude... (Score:2)
In a word, yes.
m-
Re:Hey dude... (Score:2, Informative)
Debris? Yes. Wild rice? No. So-called wild rice (Zizania aquatica) isn't even related to cultivated rice (Oryza sativa). They wouldn't likely be found together.
Even eating organic rice will not save you, since small amounts of rice seeds will surely drift on the winds and contaminate all crops.
Drifting seeds are not the problem. Drifting pollen is. I would hope that th
Re:Hey dude... Get your facts straight (Score:2)
What is the difference between white and brown rice? Brown rice is unpolished whole grain rice that is produced by removing only the outer husk. It becomes white rice when the bran layer is stripped off in the milling process. source [fao.org]
There is no difference between
Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:Hey dude... (Score:3, Funny)
Well (Score:4, Funny)
Excuse me? (Score:5, Funny)
From the article:
"Even food-processing corporations are very upset about this as well, because they know all you need is one shipment of corn flakes that has a contraceptive in it and there's a real problem, obviously," [Paul] Achitoff said.
Yes, well obviously ... errr ... yes, a condom in a shipment of corn flakes would cause a problem... not sure what that has to do with genetically engineered rice, but, well, errr ... yes.
Someone give the man a cigar!
the risk... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the risk... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if genetically enhanced products are going to have a risk, we are going to have to find a way around it - the solution would not be to ban GE as a whole, right?
I'm not saying you suggested so - merely that we can never really
Re:the risk... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the real danger - that we haven't, quite, reached that point. We're on the cusp, evolutionarily speaking, but right now we have a lot of the power with almost no safety. We're still in a very vulnerable time, where one large catastrophe could effectively wipe us out. We've been in that situation for a long time now, but only recently have we actually gained the ability to cause such a situation as a species.
That's the real value of space flight - controlled risk reduction. Once we're off the planet in sustainable numbers, we're much less vulnerable. Once we're out of the system - continued success is almost guaranteed.
For the species, that is. Each individual can still be royally fscked up, no matter what, until and unless we come up with backups of some sort. But that's another subject entirely.
Re:the risk... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument boils down to "the can of worms has been opened
When your playing with the food supply, anything less than caution is reckless!
Internatlize costs of externalities and risk. (Score:2)
Agreed. This looks like the classic case for legislation and regulation -- i.e., where the market will not otherwise force an actor to internatlize the costs of various risks and externalities.
I can see it now. Oh, our companay caused enviromental damage to the tune of $1 trillion, and our
Why food crops? (Score:5, Insightful)
But these aren't genetically modified foods--they are food crops modified to produce drugs. Granted, they seem like fairly benign substances, but I don't understand why they need to use food crops. Surely there are plants that could be used for drug manufacture that are not normally cultivated for human consumption, obviating concerns that pharmaceutical crop seeds will get mistakenly mixed in with food crop seeds, or that pharmaceutical crops with cross-pollinate food crops.
Re:Why food crops? (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, just because humans don't eat a particular plant, doesn't mean that we should contaminate it at will. What about all the other species that might need it to survive.
Re:Why food crops? (Score:3, Interesting)
How about we engineer into such plants a dependency on a particular substance that isn't common in the environment? Humans have lost the ability to make folic acid, bacteria haven't. Knock out a production pathway in the plants (destruction is easier than creation, no?) and you've created
An equal risk... (Score:5, Insightful)
Monsanto has already done this [producer.com]. I'm sure that this will not be the last lawsuit of this type, and I'm also sure that the biotech companies are calculating this type of enforcement as an essential part of their income.
Naive? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that it would probably cost a lot more, but by growing it indoors you cut down on the possibility of cross contamination quite a bit. Also, if you're growing a crop to use it for pharmaceuticals wouldn't you want it to be grown in a bit more of a controlled environment?
Re:Naive? (Score:5, Funny)
Ripley: God damn it, that's not all! 'Cause if one of those things get down here then that will be all! And all this bullshit that you think is so important, you can kiss all that goodbye!
Re:Naive! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a fair bit more to large-scale hot-house or hydroponic farming than you have had to deal with when you grew a little pot in your closet.
Re:Naive! (Score:2)
Re:Naive! (Score:3, Insightful)
can't imagine it being too expensive for growing rice for medical purposes while making profit.
You mean like this? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Operating standard rice paddies in just about any of the rice growing states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, Florida) would cost a tiny fraction of that. And growing rice in China, the
Re:You mean like this? (Score:2)
Re:Naive? (Score:2)
Like.. er.. like in my closet or something?
Re:Naive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you say: I know that it would probably cost a lot more
Ding! That's it in one. After all, if one company is growing it the expensive way, and another one (in another country if necessary) is doing it the cheap one... guess who wins? Especially in the current environment of trying to get drug prices as low as possible... Yup, its the cheap one. Go figure. So as long as growing it the cheap way is possible, that's the way that commercial entities will do it.
Don't forget after harvest (Score:5, Informative)
I personally don't have anything against generically engineered organisms, only that you have to be very careful managing them. While they shouldn't be able to compete as well as "natural" varieties, all it takes are a few big screw-ups to destroy the industry.
Indoor growing helps, as do a number of other controls that can be put in place. Moderate regulation is a good thing, in my opinion.
Better yet... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better yet... (Score:2)
Re:Naive? (Score:3, Insightful)
The sun part would do okay in a greenhouse, but the water would be difficult. And, building a structure that is large enough, without any type of support that would impede mechanical planting/harvesting would make this hugely expensive.
Option 1- buy some land, plant rice. Harvest.
Option 2 - but some land, build a huge building that has a crud-load of fresh water in it, maintain the building, and harvest.
Option 1 of course is
GM products (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GM products (Score:5, Insightful)
The consequences of growing these types of crops and the impact on their surroundings may not be measureable or manifest themselves for years.
This is why genetically modified crops are such a gamble. Scientists just *don't* know what will really happen, they are hoping for the best based on a shallow dataset of information.
The thing is, there really is no reason to modify foods genetically in this manner. It's one thing to cross one tomato with another tomato strain to get a redder, juicier tomato, it's quite another to put drugs in them, or make them glow in the dark, or somesuch nonsense.
If one needs drugs, they should take a pill. Leave the drugs out of the food supply for those of us who don't want it them in our food.
I hate to bring up the "slippery slope" but given the current state of environmental policy in this country (and worldwide) I choose to *always* default to caution. Destroying, modifying, genetic diversity should be undertaken with *extreme* caution.
The problem is that it is large corporations with no regard for the environment, or even the best interests of other people, who are railroading this stuff through in the court of public opinion and in government hearings. Anyone who dissents is "against science" or a "luddite" according to them.
These corporations will tell you that they are doing it to feed poor people in starving nations. This is crap. There is *no* food shortage. There are food distribution problems caused by political or economical concerns.
If these companies were really concerned about creating nutritious and helpful foods they would learn soil conservation techniques. By and large the vegetables that you eat today are not nearly as good for you as the ones that your grandparents ate because soil depletion and crappy farming techniques have robbed them of their minerals and nutrients.
I am not a luddite, I am an environmentalist. There is lots of room for scientists to come up with clever plans to increase crop yields and preserve soil *without* putting manmade chemicals and drugs in them.
Using technology to simply coverup and put a bandaid over mismanaged farming policies is a bad use of said technology and a cheap grab for a buck by people that have no concern what happens to your children.
Re:GM products (Score:2)
Fine, you don't have to buy it. But don't try to kill the product because you won't buy it. That's like someone trying to get deoderant declared illegal cause they don't use it.
Re:GM products (Score:3, Informative)
Drug resistance? (Score:2, Insightful)
So we're just going to feed antibiotics to the general population even though most of them don't need it?
Aren't we already encountering problems with drug resistance because doctors are over-prescribing antibiotics, and patients don't follow the dosing instructions?
Or are these not antibiotics? I'm confused.
Re:Drug resistance? (Score:5, Informative)
given that these are naturally occuring proteins that everyone was exposed to as a child, i think the liklihood of bacteria developing a new resistance to them is low (otherwise, it would have happened sometime within the past several thousand years)
ideal solution (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Drug resistance? (Score:3, Informative)
Lysozyme is next to useless as a drug because the molecule is too big to be absorbed and move around the body. It's really more like a kind of natural prese
Re:Drug resistance? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are cases where breast milk is not an option:
- Some mothers cannot produce milk at all or cannot produce sufficient milk to feed their baby.
- A mother who has to take certain drugs for her own health and well-being may not be able to breastfeed because of the risks those drugs present to the baby.
- Sometimes mom isn't available to breastfeed at all. Women still do occasionally die in childbirth, or more commonly, give their baby up for adoption at birth.
- Newborns can have several different disorders that make all milk products, including those from mom, anywhere from very uncomfortable to severely damaging to them. Phenylketonuria [medhelp.org], severe lactose intolerance, etc.
So, for several reasons, it's a good idea to improve infant formula as much as possible. We'll probably never be able to get it as good as breast milk (since mom's body can adapt the formulation to environmental factors, such as passing on antibodies to whatever cold is going around), but it's not necessarily a bad idea.
Interesting that these can also serve as food preservatives, though. You may very well be right about the "true" motivations for this product.
Re:Drug resistance? (Score:2, Interesting)
With rice the life cycle is much shorter, however I'm not sure how GE'd rice would be able to directly take advantage of evolution... instead development will be directed and
I think you misread the intent (Score:2)
If that is the case, then I think its a neat idea. However, I also believe that measures should be taken to ensure that the pharm-crop cannot get loose into the general food chain.
END COMMUNICATION
Re:Drug resistance? (Score:2)
Monsanto (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Monsanto (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO "only" demand massive payments for something they don't own. Monsanto destroy what you already have, then demand massive payments.
Re:Monsanto (Score:2)
Monsanto is Evil Incarnate (Score:2)
hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)
Rice: Its whats for dinner (Score:5, Funny)
Rice is ever evolving... (Score:5, Funny)
Scary...
anti-rice (Score:2, Funny)
Well (Score:2)
come on guys, lets not be that stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
By your own defintion. . . (Score:2)
Agreed. Though, as you pointed out with the canola example, I don't see any real effort to enforce responsible practices. There oughtabealaw!
-FL
Re:come on guys, lets not be that stupid! (Score:5, Interesting)
The "organic" canola plants used to produce food products are the result of serious human genetic intervention. The first rapeseed plants capable of producing edible oils (previously, it had just been an industrial lubricant) were introduced in Canada in 1968 [siu.edu], and dubbed canola, a contraction of "Canada Oil."
Re:come on guys, lets not be that stupid! (Score:3, Interesting)
What I don't support are:
1) Crops that allow for (and demand) the heavy use of pesticides, herbicides, and other poisons that contaminate my food supply.
2) Crops that grow drugs and other chemicals that don't need to be in the food supply and can contaminate neighbor's crops.
3) Suing innocent farmers who got their crops contaminated and ruined by your whiz-bang patented crapola.
We should be using GM to reduce the use o
As long as the race tastes better... (Score:2)
Whats next, strawberry flavoured rice???
I like the typo in your subject heading. (Score:3, Funny)
-FL
Re:I like the typo in your subject heading. (Score:2)
Better then (Score:2, Funny)
I hate it when they cut it with rice.
Dude, rice IS a drug (Score:5, Funny)
Low carb diet? Might as well call it detox!
Worse yet, its multi-cultural nature can lead to cultural degradation through Ricism. Asian rice tend to be smaller and stick together, texas long-grain tend to be big and separate, and brown rice is "out there" as far as culinary acceptance goes.
So rice with drugs is harmful. Rice IS already comparable to drugs without the additional drugs.
Drug rice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Drug rice... (Score:5, Informative)
The species that are being made for the betterment of mankind typically are done to rectify dietary defficiencies in a given population. For example, vitamin A rice [soilassociation.org] for developing countries which often have large populations of people who don't get enough vitamin A (lack of causes blindness). The rice in this particular story isn't meant to be used to better all people, but (as i read it) to be a supplement for babies who are not breast-feeding (as it was engineered to have proteins naturally occuring in breast milk).
The problem with genetically engineering crops isn't that we are "babying" our immune system (that's a separate issue mostly involving the overuse of antibiotics). Rather, the problem is the overreliance on single species (such as the vitamin A rice) and the lack of natural diversity. Eventually an opportunistic pest is going to come along and decimate your rice field; a condition that would be limited if multiple strains of rice were to be grown.
Where's the money in that? (Score:2)
And know to lose some karma: (Score:2, Funny)
Asian guy: "Did you get drugs for your rice?"
French guy: "Drugs for my rice?"
Asian guy <points to French guy's head>: "You know, drugs for your rice."
Answer: (Score:3, Interesting)
Grow them in buildings, in a clean enviornment.
Genetic rice is good for you. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Genetic rice is good for you. (Score:3, Insightful)
I care because I don't like the idea of a coporation being able to say they now own that rice and be able to dictate what I can and cannot do with it. If the rice genes somehow manage to somehow alter the outcome of sperm or cell would that company then have legal rights over any child created from that sperm and cell.
This is more of a legal/ patent issue. But the fact is that formal science in the field of nutrition and muchless chemistry or even bioengin
Although it seems like a novel idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
Although they're going for 'out of the lab production' with rice, the potential for problems is just too great. Unlike crops which are genetically modified to produce more of their own proteins or molecules that will be in their environment anyways (like Round-Up), the rice would be producing proteins/molecules/drugs which are completely foreign to the crop environment. What really irks me is that they are producing drugs which will possibly be leaked into the ground after degradation or harvesting. If there happen to be bacteria in the ground with some sort of drug resistance that can be transmitted to other bacteria by plasmids/recombination through contamination of the crops, there will be big problems.
The use of E. Coli in the production of pharmaceuticals is much more efficient and can be grown in larger quantities using huge vats in research labs.
On a much more practical note: how exactly are they going to extract the drugs from the rice? Would the rice be sold with the drugs inside and then cooked prior to ingestion? Or would they be steamed and the resulting water ingested?
Bottom line: using ANY crop for pharmaceutical production is inefficient and dangerous and impractical. E. Coli can do what crops do but with much higher efficiency and practicality.
Genetic material travels well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Genetic material travels well (Score:2)
You should study envrionmentalist concerns more carefully before you criticize them. Nobody is saying that the GM material will magically combine with a persons DNA. But what is very likely to
Re:Genetic material travels well (Score:2, Funny)
Concerning the environmentalist concerns: environmentalists are much more concerned with genetic information travelling from the GM crop to plants/organisms which are not related to the GM crop. I stated that this is close to impossible. I did not state that cross-pollination is not possible. However, cross-pollination of
Re:Genetic material travels well (Score:3, Informative)
Most/many pollen grains are very small and can travel very far. I don't know of any pollen-specific studies offhand, but I guess they are out there. What I do know is that dust and ash travel is well documented. Ash from fires in Australia falls in New Zealand; dust from volcanoes encircles the world. Pollen will easily move from one island to another.
As for viability, there are many documented cases of seeds over 1000 years old bein
What will be the next abomination? (Score:3, Funny)
Genetic modding for nutrition? (Score:2)
Googling for more info just now turned up this [cornell.edu] web page saying that this gene mod hasn't been submitted for gov't approval yet (as of 19 Sep 2003 anyway).
I'd like rice without carbs first, please (Score:5, Funny)
This type of rice also sees narrow acceptance (Score:2)
Rice Boy Page [riceboypage.com]
Drugs? (Score:2, Funny)
Hmmm, Deja Vu (Score:2, Interesting)
-----
If you're not using Slackware, then, uh, you suck, or something. Yeah!
Yes Please (Score:2)
Do yourselves a favor:
- Take two days off this spring.
- Take a 2MG Xanax.
- Drink a strong cup of coffee.
- Smoke a joint.
- Enjoy your afternoon.
- Sleep all day the next day.
If only the straights would all die already, and us normals could make this legal.
Arrogance and stupidity (Score:2, Interesting)
Breast feeding is FREE and far superior to the patented alternatives. Yet another company doing PR to convince doctors, nurses and parents that their product is safe will mean fewer breast-fed kids. Dumb security.
Cross-pollination will destroy heirloom and
someday (Score:2)
Lets see the feds playing whack-a-mole.
Alternatly, I've always thought Monsanto's so called terminator genes were good inventions, used properly. Biotech companies and environmentalists both have the similar desires for biotech plants; that the 'product' does not become part of the w
A Potential Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the things that we've seen happening in Canada is that a huge corporation (ie: Monsanto) will sell its genetically modified seed to farmers and charge them an annual licensing fee. The problem arises when some of the seed blows onto neighbouring farmers' fields and starts to merge with their crops. In turn, Monsanto takes legal action against the farmers.
Here's a link to a good, comprehensive story. [www.cbc.ca]
Basically, the issue at hand is that even before considering the ethical implications of lacing crops with drugs, we should be thinking about the leverage such enhancements will give to corporate heavyweights like Monsanto in their ongoing struggle to preserve "their" intellectual property.
--
True accounting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The first and obvious one, being that the production of crops which have been bioengineered to produce biologically active chemicals and drugs needs to be strickly managed. They must be kept away from other plants, and for that matter, need to be kept away from bateria which can take genetic material and communicate it to wild species (cross species genetic communication is not commonly considered and is a real issue when dealing with novel or unprecedented genetic application.)
Thalidamide looked like a great idea until deformed babies began to happen. Having a genetically altered crop, speading a gene into wild plant species that might have a significant impact on human health and reproduction, or simply further threaten the viability of endangered environments, is a potential disaster just waiting to happen. We need to place care, and responsiblity ahead of the bottom line, or we might just greedy ourselves to death.
The second, is an administration that has ramrodded through the various dept. of government, the agenda "Rubberstamp Anything Big Business Wants". Just today, the EPA was forced to push through new business practices which may cause a 700% increase in mercury in the fish we eat over the next 10 years. This is in an environment where the mercury levels are already high enough to warm pregnant women "That eating top tier ocean caught fish more than once a week poses a significant risk for birth defect".
I'm a firm believer in capitalism, I believe we need to support business, and create a strong and sustainable economy. However, that strength must not come at the cost of social disaster. Our government has become a machine designed to force all resistance including sanity, aside to promote the wishes of large multinational powers. Time and time again the track record is clear. The public is at risk, every single time our welfare come to a head against some D.C. connected industry's profit margin. It's vital that we not try to reduce this to a Republican/Democratic, Conservative/Liberal issue. These are issues involving the fact that our elected officials are too easily bought and sold for the price of funding future election campaigns. We need to change the system, and waiting for the people who benefit from that system, to change it, is clearly pointless. The people need to stand up and mandate a change from the ground up. The quality and longevity of our lives demands it.
Genda
Re:want THC in seaweed (Score:2)
Amoebic dysentery [netdoctor.co.uk] is a pretty good deterrent for widespread acceptance of your idea, all legislative matters aside.
Sorry...
Re:want THC in seaweed (Score:4, Funny)
"What about genetically modifying sweetwater seaweed to contain THC?"
And when the kelp harvesters grab that algin, Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia ice cream will finally become the ultimate food and we'll evolve into a new race of walrus people.
G'goo goo g'joob, baby.
Re:want THC in seaweed (Score:2)