Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

#51

Post by andygates »

joshribakoff wrote: post #10

> European regulators, he said, are eager for a way to create a steady supply of THC and other cannabinoids without actually cultivating marijuana. “They are in fear that these plants will be grown and will support some illegal farming,” So the regulators are eager to flood the market with GMO THC, so they can stop people from growing their own organic THC? Sounds like they just want to commercialize & control it.

That's gloriously tinfoil paranoid and saturated with meaningless buzzwords. The conspiracy, if there is one, is the ordinary conservative conspiracy against fun.

Yeast is a great vehicle for organic molecule production.

Re: Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

#52

Post by nitrogen »

Kalium wrote: post #47
warmwaffles wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will learn from these experiments and if possible be able to create other compounds. I don't think the market for THC compounds is large enough to justify a massive yeast production, but if they were able to produce more than just THC with the yeast alone, it may be worth it.

Microbial chemical factories. Now there's a hell of a pharmaceutical future. Combine with GMOs and CRISPR-CAS9... Holy crap.

It's actually a pharmaceutical present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine#Synthesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#Synthesis_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Industrial

Re: Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

#53

Post by legulere »

joshribakoff wrote: post #10

> European regulators, he said, are eager for a way to create a steady supply of THC and other cannabinoids without actually cultivating marijuana. “They are in fear that these plants will be grown and will support some illegal farming,” So the regulators are eager to flood the market with GMO THC, so they can stop people from growing their own organic THC? Sounds like they just want to commercialize & control it.

They want to do what we do with all medication: Isolate the active agent and remove everything else.

This has several advantages: It makes dosing possible, as natural products can have vastly varying amounts of the active agent. You don't have to consider the effects of other active ingredients which might also come in varying amounts (this is especially true for cannabis, which contains several different active cannabinoids).

This is exactly what you want to do when you really want to use cannabis as a medicine instead of using the medical system as a trojan horse for full legalisation. It's similar to how you get pills with caffeine at the pharmacy and coffee at other places.

If you let cannabis plants or genetically modified yeasts generate the THC before you extract it doesn't matter. It's only a question of cost. You will get exactly the same extract that is in no way distinguishable. Most arguments against GMO don't apply for modified bacteria and yeasts in biotech - they're not viable to live outside of the lab.

Also it's pretty funny that you speak about organic and not commercial. Most cannabis is grown in hydroculture with chemical fertilizer and produced for a financial gain (other word for this is commercially).

Re: Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

#56

Post by shabble »

hnnicker wrote: post #33
joesmo wrote: post #2

I don't see how this is superior to having the plant itself create THC which is much simpler and cheaper. Other than being a cool trick, how is this going to change the world, as the article claims? It really doesn't specify how the THC produced from yeast is any better or different than that produced from the plant. Can yeast production be scaled up in ways that plat production can't? Or is it just that it might be…

There was a SF author (Bear or Brin?) who wrote an essay back in the 90's about the future of drug wars. Much of the enforcement back then was on stopping the import of drugs from overseas. But once gene splicing created a way to produce the drugs within the USA, the enforce would switch to raiding warehouses, etc. The next step would be when the technology reduced the drug manufacture to a table top box that could b…

There's the 1990 short by Stross - Yellow Snow: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/toast/to... along these lines.

Re: Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

#57

Post by verbophobe »

chopin wrote: post #54
unoti wrote: post #36

My lifelong dream of THC sourdough is now one step closer.

Afaik sourdough does not contain any yeast but bacteria. The finally prepared bread dough may but is not required to contain yeast.

As an avid sourdough enthusiast, I can assure you that this is wrong :)

Sourdough is a culture that's (mostly) a stable colony of wild yeast and lactic acid bacteria. Generally speaking, the yeast provides the rising power, and the lactic acid bacteria provide lactic acid giving the dough a sour (acidic) flavour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourdough#Biology_and_chemistr...

Re: Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

#58

Post by CuriouslyC »

aianus wrote: post #27
makmanalp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why I have an issue with meal replacement (e.g. soylent) stuff being used in the long term, or reductionistic nutrition advice that considers food only as a source of protein, carbs, fat and fiber. The fact is, we're discovering a ton of compounds in a ton of foods that have unexpected effects and benefits, not to mention synergistic effects that happen only when multiple compounds are together. To pr…

> To pretend that we know how all of it works seems like hubris to me. If nobody gives living on eg. Soylent a shot, we'll never learn one way or the other.

The problem is that in order to really "test" the hypothesis that soylent is equivalent to a healthy diet, you need to compare them under conditions of stress, and over long time periods.

Sure soylent might work for the average sedentary type in the short term, but how does it fare for an athlete pushing the boundaries of their body? Additionally, what is the lifespan of a soylent consumer compared to someone who eats a high quality diet loaded with vegetables? I would argue both cases would show the vast inferiority of soylent.

Re: Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

#59

Post by aianus »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #58
aianus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To pretend that we know how all of it works seems like hubris to me. If nobody gives living on eg. Soylent a shot, we'll never learn one way or the other.

The problem is that in order to really "test" the hypothesis that soylent is equivalent to a healthy diet, you need to compare them under conditions of stress, and over long time periods. Sure soylent might work for the average sedentary type in the short term, but how does it fare for an athlete pushing the boundaries of their body? Additionally, what is the lifespan of a soylent consumer compared to someone who eat…

Off topic but, what's the point of living longer if you waste a fifth of your days cooking, cleaning, and eating?

Re: Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

#60

Post by bduerst »

task_queue wrote: post #23
chadzawistowski wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between a chemical analogue and an alternative way of producing the same chemical. Glucose is still glucose whether it comes from sugar cane, corn, beets, or other sources.

Marijuana is more than just THC.

And coffee is more than just caffeine, but both are popular primarily for their psychoactive properties.
Post reply on HN