Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scotts Testing Genetically Modified Grass

Posted by michael on from the roll-the-concrete-over-it,-to-try-to-keep-it-back dept.

Caseyscrib writes "There is an article on Yahoo! News that talks about how Scotts is testing a genetically modified version of creeping bentgrass, popular on golf course greens and fairways, that will be resistant to a common weed-killing chemical. Environmentalists have long opposed bioengineered crops of any kind, and fear that '...if it was to escape onto public land, we wouldn't know how to control it.' It is now in the final stages of approval."

12 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. How to control it... by nuclear305 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can think of several ways of controlling such grass.

    1) Pour gas, light match
    2) Use barriers that most people already use to stop plant growth.
    3) Shovel.

    In all seriousness, sounds like those afraid of controlling it are just spreading FUD. If we can modify grass to resist weed killer, who says we can't also make it vulnerable to something environmentally friendly like cooking oil?

    1. Re:How to control it... by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Until an entire field is covered in it...then several...then a large township...etc. It's not a problem to kill a golf course green with a shovel or burning it, but are you going to do the same with fields and larger?

      Look up the history of Kudzu for an example of something that once was thought of a great idea, now everyone hates it.

    2. Re:How to control it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      4) Find dogs, get dogs to pee on grass.

      I'm with you on this one. The environmentalists seem to be just spreading FUD. Although the article doesn't say how the grass was modified. It's one thing if it was spliced with polar-bear genes, it's another if it was spliced with genes from an already-resistant plant. Without details, this just sounds like hype.

    3. Re:How to control it... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, you might jest but what happens when this seed is blown over agricultural land? How will a farmer kill off this weed (weed being what you call any unwanted plant growth) without killing his crop?

      Even if the GM grass can be killed with a specific pesticide that only kills off that variety of GM grass that's not a practical solution: what are you going to do about all the other GM varieties that exist: spray once for each specific variety? How does a farmer easily tell which variety has spread onto his land in the first place?

      And what about organic farmers who livelyhoods depend on the use of no artificial chemicals whatsoever? GM infestation can destroy their businesses faster than you can imagine.

      These and other concerns haven't been properly addressed by Monsanto, etc in their rush to make a profit at any cost.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  2. Cool by Grant29 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm all for getting a grass strain that will also work in my yard. I'd perfer a short grass that didn't need much mowing and also have weed prevention. That seems like it would be a hot seller, but then again Scotts also sells seed, fertilizers, weed products, etc. I have a feeling that they wouldn't want it to be availiable to the common man. If they did, they'd probably charge an arm and a leg for it.

    --
    Retail Retreat

    1. Re:Cool by stecoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they'd probably charge an arm and a leg for it

      If the cost was too prohibitive for the common man than there might be market to grow and sell the seeds in the third tier market. I wonder how long it would take for RIAA to beat down your door?

  3. Great, what we all need is resistant grass. by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So they can pour that weed-killing chemical with no fear of damaging the golf course. But, what about me? I haven't been genetically reengineered, I guess that too many chemicals around may affect me somehow.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  4. Two Problems by thorgil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Basically two problems:

    1. Modified grass spreads and become "Superweed".
    2. Modified genes spread to other species, either by hybridization or vectors such as bacteria. (Agrobacterium tumefaciens as an example)

    This is what opposers are afraid of. /Tobias

    --
    Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
  5. lets face facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No where, ever, has GM crops ever been found dangerous, after years and years of testing, and years of it being grown and eaten (mainly in third-world countries - which would have starved if it wasn't for this 'green revolution').

    It's simply NOT BAD FOR YOU, and I don't see what the problem is, they're making it resistant to common diseases etc that effect these plants, they're hardly crossing it with a shark or nuclear bomb or whatever people are scared about.

    Don't be scared just because you're too ignorant to know enough about it, seriously.

  6. Un-american? by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "We've been here since the 1970s. It would be un-American to be scared away," Harriman says.

    Say WHAT?

    I was fairly indifferent to both sides of the argument until I read that little gem at the end of the article.

    What in the world does being American have to do with any of this? What, in Mr. Harriman's opinion, is considered "American"? The goal of making money at any cost, without losing much sleep over considering consequences to the environment or to the society? That's what he seems to be implying... I'm not American, but if I were, I'd probably be outraged at a fellow American making a statement like that.

    --
    ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
  7. Re:Problems with Monsanto's Approach by gabebear · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Monsanto/Scott don't have the best track record with GM plants.

    I wonder if they started engineering grass because it's easier for their PR department to sue golf course superintendents then farmers. Monsanto sued a Saskatchewan Canadian farmer and won, after his farm was contaminated with their Roundup-Ready canola seeds. He was fined $15/ac x 1030 ac, plus the value of his crop $105,000, plus $25,000 for punitive and exemplary damages.

    creepgrass is considered a weed by a lot of people, this stuff is going to spread.

  8. Re:More FUD by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's the point. They initially relied on animal models, which turned out to have no correspondance in humans.

    Of course, they only discovered that after a town in CA was razed to the ground because of a dioxin scare. Turned out that after years of living with massively high levels of dioxin in Italy, actual humans showed no signs of increased cancer levels.

    Of course, in retrospect people remembered that for decades dioxin had been filling factories without the workers in them being hurt by it.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.