Slashdot Mirror
Scotts Testing Genetically Modified Grass
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."
Scotts makes toilet paper, not grass. WTF??? I don't know if I want my grass messed with, guys. Maui Wowie made by a toilet paper company? What will they think of next? I hope they don't want me to wipe my ass with it...
welcome our new genetically engineered creeping bentgrass overlords.
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?
What do you do, lie on to for a while, and seee if tries to swallow you
Perhaps the environmentalists could buy a "lawn mower" to control the grass that gets out on public land. But I still fail to see the concern. Are they using weed killer to control it now? That seems a little, uh, antienvironmentalist.
Oh no! How are we going to stop the smooth, soft, vibrant grass that they use on golf courses from overtaking our lawns!?
Please. I beg you. Dump some of this on my lawn.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
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
Gina Ramos, in my view, is entirely correct in pointing out the obvious cons of the entire exercie and as numerous polls seem to suggest that she is certainly backed by most people than the Scotts and not to forget... "Tiger Woods hates this stuff," Harriman says.
i live on an alternate planet
This is not an insightful comment in the slightest. By this reasoning, man would have never left the caves, developed agriculture, or gone into space. Apparently some slashdotters love cool computer technology, but hate other technology.
If this stuff spreads off the golf course, does the maker come after you for a patent violation?
...testing a genetically modified ... creeping ... resistant to killing ... fear that ... if it was to escape ... we wouldn't know how to control it
Shouldn't this be in the games section?
Not to trivialize the issue of bioengineered crops, but to focus on it misses what's probably the more important point... this particular "crop" is designed to allow even more use of toxic chemicals that are poisoning the water supply. It's a big step in the wrong direction. If they're going to bioengineer grass, it should be with the purpose of reducing the need for chemicals in mind.
i really wish that corporations had standards to meet for producing genetically modified organisms. most people think that genetic engineering is inherently destructive and this simply isn't true. genetic engineering done responsibly could be a wonderful boon to our society. people also forget how destructive we've been without it - simply introducing organisms to new environments has caused terrible problems. unfortunately a few irresponsible corporations could give the whole technology a bad name.
(of course, i think we'll get over this in the next couple decades)
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
We already know what havoc creatures can create if they are moved from their original home and place in a new environment. Yet we are willing to create new species and set them loose into the world without so much as a concern for what the impact on the environment might be? Once that grass spreads beyond the golf courses and invades the yards of peoples' homes, how are they supposed to kill it without killing their own grass. We are so quick to pass judgement on genetically engineering animals, but when it comes to plants (which can cause just as much damage to the environment, if not MORE) we are willing to modify them in any way possible and place them out into the world? It's sick. Any form of genetic engineering should be banned until more is known about it's effects and the ethics of it can be worked out.
I think this happened once already.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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
I haven't heard anybody complain how we tampered with Mother Nature to create these modern crops.
Reminds me of Colleurpa Taxipholia, a genetically engineered version of seaweed for use in fishtanks to withstand different temperatures, and was superior to all other seaweed.
Only problem is that it escaped into marine life and is currently taking over many areas of the sea, killing all marine life in its path (cannot be eaten as it is poisonous to most). Because of its superior nature there isn't an easy way to stop its spread, and it continues to grow.
Sounds like a similar scenario anyways.
And look at it this way. If this grass spreads beyond control...everything becomes a golf course... SWEET
Basically two problems:
/Tobias
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.
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
I want a genetically-modified grass that:
(1) never needs mowing
(2) runs Linux
(3) fires warning lasers at door-to-door solicitors (may include the religious type)
(4) emits pheromones to attract gorgeous women
(5) each blade serves as an access point for a wireless network
(6) emulates all known video game consoles
(7) kills all insects upon contact
(8) blocks spy satellite scans
(9) makes julienne fries
The coolest voice ever.
I believe the environmentalists are more afraid that the mutant grass will become self-aware and begin to assimilate native grasses into some sort of "collective".
"Four years ago, a group dubbing itself the Anarchist Golfing Association broke into a seed research facility in Portland, Ore., and stomped on experimental plots, then spray-painted the walls with the slogan, "Nature Bites Back."
This is simply unrealistic. Would you be able to hear message from a group that's 'dubbing itself'? No! Of course not, self dubbed messages are always scratchy and difficult to understand. Why can't these environmental groups get a clue and hire a recording engineer?
-Adam
Killing it is easy... identifying it is the problem I believe they are referring to. Of the millions of blades of grass in your yard, how would you identify the ones that may have been bioengineered?
I'm a lefty environmentalist, and I oppose this, but not for the reasons you might think. I also work in biotech, and unlike many of my fellow environmentalists, I believe strongly in the potential of genetically-modified plants. There are an enormous number of applications that could be of significant benefit to humanity:
And instead they're concentrating on making golf courses greener? WTF? Golf courses will have weeds, and bare patches, and, you know, a little of bit of something that looks kind of natural. If you don't like it, fine, go play on Astroturf. I'm a lot more concerned about people being able to eat than I am about some rich guy's putting green.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I thought that regular lawn grass was already pretty resistant to weed killer. At least, the last time I put weed killer on a lawn, the weeds died and the grass didn't. So Scott is making a product that acts like normal grass.
Genetic modification is a tool. There are many, many advancements to be made by exploiting this new resource. It's new technology, people will be scared of it. The same was true with electricity.
There once was a fear of AC as opposed to DC, Edision wanted everyone to believe that AC was much too dangerous to be used. Of course...he had an ulterior motive, as the major provider of DC power. There may be some lessons from this which might apply to some aspects of the current debate over genmod crops.
...
All able bodied goats, donkeys and cows are to report you your local draft board. We will fight the creeping menace. We will stop the evil...
Well, suddenly the bull frogs started turning up in wet areas FAR from where they were originally introduced. No one knew that they could cover such long distances without water. Then they started eating all of the local wildlife that was smaller than themsevles: tarantulas, birds, other species of frogs, fish, etc.
1. Just build fences and keep them out, right? Wrong, the bull frogs learned to climb over the fences.
2.Posion them? How, when the poison will kill everything else too?
3. Bioengineer a poison that only affects bull frogs? On whom's dime, the taxpayers?
4. Kill them all with spears, guns, knives, and arrows? Tried that, night after night by dozens of volunteers: virtually no effect, the population held strong as ever.
But back where the bullfrogs came from, in the bayous of Louisiana, the alligators and birds that evolved alongside the frogs have no problem keeping their population in check.
Do you get the logisitical issue(s) of introducing new species into new environments (manmade or otherwise)? It is never easy to control.
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.
I'm sure fire will still lick it pretty good. Until they start adding some of those redwood genes, it'll burn just fine.
I can understand environmentalist's concern that it is one mowing away from spreading (what happens when a golf course goes bankrupt?) so why not also neuter said grass? If it can't reproduce, it won't be going anywhere. There are already many varieties of grass that can't seed, reproducing through runners. A variety like that would not be susceptible to transplantation by birds carrying away seeds...
"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.
...if it was to escape onto public land, we wouldn't know how to control it.
Apparently, they have never seen a herd of sheep in action...
Grass9! ;-)
Uhura thought those tribbles were cute and harmless, until they overran the ship and ate all the grain. What will we eat when this relentlessly pleasant grass overtakes all our crops?
The human race will not end in a dark nuclear apocalyptic wasteland, but rather in a cheerfull, neatly-kept lawn, covering the entire land mass of the planet.
Slow down there, pal. Things are just moving too quickly. We can't adopt new technologies without testing them (they test them thoroughly, we just say that) and they're crossing animals and plants for frankenfood (though this only happens in the lab and never in production).
Yep, it's safest to just sit on our hands and do nothing. Oh, and let's keep Microsoft around, what dangers lurk in the dark corners of Linux?
Ned Ludd
No, bot good for them. This is grass that can tolerate large amounts of weed killer without damage. It won't do anything to lessen the amounts of chemicals dumped into the water supply, in fact it could be worse.
If Scotts wants to engineer some drought tolerent, diesease resistent varities, then super for them. This stuff isn't that though.
Perhaps, but unlike SCO or MS FUD, this FUD has a basis in reality, or at least the Uncertainty and Doubt portions do: We are not certain what the environmental effects of this grass will be. We are not certain how other organisms will interact with it. We are not certain what large-scale effects on the ecosystem (ie, us) will have. Ecosystems are terribly, terribly complex and grass is a crucial part of them.
Because it's not that simple. They changed a gene that turns off sensitivity to a specific chemical in the weed killer. We don't know what else that gene change did. We don't know how it affects the grass's metabolism (or whatever you call the plant version of metabolism).
To put it in computer geek terms: it's like deciding to change a couple of variables and functions in your C library and recompiling, only imagine a C library that's about a trillion times more complex than libc. Could it work fine? Yes. Could it destroy your entire system? Doubtful, but conceivable. Could it have unforseen side effects? Almost certainly. Would you do it without large-scale, intensive testing? No. Would you do it without a damn good reason? Definitely not.
We haven't done the testing on this because we can't create a control ecosystem. And as much as I love golf, it doesn't count as a "damn good reason".
All's true that is mistrusted
By this reasoning, man would have never left the caves, developed agriculture, or gone into space.
Man did those things because the possible gains outweighed the possible pitfalls we could do a lot of things that would be incredibly stupid like kill half the worlds population with nukes, do you think we should? Technology!=progress, with great power comes great responsibility(and an even greater temptation to misuse that power)
In Soviet Russia Slashdot cliches use you
By an assistant greenskeeper: "The amazing stuff about this is, that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff."
The annoying thing about this is that it is not engineered to be resistant to pests. It's engineerd to be resistant to Roundup, made by Monsanto. There are lots of other such "Roundup Ready" products, including canola, corn, and soybeans.
The result of this is that farmers and now greenskeepers can douse their fields and fairways with Roundup. The Roundup ready plants survives this chemical shower, and everything else dies.
The problems with this are:
(1) The environmental impact of all this (extra) Roundup being released.
(2) The fact that growers become dependent on Monsanto for Roundup. Monsanto is, in effect, genetically engineering conditions that will lead to a monopoly.
(3) The selective pressures that this will put on all the pests that Roundup is supposed to control. In the same way that staph bacteria have evolved reistance to antibiotics in hospitals, the increased use Roundup will probably lead to the evolution of Roundup resistant superpests.
Obviously Monsanto is more concerned with profiting than the long-term economic and environmental health of the country.
I'm not against genetic engineering per se, but this approach seems to be fraught with pitfalls.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Smells like dead genetically modified creeping bentgrass.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Here in Australia (the second driest continent on Earth*), it is traditional to set lawnmower blades about 1 centimeter (just under 1/2 inch for those with 12 fingers) BELOW the surface of the soil. This results in "lawns" that are uniformly barren.
If this grass gets out of control, I propose a squad of Australian gardeners be sent to tackle the problem. Best part of this plan is that most Australians will work for beer**.
*Only Antarctica has less free water than Australia.
**As long as it isn't Foster's Lager. As the saying goes, "Foster's is like having sex in a row-boat: its as close to f@#king water as you can get"
A Saskatchewan farmer has been taken to court by Monsanto because his fields had some of their genetically modified canola. The canola seems to have blown in from neighbors fields and ditches. The case has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada but I haven't heard the outcome.
--RANT-- Monsanto makes SCO look like Boy Scouts. The sad thing is that lots of farmers support them and this makes them harder to fight. Let's put it this way; I wouldn't drink the milk in Florida because of the (Monsanto) drugs that get into it. Fining Monsanto has about the same effect as fining Microsoft.--/RANT--
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Scotts does a tidy business in toxic chemicals. Got to keep the money coming in once the lawn is planted, eh?
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
You continue to kill the weeds with a herbicide (roundup), but the grass is resistant to that particular herbicide and so does not die.
It means that you can go off on a spraying spree and not have to worry about killing the grass. i.e. You buy and spray *more* weedkiller.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Environmentalist need to genetically engineer resistant weeds to help maintain balance.
"Genetically Modified Grass" - Does this mean I can get super high?
Repeat after me: Agent Orange is in no way related to RoundUp.
Agent Orange is a mixture of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (reference).
RoundUp is glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine (reference 1, reference 2).
"Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
No, it is not sick. It is progress. Humanity has been "genetically engineering" crops for many thousands of years. Previously we did it through selective breeding that took many tens of generations to get to the final product, but now we can do it in just a few generations in the lab. Corn is a grass. The orginal wild corn is not much different from the grass growing in your yard. Very small seed-kernels and a small yield. But the ancient Maya, Toltecs, Hopi, Azetcs and others "genetically" engineered it over many years into the Maize Corn that we eat today. It took them hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years to get a final product. We can do this over the course of a few years in a lab by isolating and encouraging (turning on) beneficial genes. Did you know that that thousands of human lives have been saved by the development of high-yield rice that simply involved encouraging it to grow with a short stalk? (short stalks do not sag and rot in the water).
Now I will agree that there are two kinds of genetic engineering and that one suits me fine and the other I find disturbing. I have no problem with isolating and encouraging naturally occuring recessive traits. I do have concerns about "transgenic" engineering that splices genes from another species (especially when we are talking about animals instead of plants).
Scotts....fairways....golf :-)
the "terminator gene".
I'm uneducated in genetics, so I'll just assume that's a gene that gives something cybernetic killing capabilities. AWESOME.
The coolest voice ever.
I know people have concerns over the possibility of genetically altered plants screwing up the eco system and that they could possibly get out of control, but why not just engineer plants that don't produce viable seeds (I remember that some companies are doing this but I don't remember which ones of the top of my head). If you find out that the plants are somehow harmful to the enviroment you just kill them and that's it.
What we really need is not a grass resistant to herbicide, but a hardy grass that only grows to a maximum height of 2" and stays green easily, if not all the time. Of course producing this grass would kill SScott's fertilizer business, not to mention the mawnmower manufacturers...
But in their case I'm talking about marijuana. I remember reading somewhere that the feds were dumping pollen that produces low-THC marijuana on pot fields in Mexico and such... which explains a lot.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What amuses me, in a horrific end-of-the-world kind of way, is that the introduction of anything new into an ecosystem has ALWAYS had a impact on the whole system. Just becuase the human perception of time can't see the change by staring at it for 5 minutes doesnt mean the change is not there or any less profound. Change that moves that slow has to be proved by science which, as we know, is becomming just another corporate whore.
Also, look at the damage non-indenengous species have wrecked. South Florida is losing tons of fish due to the introduction non-native species. Kudzu is a foreign import. The huge rats-things called Nutria. Etc. Boy, I bet Monsanto will make a fortune in Feral Mutant Killer (to protect the children!) in 10 years time.
-_-
...Why did I just think of Groundskeeper Willie talking about genetically engineered grass?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
It's amazing. They rip the grass, roots and all, straight out of the ground. Then they clench the stems in their mouths and whip their heads so they can knock the root ball against a fence and get the dirt out. It's the most effective means of removing an invasive grass species that I've ever seen. Not.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
Read the article again. The "problem" currently is that groundskeepers can't simply dump huge amounts of herbicide everywhere since the grass will die. This grass lets them dump huge amounts of herbicide everywhere to kill the normal weeds.
Yeah, I'm jumping for joy over this. I was just thinking the other day that there isn't enough herbicide being dumped on the ground right now.
All's true that is mistrusted
How will any fine on Scott pay to clean up the extinction of a natural grass species it replaces, when it eventually "escapes"?
--
make install -not war
I always knew golfing would lead to the downfall of humanity.
we could ... kill half the worlds population with nukes, do you think we should?
Hmmm... Hmmm.... Which half of the population?
.
[joke people!]
.... some lawyer sent by Monsanto etc. will sue you for using their IP without paying for it.
Happened to some poor farmers in Canada growing Soy as far as I recall, they even sued one for keeping seeds for next year (they won BTW).
Have fun getting rid of the modified grass without paying your years salary.
my 2 cents
First the environmentalists complain that we are paving the earth. Now they're complaining that grass threatens to run rampant over the planet, wreaking its revenge on asphalt and concrete everywhere.
This might not be as bad as you make it since the learning will eventually benefit the industry.
The analogy is the consumer industry driving the semiconductor industry. It used to be that most of the innovations came derived from military needs, but when the mass market requirement started to fuel the research and engineering it really took of.
Same thing will with biotech, so in that sense the Golf course "waste" is OK.
Help fight continental drift.
Why go through all the bother of engineering this new grass when they can just do the following:
1) Engineer a type of Badger/Mole hybrid
2) Change the 'Eats:' variable to weeds
3) Pump up the 'Hunger' variable
4) Give it some of that cool red Terminator vision for scoping out weeds (think 'Target Identified')
5) ???
6) Profit!
Much easier.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Its one of those great FUD myths the anti-GM people like to spread. Monsanto at one time briefly studied whether including a gene that sterilized the plant to prevent it from reproducing after a generation. Thus a farmer would have to buy new seeds every year from them.. etc.
It was never actually made as it was considered infeasible and likely to piss off customers and it was officially terminated (pun intended) back in something like 1998.
-
the world will look just like the Windows XP 'Bliss' background, god help us all.
First the Scotts started cloning sheep.
/ 7t h/genetics/sciber/genetic.htm
http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/science/sciber00
Now they have to modify the grass to keep up.
How long do you think it will be before there's some Scottish breakthrough improving on dirt.
Or perhas SASA (the Scottish areonautics and space agency) will build a rocket that can send a sheep all the way to Dublin.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
The methods of genetic engineering are entirely different. Completely novel genes (from entirely unrelated organisms or dreamed up in a lab) are inserted randomly into an organism's genome using methods that are far more complicated than simply mating two organisms together and looking at their offspring. These methods may insert a new gene into a previously working gene or its control regions, rendering it useless. Or the insertion into a control region may make a previously inactive gene active, or cause it to express itself at a different time during the growth cycle.
Using selective breeding I can make better corn. Using genetic engineering I can make corn express botulinum toxin.
Mod parent clueless.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
Selective breeding is noit a form of genetic engineering. You muddy the issue when comparing the two. There is no 'engineering' involved in deciding which of two corn plants has better kernels. There is engineering involved when shooting gold particles coated with foreign DNA into corn cells.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
... should have something to say about this. I doubt farmers want Roundup-resistant grass infesting their Roundup-resistant crops, or passing the resistance to even worse types of grass. There is a reason why two bureaus within the Department of Agriculture have already expressed concern.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
I think people have not yet realised the company's plan of profit.
1. Make genetically modified grass.
2. Wait until it is accidentally spread to rest of town's/city's lawns eg. wind.
3. Sue whole town/city for patent violation because there is no way their intellectual property aka the grass could have got into people's lawns without them stealing the seed. This is because mankind can control nature with pinpoint control. If we say the grass won't spread because we cut it short enough, then damn it, nature will fall in place whether it likes it or not.
4. Profit!
The sad part is given past court cases they would actually have a very good chance of winning their case in court...
Case in point: after moving to Texas, we listened to a local gardening show to figure out what sod to use in the tract house we were having built. The local radio gardener d00d recommended Buffalo 609 hybrid as a good one to use: native, liked little water, resistant to weeds, etc. All fair and good, so we shell out kilobucks to have it put in.
It looked great the first two or three years, then bermudagrass crawled in. Well gee, wasn't it supposed to resist weeds? Yeah, as long as you don't water it. Then it looks brown and ratty and not resistent to kids trampling about, and the local homeowners association fines you. Oh yeah, you can't use pesticides on it since it's pretty close to a weed itself, and its closest cousin is, surprise, bermudagrass! And now with the rainy weather we've been having the past couple years, clover moves in. We've already replaced one section with St. Augustine (sucks water like there's no tomorrow, brown fungus patch, dies at the first sign of single-digit temps).
So let the golf courses have their fun. Just wait a couple years and see if Mr. Garden D00d still likes it before buying it yourself.
Whoops, I just lost all my nerd cred.
DT
Is this thing on? Hello?
The ONLY viable alternative is for groundskeepers to hire dozens of workers to *manually remove weeds*, but this requires abolition of the socialist minimum wage laws to be economically feasible. Are you prepared for THAT solution? You can't have your free organic cake and eat it too.
Skinner: "Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend."
Lisa: "But isn't that a bit shortsited? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?"
Skinner: "No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards."
Lisa: "But aren't the snakes even worse?"
Skinner: "Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat."
Lisa: "But then we're stuck with gorillas!"
Skinner: "No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death."
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
another huge problem is GE trees. the following information summarizes the issues.
[from: http://globaljusticeecology.org/index.php?page=get rees]
Background: Threats from Genetically Engineered Trees
Threats from the release of genetically modified trees into the environment are extremely serious and differ according to the traits for which they are modified.
Herbicide Resistance
Threats from glyphosate resistant GE tree plantations include:
o toxification and damage to soils (glyphosate persists in soils for up to 3 years);
o increased reliance on chemicals and susceptibility to disease;
o poisoning of wildlife and killing of beneficial insects;
o escape of pollen from engineered trees causing herbicide-resistant "weed trees"
resulting in increasing applications of ever more toxic herbicides to eliminate them.
Insect Resistance
Threats from trees engineered to exude Bt toxin include:
o the elimination of beneficial insects and creation of "super-pests": insecticide-resistant
insects which have few remaining natural predators;
o serious disruptions in soil microflora and fauna as well as fungus from Bt exuded
through plant roots;
o Contamination of water.
Bt trees also have a huge competitive advantage over their wild relatives. Should pollen from Bt trees escape, ecological havoc would result, as insect populations would be disrupted and Bt trees, having an unnatural advantage, could take over.
Sterility
Because of the threats from genetic contamination of native trees, any GE trees released into the environment would have to be permanently sterile. However, even proponents of genetically engineering trees do not believe that this is possible. GE Trees sterility researcher J.L. Hamrick states, "genes will escape, based on what we know about trees. At what rate, we don't know yet."
In Germany, a test plot of engineered aspen was given a five-year permit. Because this aspen was known to flower after seven years, harvest of the tree would occur before flowering to prevent gene transfer. However, one of the trees inexplicably began to flower after only three years.
In addition, according to The New Physiologist, pollen from a single pine has been found 600 kilometers (360 miles) away from the source. This means one genetically altered pine could potentially spread its engineered genes over more than 1,130,400 square kilometers of land, contaminating any native forests in that area.
However you look at it, the issue of sterility is a no-win situation. The most likely scenario is a plantation where most of the trees are sterile-resulting in vast plantations of tree clones devoid of seeds, nuts, fruit or pollen, which are incapable of supporting wildlife. However, there will be a few trees that will flower. The engineered pollen from these trees will contaminate native forests in a never ending cycle leading to an ecological catastrophe.
GE Tree Plantations Replacing Native Forests
Another concern is the potential for GE tree plantations to replace native forests. Roger A. Sedjo, of the industry think-tank Resources for the Future, in his report, "Biotechnology and Planted Forests: Assessment of Potential and Possibilities," describes the potential for GE trees causing increased establishment of tree plantations (most likely where native forests recently grew).
"The cost-reducing nature of the herbicide tolerance gene, glyphosate, suggests that its application alone would increase the level of plantation establishment in the range of 78,700 to 225,000 hectares (197,000-562,500 acres) annually over what would have been established on a worldwide basis without the innovation, thereby adding a net addition to global production of between 1.97-5 million m3 annually." (emphasis added)
Threats to Public and Private Lands
There is also a threat to private and public lands from GE trees. The inevita
If this is paradise I wish I had a lawnmower.
A cross between Kentucky Bluegrass and California Sensimilla. Especially if I'm going to be playing 18 holes on it.
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.'
Of course we know how to control escape organisms.
Kill them all -- burn everything to the ground.
Fuel-Air bombs for lesser evils; nuclear bombs for extreme evils.
-kgj
-kgj
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with your conclusion. You are correct that there are experts that know far more about the subject than we do. You are also correct about the AI researcher knowing more about AI than the secretary or mechanic. However, in both cases I think that the non-expert has a right to consider the possible consequences of a technology, and determine whether they feel the dangers outweigh the benefits.
There are always dangers to implementing a new technology, particularly one that may be difficult to purge if its consequences are undesirable. While I support the cautious use of genetically engineered plants, there is a real concern of loosing control of those plants if we are not careful.
The analogy to making changes to a C library are quite valid. When we make substantial changes to any system, we need to be careful to have a pretty good idea what the side effects might be. This is true of new code, of new medications, and of introducing new plants to an ecosystem. We shouldn't let fear of the unknown paralyse us, but neither should we dive headlong into unknown waters without first taking some precautions.
Atanamis
Where are they coming from? It's not quite clear, really, but I think it's Texas.
Meanwhile, I never hear reports about killer bee infestations in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, or Nevada--all places I'd expect to hear about killer bees from, on their way to California. For a deadly infestation that's supposed to be here "real soon now", these alleged bees don't seem to be causing trouble even in the places they've supposedly already overrun.
So don't play the Killer Bees Card on me. The real bees were supposed to have stung me to death ten years ago. As of today, not only have they completely failed to conquer California, but as far as I can tell, they've completely failed to conquer Texas, as well.
Please unsubscribe me from your newsletter.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
It's called clover. It's green, it's short, and it competes well with weeds. Needs no mowing.
I'm trying to encourage it to fill my lawn. 1/3 of the way there.
> Selective breeding is noit a form of genetic engineering.
Um, you are controlling the appearance/behavior/function of a plant or animal by controlling what genetic factors will be passed to it. How is that *not* a form a genetic engineering?
> There is no 'engineering' involved in deciding which of two corn plants has better kernels.
> There is engineering involved when shooting gold particles coated with foreign DNA into corn cells.
Ah, I see. It's genetic engineering when you use evil gadgets to do it.
Chris Mattern
Their business is lawns. They're just doing their business the best they can. What do you expect them to do, try to expand into a field where there are already strong competitors?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I work at a plant nursery as the Hard Goods Manager and part of my job is dealing with chemicals, like Round-up (glufosinate (sp?)) and grass. I recently had a discussion with a turf grass company that has developed through natural selection grass that is Round-up resistant. The idea is that the production of grass that is resistant to the number one weed killer in the nation would allow for people to control noixious weeds, like crabgrass, goosegrass, foxtail, nutsedge, quakegrass, etc., with out having to spend money on expensive and specialized chemicals. Also, with a Round-up resistant grasses it would eliminate the need for MSMA (which is monosodium methal-arsenate, aka an arsenic product) and others which are extemely toxic to the enviroment to control turf problems.
However, if the Oregon Dept. of Ag., says no, then the project is over. Most of the grass in this country is grown in Oregon and Western Idaho. Premuim grasses carry a "blue" or "gold" label that bears the State's approval of the seed. Golf courses use the highest and premium grades of grass that are not available to the public, and consequently will not use the same grass that you will find on the shelfs of your local Home Depot. Gulf courses will not use seed unless it has been certified by a Dept. of Ag.
Also, Bentgrass is considered a weed for home-owners. Most homeowners cannot afford a bentgrass lawn. The care is meticulious. A special lawn mower has to be used (the blades are like scissors, instead of the standard home-owner lawn mower that spins.) Additionally the grass requires an amazing amount of fertilizing. So the fear of this getting out of control is overstated. The only way this would get to seed would be for a course to defunct, or for some home-owner who forks out the money to let it go to pot. With the cost of bentgrass running at a modest $4-6 a pound, it is nearly twice the cost of Blue grasses, and three times more than the Turf-type tall fescues (of which you can have a golf course grade lawn by using premium seed). In other words, only millionaires could afford to have this on their lawn.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
The US goverment sprays columbian drug fields Don't mark me troll if you disagree, please respond. I think it would be great for the drug cartels if they could apply this technology towards their drug crops as a deterrent to congress for taking money from schools to pull shit like this.
Knowing congress though, they would probably send some funds to research some new "Super-Herbacide" that gives the fish a third eye.
...that a bunch of people seem to think that corporately-funded research should be considered "science" without any skepticism.
All's true that is mistrusted
Golf courses already drench their grass in weedkillers. No other way to get that perfectly flat weedless result. If anything, this might reduce pollution, allowing one application of the strong stuff to substitute for several of weaker chemicals. (Yes this would still be an economic gain to Monsanto - because the customer is guaranteed to use their strong stuff.)
Scotts Grass is people! It's people!
Man did those things because the possible gains outweighed the possible pitfalls we could do a lot of things that would be incredibly stupid like kill half the worlds population with nukes, do you think we should? Technology!=progress, with great power comes great responsibility(and an even greater temptation to misuse that power)
None of the changes mentioned were done by all humans at the same time. Groups started experimenting with them, and they were able to out-compete groups that didn't. There were plenty of similar developements which didn't work better than what was used in the past, but they didn't stick around because they didn't work. But it's not like anyone sat down and mapped out the possible gains and the possible pitfalls, and made a decision for all of humanity to switch to agriculture.
Unfortunately, genetic engineering is capable of introducing changes that affect everyone in the world. As such, the strategies that don't work have the possibility of negatively affecting everyone.
So, yes, this is a case where some amount of caution isn't unreasonable. However, while the world may be small enough that we can all affect each other, it's too big to expect that this sort of thing won't happen, whether one group likes it or not. It is a situation with a real possibility of disaster.
And just to clarify, I'm not against genetic engineering. I'm not anti-technology. It's an exciting time to be alive, with all the risks associated with that.
If history is any guide, it is protected, but not like you'd think.
Essentially, it sounds like Scotts is producing a "roundup ready" (rr) grass.
The scam works like this: Monsanto owns patents on the most widely used herbicide in the world (roundup). They also own patents on Roundup Ready crops (wheat, soybeans, canola...). They sell the seeds to farmers who can now safely spray their crops to keep the weeds down.
So lets say you own the farm next to a RR field and grow the same crop (but not a monsanto version of it). Natually, some seeds will find their way onto your property so your field will be contaminated. Next season you replant from what you produced last year - well NOW you have some rr crops.
Monsanto hires private investigators to tresspass on your property, take some of your wheat, soybeans, whatever, and take them back to their lab to test. If they find you have rr crops, then, my friend, you just got 0wn3d! That's right, farmber bob, they OWN YOUR CROPS! And don't think that being in Canada or Europe gives you immunity - for the most part, it doesn't. Monsanto is trying desperately to get it's GM seeds to propogate throughout the world so they'll be able to permanently extract licensing fees from farmers (that's right - you license their seed for a year, you don't buy it).
Having trouble swallowing that one? Try this on for size.
I don't see how changing the players changes anything. The rules are the rules and Scotts can do the same thing Monsanto does.
Lest you think this is coming from some wack-job leftie environmentalist, it ain't. I just think that Monsanto is every bit as evil as MS - even more because they're mucking about with the food supply - which means peoples LIVES!
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
Hey... it worked for God.
Yeah but what happens when the badger decides that _we_ are weeds? Arnold's busy, he won't be able save us.
Definitely. I live in a state with a lot of golf courses, and runoff (both fertilizer and pesticide) is already a big problem. Golf courses are huge--one hole is the size of a neighborhood, and only four people at a time can use it. It's time for golfers to be a little less anal about their grass.
-- . . ramblin' . . .
This was answered by Ward Moore in his science fiction classic "Greener Than You Think" (1947). (Highly recommended.) I don't want to spoil it for potential readers, but the consequences are negative. What's the best that could happen? This would allow greenskeepers to use glyphosate instead of the really nasty stuff they use now to control weeds on golph courses. Glyphosate being a relatively benign chemical. Most probable result: somewhere in the middle. I won't estimate the probable value to society, since the only value I see in golf is amusement at the people doing it, but it would appear that the downside risk is likely to outweigh the upside potential.
The first thing I thought of was the episode in the Creep Show movie that starred Steven King as the backwoods hick who found the meteor. "Meteor Sh*t"
Some people are like slinkys. They're useless, but it puts a smile on your face to push them down the stairs.
Seriously, though. GM crops are such a hotly debated topic that it's hard to see past the extremes of each viewpoint and come to a reasonable consensus regarding the issue. Americans have been eating GM food for years and have managed not to grow too many extra limbs unless you count the abundance of jelly rolls turned extra sets of titties that have graced the upper halves of many an American.
Genetic modification of foods can be used responsibly. However, I'm uncomfortable with GM crops possibly not being adequately contained. I think that should be the largest of our worries. There should be more freedom of choice and GM foods should be labeled as such.
Think KUDZU. Then get out your flame throwers, your, toxic poisons, tactical Nuc's, and be ready to fight the fight of your life...and lose.
73 49 111 01001001
Their closed-source version is a variant of better dog food.com where they don't just sell you the dogfood. The dog can only eat BDF.com dogfood *and* you only lease the dog *plus* you only can get poodles (and they'll sue you if poodle puppies show up in your neighborhood). The problem that Montanto is trying to solve isn't "how can farmers improve crop yields and reduce weeds?" Monsanto's problem is "How can we lock farmers into using our weedkillers?"
Think of it like a bug patch. Imagine we find a major vulnerability, solved by upgrading some software. The open source method might be to make that software available for people to patch into whatever software they're currently running. The closed source version would be to 1. Sell new software that works with the patch 2. Sell the patch, 3. Insist that all old software is dangerous and outdated and should never be used in business. (4. and then later on when a new worm comes out, a huge percent of programs can be hit all at once due to the monoculture).
With Andean potato farmers this is exactly what happened. You have farmers who've developed hundreds of different potato varieties over the years: buttery tasting ones, meaty tasting ones, ones that grow in drought / shade / various altitudes... and these potatoes could be susceptible to a particular pest (quite likely one or more of their varieties already had resistance: another story). A major North American company came in saying "Hey, our potato + pesticide combination is resistant to the pest. Buy both from us, then you'll have no problems. By the way our potato is patented- don't think about crossbreeding it." At the same time they launched a major advertising (FUD) campaign in major potato buying markets saying "Hey, our potato is the best most modern potato. Don't buy anything else." So farmers couldn't just patch their own potatoes- they had to buy into the product / product cycle upgrade of the NA company. Sounds familiar?
Or look at "golden rice." Who can argue with preventing blindness from vitamin deficiencies? Do you want Blind Babies??? But is upping the vitamin A content of rice the best method to get vitamin A to people? What about veggies which already contain high quantities of beta-carotene (yams? carrots? Other richly-colored veggies and fruits?). The royalty payments for Golden Rice could instead pay for a variety of other seeds. And if you do want to up the A content of rice, should people get to choose which varieties get upgraded?
And sometimes they're breaking standards while they're at it, (think like what VeriSign did recently with their redirect). For example, BT is a bacteria /toxin used by organic farmers for decades to kill certain insect pests. At the previous rate of use- as a spray- there was a very, very low probability of insects developing resistance. Decades of use hadn't produced it. Now that BT has been spliced into crop plants, the widespread planting of monocultures of BT crops means BT resistance is increasingly likely. As this happens the non-organic farmers can move onto other pesticides. But the organic farmers whose old standard- BT sprays- will also become useless have no backup. There was no system set up to compensate these farmers from their soon to be broken standard. Nor was their any "royalty" paid to these farmers who'd discovered BT in the first place.
It's called Kudzu.
How does it smoke?
...Those four kids on Telletubbies seemed to adjust.
people have been genetically engineering things since the dawn of domestication. You think the cows you eat today are the same as they were once in the wild. Or perhaps look at the many varying breeds of dogs that exist today. Genetic engineering is no more than selective breeding on a very very direct level.
Kent Simon Multitheft Auto
IAAB, and I'm constantly shocked at the persistence of a fundamental misconception of how drug/herbicide resistance works. Putting in a mutation or extra gene that confers resistance to a chemical does NOT make the organism stronger. If anything, it makes the organism weaker. The organism only has an advantage when that chemical is around. Basically, if golf course grass were overtaking parks and forests, and the only thing holding it back was use of herbicides, it would be incredibly stupid to release herbicide-resistant golf course grass into the wild. However, if the native grass isn't overgrowing everything now, the herbicide-resistant grass won't either. The worst case scenario is that we're going to be in the situation where we were before the herbicide was invented. It's the same thing with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which are no deadlier than bacteria were prior to the discovery of penicillin.
I'm not trying to trivialize peoples' concerns. I'm sure farming sucked before modern herbicides, and if the grass or a wild relative is a problem for farmers, people should think carefully about doing this. But it is simply incorrect to believe that this grass will somehow be stronger than the native grass.
Uh, how is it a troll? It's true, and it's on-topic, and you can't refute the arguments either - so you just call it a troll because you don't like what you hear?
What is is just so silly about technophobes is that they never win. The original saboteurs tried to halt technology by throwing their shoes at their feared machines. Did they win? The simple fact is that if something is possible to do, it *will* be done. What's more, within a generation, nobody understands what the big deal was. Nobody complains that flying is "unnatural" anymore.
I've got a simple solution -- the technophobes can go start reactionary communities similar in spirit to the Amish, and the rest of us can enjoy the fruits of technology, plus the added fun of having the technophobe communities as tourist attractions.
... and in similar cases involving actual human consumption FOOD, they are artifically creating a plant that can withstand the application of severe poisons, so that other plants nearby may perish, but their poison resistant plant will still live through a massive spraying.. that's it really. They want to sell more poisons,that'stheir business, which get spread throughout the environment, for "profit". Just to have marginally more "pure" golf courses. It's disgusting really. I do caretaking/mowing,etc for a living, and even I, who appreciates a sharp lawn, don't want to see this, some so called "advances" are just nuts, and a lot of the "advances" in use today should be curtailed.
Along with mankinds advances in technology has come the realisation that technology can be misused, unfortunately, we always seem to find out AFTER the fact of this misuse causing gross harm.. Some examples are all the "superfund" sites now where it was considered "acceptable" at the time to willy nilly dump toxic waste, then years later "uh oh, well fellas, guess we didn't know it would make all these folks sick and dead...sorry". Examples with "new and improved and oh so safe medicines" being recalled later, after the fact of much "testing" to "be safe".
I have several friends who have gotten plenty sick from "real safe, nothing to worry about men" Agent Orange. The government, industry "scientists" you name it all said it was "safe". Turns out it was hideously UNsafe, AFTER the fact of actually sickening and killing a lot of people. The same thing is happening now with "harmless depleted uranium munitions" -the weapon that just keeps on giving..and giving...
And so and and so forth
A good rule of thumb is, if some industry or scientist or government tells you to "don't worry, it's cool, trust us" is NOT
We need to balance potential benefits against probable potential hazards. NO ONE on slashdot is a luddite, we are all here because we enjoy technology, and it is entirely possdible to advocate technology, to use it, but to use it safely and wisely, and part of wisdom is to learn to say NO if something is just too dangerous.
We as humans have a duty to learn from our mistakes, and the one thing we should have learned is to go slow, and to not continually spread poisons or develop organisms that can be destructive. There is an exact reference here now, and a much serious problem, with poison resistant rapeseed (for canola oil) in canada now, and the "starlink" corn starting to spread all over. As a gardener, I know within a few years I won't be able to grow any of the corn I like, because starlink will have contaminated it all. I have made provisons for myself to some time in the future switch to greenhouse sealed containment food production-gardening, and have the pure food strain seeds I want stock piled and stored, because soon you won't be able to get them. Even worse coming are the "terminator" gene crops, which will, within a generation or so via air spread pollen and cross contamination, put basic food control and availability in the hands of a few corporations-across the planet. You won't be able to grow your own food without purchasing their seed and using their chemicals, and there is no guarantee that their seeds will be anything other than gross mass weight vegetables with little nutritional value, let alone the nuts cost of doing it that way. This is food we are talking about here, not just flavor of car fanboyism or even OS arguments. FOOD.
If one can't see the "wrongness" in that,in allowing the public introduction of species like that, well....
As to where the dna gets inserted, my bottom line is we got enough problems with the wild stuff, we don't need to be adding to it. Humans civilised behavior and social consciousness hasn't advanced near as well as our ability to just implement technological advances, that's why we need to go slow with the chemicals and biologicals. Humans can just get too greedy and LIE over things to completely trust them with such issues, there needs a radical slowing -not stopping-but a slowing in certain areas, especially releasing engineered organisms into the wild and spreading more poisons...
In the cool season range a fairly hardy low growing very fine leafed grass with weak roots. This is also used on greens in the south with much added work. Even an heebicide resistant variety can be easily killed in any climate. Don't water it! It is not drought resistant at all. If in a rainey area cover it with plastic. Not that big a deal.
11 years in golf course maintenace.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Great, now all they need to do is genetically modify humans, so that we don't get cancers and diseases from these weed killers.
Anything that can kill a plant, ain't good for humans, just look at agent orange, if you need an example. I'd rather live with weeds than die of cancer, myself.
Good point. I should clarify.
Yield is not the same as (short-term) profit. The Roundup-ready solution can produce better profit in a crop year even though it reduces yield. This is because application is simpler and it actually does a good job of killing non-resistant plants (weeds).
The problem with reduced yield is that for us (as soybean consumers) to get the same amount of soybeans through the Roundup-ready system, we need more land and more pesticide to do it.
But yes, studies show that it is a profitable approach.
BTW, I think your usage of the farmers is misleading. It gives the impression that our food is grown by individual landowners wearing John Deere hats and overalls.
It seems like most people who claim to oppose genetic modification of foods, plants, etc. are basing their views mostly on fears rather than any solid evidence.
Tell us that when Scotts sues you for lawn piracy. I don't think you understand what the hoopla is about, so I'll explain in terms /.'ers will find familiar :-) Worries about bioengineering are not limited to food safety. One of the goals of the biotech companies is to develop a terminator gene. DRM for seed. Prevent the seed from growing into plants that create more seed that will germinate. Maybe 6 generation termination. Whatever suits their licensing fancy. Now imagine that terminator gene cross pollenating and getting into the general grass gene pool (Stuff happens. GM genes even jump species. BT Corn genes have been found in other species of grass. Even bacteria assimilate GM genes). Oops, we just killed all the grass in America, but that's OK. We have a fresh supply of Scotts brand grass to make your lawn green again! And remember kids, Scotts brand grass will only grow with Scotts brand fertilizer and pesticides! Ok, that is a gross over simplification, but you get the idea. If you think this is just irrational fear, I suggest some reading on the subject. Genetic Engineering != Selective Breeding.
The reasons for famine are almost entirely political, with greedy s.o.b's hoarding food, stopping supply lines, etc. The U.S. produces so much surplus food that it pays its own farmers not to work their land. To summarize, the solution to world hunger is not a "miracle tomato" or anything like that; it is working to steadily increase the freedom of all the earth's inhabitants.
so, let it spread! more grass for everyone to smoke!
see:
www.percyschmeiser.com
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?
Two words: Agent Orange!
Problem solved. We already have plenty of experience safely clearing large areas of vegetation. It's simply a matter of using an herbicide that our scientists (don't worry, kids - they're experts!) can guarantee is safe.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
Those can be a problem but the resistance is usually to only one or two kinds of herbicide. As far as I know there have been no tillage resistant plants released. (tongue deeply in cheek)
We are talking about herbicide resistant grasses.
So here's the worst case scenario:
"AIIIIEEEE!! My Roundup isn't working! We're all doomed! Now I will have to weed by hand! (Runs away in fear)"
Call me when they make a lawnmower resistant grass. Then I'll panic.
Natural control: Outside of the tropics where Caulerpa occurs naturally, there is no known marine life that eats C. taxifolia in any significant quantities. C. taxifolia contains toxins that are distasteful to species that might feed on it.
2 03 .htm
distasteful. Not deadly. It's not killing all the marine life in it's path. They're just eating McDonald's.
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/caulerpa/factsheet
Yes it's bad. No, it's not as bad as you make it out to be.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Hey.. Cheech.. Did someone say grass...... Ya Man... Genetically modified grass!!......
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
...How will a farmer kill off this weed (weed being what you call any unwanted plant growth) without killing his crop?...
The usual way? With weedkiller? It's not like it's immune to all weed killers, it's only resistant to 'Roundup' after all.
what are you going to do about all the other GM varieties that exist: spray once for each specific variety?
Why not? I would think being able to do so would be a good, rather then bad thing. That way you can control what dies (weed) and what doesn't (crops). If you want to kill 2 types of GM weed, then use the weedkiller that they are mutually non-resistant to, or use a mix.
How does a farmer easily tell which variety has spread onto his land in the first place?
Isn't the up side to man made grass that it's been researched and very well defined? GM companies could publish an alamac and if the grass is physically indistinguishable from the natural version, a simple lab test will tell you what you are dealing with.
And what about organic farmers who livelihoods depend on the use of no artificial chemicals whatsoever?
If they don't use artificial chemicals in the 1st place, then what business do they have complaining about a weed resistant to a type of artificial weedkiller?
If you pull it out, feed it to a cow, burn it, block it's sunlight, use something other then Roundup, etc it still dies. It's not an immortal plant you know.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Maybe you eat Cheerios, or regualar old bread. Did you know that most modern wheat was the result of crosses between different species of grasses (barley crossed with macaroni wheat or something to that effect) The point is that two DIFFERENT species were mixed (each with "foreign" DNA) and the result wound up being fertile (yay plant gentics). Similar event produces donkeys - except they can't breed. You CAN compare selective breeding and genetic modification because they are almost the exact same process, just that one is a lot faster than the other. True, in this case the genetic material encodes for resistance, but all that means is 1 extra protein (most likely one anyway, probably taken from a bacteria) is being produced by the grass. This is a metabolic burden for the plant. Ie. against "wild-type" plants it would be at a selective DISADVANTAGE and would be unable to grow as quickly (it spends a ton of resources spitting out roundup resistance).
;)
If you want references, I'd refer you to Nature.com, Nature Biotechnology or Science, but you'll need a subscription to view most of the scientific, peer-reviewed articles at those sites.
btw - exactly how much round-up does the US Lands office spray in their parks?
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
...the empty lots littered with needles, homeless people, trash, and crack vials would become lush fairways. Sounds like property values are on the way up!
I just want grass that's engineered to only grow 2-3 inches so I don't have to mow it. Course, it'd be difficult if not impossible to do that with a monocot, and without the grass going to seed at its new max height. But then, IANA, and I'm allowed to dream.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There was a passage in the Bible about not sowing mixed seeds, if I recall correctly. Nobody I know has come up with a reasonable benefit to that other than the Israelites being God's people & doing things differently. Apparently, maybe here is the answer. Maybe it all has something to do with the way that bad traits are spread throughout the crops.
If the Israelites wanted to experiment with a new breed of a crop, then sowing only that new breed without mixing it in with others would allow them to breed without the risk of negatively affecting everyone.
I'm just thinking out loud. This has odd implications.
testing out my trending skills