GM Crops Create Herbicide-resistant "Superweed"

An anonymous reader writes "According to this article GM crops under test in the UK have cross pollinated to weeds, giving them the same resistance to herbicide as the GM crops. The article also mentions that this has been reported as occurring in Canada, which like the US is well past the test stage and allows widespread use of GM crops. What's worse, in Canada crop rotation has conferred multi-herbicide resistance to some of the weeds!"

Comments

Is it gene transfer?

[PCM2]

What's not immediately clear from the story is how this happened. They say they found the resistant plant in a field where GM crops were grown. They say they treated the weed with herbicide and it suffered no ill effects. But does that mean the weed got the herbicide-resistant gene from the crops or did it evolve the gene on its own, the same way that bacteria that are exposed to low doses of antibiotics can develop resistance?

I've mostly read about GM crops that are resistant to RoundUp. It seems pretty unlikely that a plant would independently evolve resistance to that herbicide. But what about the glufosinate-ammonium herbicide this plant was immune to? Is it possible that plants could evolve resistance?

Coca, too

[Cally]

Here's another sort of weed that's acquired herbicide resistance. How long before the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan get herbicide resistant opium poppies? They're American allies, after all, gotta make sure they get the benefit of American "intellectual property", to say thanks and make sure they can maintain their grip on power. OLh, wait, that was the wrong link! That's just about GM coca that's four times bigger than the normal plants, this is the RoundUp Ready[tm] coca plant story. My bad!

Returning to the topic - IIRC GM crops were eventually rejected in the EU a few years ago after a lot of hoo-haa when Monsanto et al tried to railroad them through. However as others have pointed out, wind-borne pollen doesn't tend to respect national boundaries... :(

It is and it isn't....

[purduephotog]

I can't believe this is 'new news' but... OK.

While attending Purdue we had our favorite Monsanto rep out lecturing how he invented/patented certain processes using copper on platinum. Very fascinating from a chemistry and engineering point of view.

While their, several of my fellows ripped into him in regards to some reports that ragweed had crossed with soy to produce an herbicide resistant ragweed. Cross pollination was the cause.

The rep pointed out that all 'leftover' crops are considered weeds, and to just use another herbicide to prevent the spread. Good points.

Neat Details

[putko]

FTA:

"Farmers in Canada and Argentina growing GM soya beans have large problems with herbicide-resistant weeds, though these have arisen through natural selection and not gene flow through hybridisation. Experiments in Germany have shown sugar beets genetically modified to resist one herbicide accidentally acquired the genes to resist another - so called "gene stacking", which has also been observed in oilseed rape grown in Canada."

That's really something: even if there isn't gene transfer from related species to confer pesticide resistance, good ole evolution will take care of it.

The article includes neat things too, like superweeds causing trouble on farms (they require dirty, now heavily regulated herbicides to kill) and wildflowers (AKA "pretty weeds") picking up resistance.

looks like it.

[twitter]

But does that mean the weed got the herbicide-resistant gene from the crops or did it evolve the gene on its own, the same way that bacteria that are exposed to low doses of antibiotics can develop resistance?

If people have been using this weed killer for years, it would be a strange co-incidence for the resistance gene to just show up three years after GM but not one or two. Transfer by cross fertilization looks like the most likely method, especially if the find the very same patented genes. Transfer to other people's crops has already happened, much to the dislike of those who wanted nothing to do with GM and considered it polution.

Re:Genes as IP - is Monsanto now responsible?

[rleesBSD]

Hey, the "GM crops + Herbicide" people are just taking a cue from the big pharmaceutical companies. The patents are expiring on all of the old herbicides ....

Hmmmm ... "How do we make the farmer buy new, freshly patented chemicals from us?"

Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio

[radtea]

Of course not -- I don't believe anyone ever does anything out of the kindness of their heart. I have yet to meet a person (even the diehard communists I know) who don't do everything out of self sufficiency and personal profit.

You need to get out more. And open your eyes. You are living in poverty while surrounded by riches.

That's their product. Farmers don't need to buy it.

Companies selling GM seeds have a responsibility to ensure that their product does no harm to bystanders. The free market ends where my fields begin. Unless Monstanto et al can guarantee that the modified genes will not get loose and hybridize with wildtype plants in adjacent fields they are introducing harmful genes into the environment for their own benefit.

The Monsanto Terminator gene is the perfect example of this: Terminator-infected plants will hybridize with wildtype plants in adjacent fields, resulting in progressive sterilization of surrouding farms. Monsanto will use this "marketing pportunity" in the "free market" to sell more Terminator-infected seeds to those farmers.

This is evil: doing willful harm to others for personal gain.

Re:Genes as IP - is Monsanto now responsible?

[joshv]

Clean up what exactly? There is no need to 'clean up' weeds that have resistance to a particular pesticide. The problems is entirely one for the manufacturer of the pesticide, as the chemical will no longer be as effective in the areas where the 'super weed' is prevalent.

You see, it's not as if these genetic modifications make the weed species invasive. It just gives the weed the same chemical resistance as the crop. These weeds were around previous to the use of the chemical. Now with the resistance gene they can continue to be around, even when the chemical is used. Again. Nothing to clean up.

Well, perhaps you are just worried in the abstract about some artificial genes sticking around in free-growing weeds. I'm not. Once the pesticides are no longer used, the genes will no longer confer any selective advantage. They'll then be subject to random mutations and errors and become quickly non-functional.

Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio

[TubeSteak]

You've maintained some decorum, which for slashdot, is admirable.

Once you understand what property rights are, you understand that you are the only one responsible for what you buy, what you ingest and what you allow on your land and in your body

You seem to be assuming that everyone has sufficient knowledge upon which to make a 'responsible' decision.

I don't see how that is a valid assumption to make.

I personally don't know enough about chainsaw design to look at a product and deduce whether or not the chain is going to break and tear my face open or score my shin bone. I don't know enough about centrifugal clutches to make an informed decision about how long my chainsaw will last before the clutch gives out.

I'm not sure how you expect everyone to be an expert in every aspect of purchasing and if they're not, it's their fault.

You sound like you're heavily influenced by Milton Freedman and his writing, so I'll give you a quote to refute something you said earlier about manufacturers' responsibility

Nobel-economist Milton Friedman also embraces the role of self-interest in capitalism. In his famous article The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits, as he asserts that business has no social responsibility other than to increase profits and refrain from engaging in "deception or fraud." He maintains that when business seeks to maximize profits, while respecting the guidelines of a free market by not defrauding or deceiving, it almost always incidentally does what is good for society.

Don't forget, for a completely free market to work, you need perfect information. I suggest you read the (lengthy) wikipedia entry on capitalism and take some time to think about the pieces of that entry that you don't agree with.

I think it's also fair to point out that much of what's been written by 'great minds' represents ideals. Ideals rarely work out in the real world..

Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio

[misleb]

The poor farmers are in other countries that cannot afford to subsidize farming like we do here in the US. The poor farmers are in countries where they have been lured into buying into GM crops and are stuck paying Monsanto for their seeds every year which serves as a drain on the local economy. It is like the whole baby formula scandal where companies like Nestle' convice poor people that infant formula is better (and easier) than breast milk. But by the time the poor people realize that they can't really afford the formula in the long run, they find that they HAVE to buy th eforumla because the mother isn't producing milk any more. Sometimes they resort to cow's milk and really mess up the infant nutritionally.

I'm sorry, but it is sick. They export their perfectly good food and labor, and we give them "Burger King" in return.

-matthew

Re:Superweed?

[Greyfox]

Monsanto would probably make more from superweed than they do from wheat or corn. I doubt they'd have a problem with the ethics of the whole thing, so their management must simply not have realized that yet. Either that or they're really good at keeping secrets. I keep waiting for someone to hack the gene for THC production into an orange tree or something, too. That'll make life interesting for the DEA when someone does that...