Cyanide-Producing GM Grass Linked To Texas Cattle Deaths

Peristaltic writes "Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are trying to determine if an unexpected mutation in a popular GM grass, Tifton 85, is responsible for the sudden deaths of a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas three weeks ago. The grass has been used for grazing since 1992 without incident, however after a severe drought last year in Texas, the grass started producing cyanide in sufficient quantities to kill a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas. Testing has found the cyanide-producing grass in nearby fields as well." Update: 06/23 22:59 GMT by T : Reader Jon Cousins writes with a correction that means the headline above is inaccurate for including "GM." Tifton 85, he writes, is "absolutely not genetically modified. It's a conventionally bred hybrid."

Comments

Holy f***

[Anonymous Coward]

This is scary movie nightmare stuff come true!!!

Grass that kills!!!

Re:Holy f***

[Anonymous Coward]

This is scary movie nightmare stuff come true!!!

Grass that kills!!!

Devil Grass

Re:Holy f***

[haruchai]

Ever seen Reefer Madness (1936)?

Re:Holy f***

[masternerdguy]

This is amazing. I mean this is like something from The Onion. Except its real.

Re:Holy f***

[nitehawk214]

This is amazing. I mean this is like something from The Onion. Except its real.

Fortunately, onions have sulfur not cyanide.

Re:Holy f***

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, cyanide production is common in lots of plants. Cattle sometimes die from eating too many cherry tree leaves. I don't understand the whole problem. Put plants under stress and they will produce more secondary metabolites for a multitude of reasons, including herbivore protection.

Re:Holy f***

[Tastecicles]

yes. I have this on my server, if anyone wants I can set it on a tracker - it's public domain so no problem.

Re:Holy f***

[Tastecicles]

cherry stones, apple pips, orange pips... most fruit seeds have prussic acid in them.

Re:Holy f***

[FatdogHaiku]

Ever seen Reefer Madness (1936)?

Yes, but I was pretty well baked at the time...

Re:Holy f***

[Anonymous Coward]

What a twist!

Re:Holy f***

[jopsen]

Chill... Notice how in the summary, this:

Scientists ... are trying to determine if ... responsible ... sudden deaths of a small herd of cattle

Becomes

the grass started producing cyanide in sufficient quantities to kill a small herd of cattle

And that only took a few lines within the same summary. I trust that journalists are sufficiently incompetent to report nothing but paronia.
Wake me, when scientist are done trying to determine...

Re:Holy f***

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I buy my grass seed from Ford or Toyota, to be on the safe side.

Re:Holy f***

[GargamelSpaceman]

The problem is that now there's a field full of toxic grass. What if the mutation is the new norm for the species of grass? If it outcompetes normal Bermuda grass, then Bermuda grass is now a toxic weed instead of a useful feed.

You're never going to destroy every bit of this grass. It will escape into the wild unless the wild is inhospitible to it. ( in areas that are naturally forested this sort of grass might not get out of hand, but in areas where grass grows without help from people ( such as in clearing trees ) this could take over. )

It would kill anything that can't digest the cyanide.

Bye bye species that eat grass.

Maybe in a field of Bermuda grass the toxic variant outcompetes the nontoxic sort but in a natural setting where species are more intermixed, the toxins wouldn't have the potency to be worth making. If only 1/3 of the greenery were Bermuda grass, then the plant would have to make 3 times the cyanide to be effective at killing browsers as it would in a monoculture of Bermuda grass.

Hopefully, there was something about this situation that keeps it contained.

This reminds me of the Organic Gardeners that selected for Zuccinni that withstood pests. Every year they planted the seeds of the Zuccinni that came through the least blemished and least bug-eaten. Then one year they got sick from eating the Zuccinni they'd inadvertantly bred for toxicity.

Report Them

[Anonymous Coward]

If a company is manufacturing chemical weapons that could fall into the hands of terrorists, it sounds like something the Department of Homeland Security should know about, right away.

Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it's not actually fiction, because right now it's just terrifying, but still cool at the same time.

Also, if this turns out to be true maaaaaybe all those non GMO quacks aren't such, quacks.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[JWSmythe]

Well, knowing how plants do spread over time, this could be catastrophic unless it is quarantined. We've already seen what happens with an invasive plant species.

This could be an ecological disaster. The grass isn't "new", and this wasn't a test case. It's been sold to farmers since 1991. https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=Tifton+85+bermudagrass

It's clearly for farming, but I wonder how much has ended up around residences also. In any case, this could be really bad. Looking around, it's most likely in too many areas, so it cannot be quarantined and destroyed. ... and I'm not a anti-GM nut.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Anonymous Coward]

... and I'm not a anti-GM nut.

You're commenting on a story about a widely distributed GM grass unintentionally producing cyanide yet still believing the anti-GM crowd must be nuts?

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Anonymous Coward]

You're commenting on a story about a widely distributed GM grass unintentionally producing cyanide yet still believing the anti-GM crowd must be nuts?

Yes the anti-GM crowd is nuts and this story only confirms it. The grass in this case was not Genetically Modified.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[yndrd1984]

You're commenting on a story about a widely distributed GM grass unintentionally producing cyanide yet still believing the anti-GM crowd must be nuts?

Since the grass in question isn't genetically modified, yes - some of the anti-GM people are nuts enough to try to use this to slam GM.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[tomhath]

still believing the anti-GM crowd must be nuts?

Yes, absolutely. Many grasses produce cyanide (usually called prussic acid by farmers). It's common and avoidable (Pro tip: never, ever let livestock graze near cherry trees. Wilted cherry leaves contain toxic levels of prussic acid). Plus this is not a GM plant, it's a hybrid.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[ubermiester]

Not GM grass. Naturally bred hybrid. The headline is 100% wrong.

Perhaps you should read the actual article before posting. And, BTW, the first non-PDF result of your posted google search says specifically that it's a hybrid not a GM strain.

If you're actually "not a anti-GM nut" you should act like one.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we're all commenting on a story about how grass has always done this and still does, but farmers don't pay attention in school and journalists think boring stories are more interesting if they make up a few facts like "this is GM grass and it has mutated" rather than asking a scientist who would say "Yeah, grass does that, fascinating isn't it?"

The same is sadly true for human food. If you tell average people that the sausages have a perfectly safe GM ingredient, they freak out and won't eat them. Those sausages would be perfectly safe, but they're imagining they'll grow an extra head. But drop the sausages on the floor, or let uncooked pieces of chicken drip onto them, and they're fine with that, because that's just normal everyday danger that actually exists, nothing to get freaked out about.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[JWSmythe]

Many grasses produce cyanid

And most grassy fields don't kill a herd of livestock.

Plus this is not a GM plant, it's a hybrid.

    Since you must be a botanist familiar with grass, can you follow the trail back for me? Did you work with Dr. Burton on it? All I've found is that is a hybrid of PI-290884 and Tifton 68. By the names, I assume they're also hybrid or GM. What is the lineage all the way back to native plants?

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[khallow]

It's worth noting here that the grass may not have mutated at all and simply behave this way under these circumstances.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[meerling]

No, they're still nutjobs. One non-gmo being declared a gmo when it fires up it's don't f-ing eat you you damn cow defense in drought situation and thus killing some cows dumb enough to eat it, then the press falsely declaring it a gmo, does not make the wackos correct, nor sane.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[EdIII]

It does not make anybody "nuts". The information was corrected, and you can change your position after the fact.

I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong. If anything, this shows how careful we have to be and not proceed with such a cavalier attitude towards research and implementation. This was 20 years. Keeping this in mind, the short term gains demanded by capitalism gone wrong make it seem pretty damn unreasonable and dangerous to not test the crap out of something like this for an extended period of time.

For the record, my biggest gripe with GM is what I see as dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind), dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences), using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species), and its affect (by use) on seed diversity.

Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops. Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[LordLimecat]

Except that, as noted above and in the revised summary, its not GMO.

Which demonstrates perhaps that the real danger isnt GM, its overreaction, bias, and preconceptions. Oh, and editorial failure.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Smallpond]

Feeding cattle a hybrid between conventional bermudagrass and a cyanide-producing stargrass strain is not GM. Just unfortunate.

The stargrass produces cyanide to protect itself from insects, for those who believe in evolution.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[sp332]

PI-290884 is the name of a sample of wild grass taken from South America. Tifton 68 is a hybrid of PI 255450 and PI 293606 which are both samples from Kenya. https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1993/v2-294.html

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[sp332]

D'oh South Africa not South America.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[ChromeAeonium]

Even if this grass were GMO (and its not), the anti-GMO crowd would still be quacks, for the same reason an evolutionary theory being disproven does not vindicate creationists and a bad batch of vaccines does not vindicate anti-vaxxers. They are not quacks for their position. Three decades ago, it was a reasonable enough position, just like creationism was before the overwhelming evidence for evolution was put together. No, they are quacks for how they support their position, although for some things, the evidence so strongly says one thing that opposing it pretty much requires crank tactics. They are cranks for disregarding all the evidence that demonstrates them wrong, cherrypicking studies that suit them (even when the studies are flawed), being deceitful to people who do not understand the topic, and misrepresenting facts to make themselves sound reasonable.

Oh, and if they used this to act as if all GMOs were bad, that would be a pretty quack thing to do. It was hybridized, yet no one would use this to say that hybridization is uniquely dangerous because that would be ridiculous. Why would doing that for GMOs be any more reasonable?

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, no - "The stargrass produces cyanide to protect itself from insects" is for those who believe in Intelligent Design.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[jaymemaurice]

Would you rather he said that over the billions and billions of years, the strain of grass and its decendants which produced cyanide did not get eaten by insects and became more prevasive then the same stargrass that did not produce the cyanide?

Why am I even replying to your stupid comment?!

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[ChromeAeonium]

That reminds me of a time I heard people complaining about research on genetically engineered tobacco, because God forbid something potentially dangerous be put into your cancer sticks.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[yndrd1984]

It does not make anybody "nuts".
You're right, trying to malign an innocent party for political gain isn't nuts, it's immoral.

I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong.
This is not hybridization gone wrong, it's grass doing what grass sometimes does. Lots of perfectly normal, naturally-occurring species of grass will do that.

dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind)
They use lots of containment. It's fine if you think they need more, but there are lots of regulations about handling experimental varieties.

dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences)
It's the same protection that other kinds of plant varieties have, it's not GMO-specific.

using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species)
Except that 'saturating' farms reduces the amount of fuel and pesticide used, because three large doses use less pesticide than a dozen half-doses; and makes it harder for resistance to develop, because being partially resistant doesn't help, and all-or-nothing resistance is a rare development (just like how we use antibiotics).

its affect (by use) on seed diversity
Only because right now there are few companies that are willing to risk public ire and a small number of GMOs have been wildly successful. As more varieties are developed, patents expire, etc diversity should go up.

Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops.
That hasn't been a problem so far, except for a few people who tried to use patented varieties without paying. And just so you know, natural movement of genes won't get you sued.

Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.
Are people still spreading those stories? Sad.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[ChromeAeonium]

I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong.

Are you now anti-hybrid? Why or why not? And why oppose something based on its creation instead of its properties? The term 'anti-GM' simply does not make sense, because a Bt cotton is not a Round-Up Ready sugarbeet is not a Rainbow papaya is not an Arctic apple is not a Golden Rice is not a Vistive Gold soybean is not a DroughtGard corn is not a Flavr Savr tomato is not an Applause rose. Those are all very different and to oppose them based on their origin is irrational.

If anything, this shows how careful we have to be and not proceed with such a cavalier attitude towards research and implementation.

Strange that no one will suggest that we should not change thousands of genes at once and instead stick with simply moving one or two at a time, hm? And no one is disagreeing with you there either, however, that does not imply that we attempt to prove a negative either.

my biggest gripe with GM is what I see as dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind)

Most research does have strict regulations as to pollination barriers. There are mistakes sure (like the Liberty Link rice indecent) but for the most part that is well considered.

dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences)

I guess that's more a matter of opinion. I don't really see anything wrong with patenting what one creates. It really isn't much more of an extension fo the plant patent laws we've had for decades (and considering that improved plants benefit everyone, plant breeders and by extension genetic engineers should be the first to get patents). I can certainty see how that would seem to offer potential for abuse, but then again, the slippery slope is a fallacy.

using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species)

That's not anti-GM, that's just just downright wrong. Ge crops have reduced pesticide use, perhaps you're thinking herbicides? And if so, not all herbicides are created equal. I'm much rather have glyphosate used than some of the other ones out there. Don't forget, when controlling weeds, you've got about three choices: herbicides, tillage (which results in soil erosion and fertilizer runoff), or an army of people doing the backbreaking task of picking weeds (usually migrant workers who may or may not be working in exploitative conditions). Me, I choose herbicides. And as for rapid evolution of resistances, yet, that happens in insects, weeds, and pathogens even in conventionally bred improvements. Don't confuse the issues of resistance breakdown and resistant weeds for GE exclusive issues, be it late blight strains overcoming resistance genes in tomato or hessian flies overcoming resistance genes in wheat (neither of which are GE). These are problems, but they are arguments for better management of crops, not stopping crop improvements.

and its affect (by use) on seed diversity.

Lets not forget that all improvements come from diversity, and all improvements reduce biodiversity. Biodiversity is extremely important, but biodiversity is represented by many many genes within the species. The reduction of these genes and the insertion of a genes via GE are independent events. Personally, I'd like to see GE be used to improve undercultivated species like sunchoke, jujube, and teff. The current level of research on such species is, quite frankly, dangerous, but again, this has bugger all to do with genetic engineering.

. Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Anonymous Coward]

Please be coherent when arguing about others sanity.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Belial6]

I have sympathy with those that distrust vaccines. Given that bad vaccines are being given as SOP. Look up how many people died of Chicken Pox before the vaccine became standard. Then look at how many die now that it is part of the standard regiment of vaccines. Then look at how long the vaccine lasts as well as the risk involved in delaying the disease. Finally look at the reasons the CDC gives for giving the vaccine.

Those that have the Chicken Pox vaccine given to their kids (the vast majority of parents) are just as guilty of being stupid over vaccines as those that don't vaccinate. Well, either that or they are simply evil for increasing their child's risk so that they can save a few bucks and avoid caring for their child.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[kurzweilfreak]

It does not make anybody "nuts". The information was corrected, and you can change your position after the fact.

I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong. If anything, this shows how careful we have to be and not proceed with such a cavalier attitude towards research and implementation.

It still makes you anti-science. If anything, this event shows the advantages of genetic modification: we aren't relying on the random shuffling of genes that can produce unintended side effects such as here. We can, instead, craft the genes to our need with surgical precision, inserting exactly the genes we need and only those.

Keeping this in mind, the short term gains demanded by capitalism gone wrong make it seem pretty damn unreasonable and dangerous to not test the crap out of something like this for an extended period of time.

GM organisms are highly tested, moreso than any other foods and to date have been shown to be just as safe if not more than conventionally bred foods. Despite claims by the anti-GM crowd that little or no testing occurs on these foods, see this list of over 400 different safety assessment studies. Nothing can ever be proven to be 100% safe 100% of the time, even conventional foods as perfectly evidenced by this incident.

For the record, my biggest gripe with GM is what I see as dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind)

Can you give examples of this "dangerously performed research" or is that just the way you imagine it happens? I'm genuinely curious what you know about the process that I don't.

...dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences)

This reservation I'm actually still on the fence about. There are logical reasons for and against, but I haven't yet spent the brainpower thinking both sides through so I'm currently undecided here.

...using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species)

You think farmers want to saturate their farms with pesticide? GM crops require fewer pesticides due to their natural resistance. You could argue that this natural resistance itself could have bad side effects on us, but again that's exactly the kinds of things that are extensively tested for. No one is going to want to put out and be liable for a product that causes more harm than good (well, cigarette companies notwithstanding).

Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops. Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.

I agree with you here, but Monsanto isn't the only GM crop company, and you shouldn't be anti-science and anti-GM because of the questionable business practices of one company any more than you should reject computer technology because Windows gets viruses.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Anonymous Coward]

... using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides ...

The original argument for GM plants was elimination of disease and pests. Now, apparently, those genes splices are poisonous/ineffective. Or, Mosanta wants to sell you the seeds And the pesticides.

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[JWSmythe]

    Thank you. So it's an issue with selective breeding bringing out unwelcome traits, rather than more direct genetic manipulation. Either one is bad, we just know the tech involved now. :)

Re:Ok, now THAT is a cool sci-fi story

[Anonymous Coward]

Varicella sucks. It doesn't tend to /kill/ kids but it still sucks and can require hospitalisation. I had it, and I'd rather not have.

The /only/ problem with the vaccine is that if you're an adult who isn't vaccinated (or who skips boosters for too long) you can get Shingles as a result of contact with an infected child due to reduced population exposure. Overall it's worthwhile if you can hit the numbers, which would be easily possible if not for people like you scaremongering.

Dear Mr Abel

[drewsup]

How dare your heard of cattle defame the good name of our company by having the nerve to DIE after eating our product. You sir, will be hearing from our attorneys.

Sincerely,
The Monsanto Group

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

I didn't realise FunnyJunk was in the GM business.

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear CBS News,

Regarding your story of June 23 titled, 'GM grass linked to Texas cattle deaths.' Please be advised that you may be in violation of statutes regarding libel. To avoid additional counts in the lawsuit, which our attorneys will be serving shortly, please remove this story at once.

Sincerely,
The Monsanto Group

*fixed it for you

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[tomhath]

/s/The Monsanto Group/University of Georgia/

University of Georgia at Tifton and USDA, Monsanto is not involved at all.

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[Anonymous Coward]

Not funny, true story down here in China.

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey. Hey. Hey. Facts have no place in anti-GM arguments!

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[khipu]

You'd be amazed by all the completely natural plants that cattle will eat and that will kill them.

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[LordLimecat]

A) Tifton85 isnt a Monsanto product
B) Tifton85 isnt a GM product-- its a hybrid
C) Some plants actually do produce cyanide, and they dont have to be GM to do so.

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[Mannfred]

Cows are remarkably resilient too. Sort of funny story - my dad grew up on a farm with cows roaming around freely, and they also used to mix red ochre with old engine oil for painting buildings.. Yeah, you can see where this is going. One day one of the cows drank a bucket of the paint. The cow survived, but for the next 3 days it was excreting red dung all over the yard.

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since the GM part is a lie, the story could be libellous. At best, it's badly researched.

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh don't mod this motherfucker down.

A) Tifton85 isnt a Monsanto product
B) Tifton85 isnt a GM product-- its a hybrid
C) Some plants actually do produce cyanide, and they dont have to be GM to do so.

D) We Glitched the Story on purpose to get the Muppets on track with Monsanto's Legal View. Because right now the shiny light is too bright for the shit scum officials who just said no to GMO labels.

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[rubycodez]

yes, even too much alfalfa or white clover can sometimes cause deadly bloating with asphyxiation or internal hemorrhaging. My Grandad and uncles would sometimes have to lance cattle swollen to a balloon shape, releasing a very putrid gas, in order to save their lives. The cattle find an area of the pasture lush with that kind of stuff and what do they do? same thing as a four year old kid left unattended in a candy shop, that's what.

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[GargamelSpaceman]

Browsers eat a little of everything given the choice and generally not a toxic quantity of anything.

y

Re:Dear Mr Abel

[khipu]

Red ochre is non-toxic. And engine oil really isn't acutely toxic (it's not much different from petroleum jelly), but it is loaded with mutagens, heavy metals, carcinogens, and teratogens. Those won't cause the cows to fall over and die, but they will go into the milk and meat and increase the risk of cancer and birth defects in humans who consume those products.

Will there be lawsuits?

[reboot246]

I hope so!!

You know, of course, that a lot of the food you eat is GM food.

Re:Will there be lawsuits?

[Anonymous Coward]

The food you eat is usually made from sterile seeds. There is no chance of it mutating. I hope there are lawsuits too, but not because what I eat is GM, but because the cattle were pretty much poisoned and the owners should be compensated.

Re:Will there be lawsuits?

[Whibla]

The food you eat is usually made from sterile seeds.

Emphasis mine.

There is no chance of it mutating. I hope there are lawsuits too, but not because what I eat is GM, but because the cattle were pretty much poisoned and the owners should be compensated.

Wouldn't a supposedly sterile plant spontaneously producing viable seeds actually count as a mutation? I recall something like that actually happening some years back, when gmo's were all the rage (erm...being raged about). 'Fraid you might have to use your own Google-fu on that though.

Does this mean the end of gmo's? Nope. Are most of them safe? Probably. Does this mean that the anti-gmo folk were wrong? Not all of them apparently...

Re:Will there be lawsuits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me. I'm on a strict Ford and Toyota diet.

FP Bitches

[Anonymous Coward]

--see title--

Re:FP Bitches

[Exrio]

Floating point bitches?! Damn, and here I messin' with my integer bitches... Where can I buy?

meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[ozduo]

This is a big nail in the coffin of GM producers

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[haruchai]

I wouldn't be so quick to sound the death knell for GM. Some of the companies in the industry have been producing killer crap for a long time.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[Cheech Wizard]

I doubt it. Monsanto will come up with some way to turn this into "...cyanide-producing grass..." is a feature, not a bug. Now - Get out there and buy and eat more beef!

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[the eric conspiracy]

Unlikely this will affect GM since this grass is a hybrid, not a GM product.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[Anonymous Coward]

And we can rely on the top-notch reporting by the mass media to explain the difference to the general public. Sure.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[JWSmythe]

Once you open Pandora's box, you can't shut it again... This stuff is out there, and I doubt will ever be exterminated.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the grass in question is not a GMO. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of all that hammering.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[Anonymous Coward]

even if the media did explain it the American public wouldn't care. Americans love black and white dichotomies. It's either good or evil. Black or white. Capitalist or socialist. There is no in between because that's too hard to understand.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[ChromeAeonium]

Since this was not a GMO at all, I expect this will be a big blow to conventional hybridization, right? Or are we going to apply a double standard and act as if dangers produced via hybridization should be ignored while dangers form GE (real or imaginary) are cause for panic?

Meddle with nature and suffer the concequences you say? Enjoy your teosinte and goatgrass, and your poisonous potatoes, tomatoes, and beans. Enjoy your seedy bananas.and grapes, your small sour apples, your gritty pears, and the little flower heads on the wild mustard plants broccoli and cauliflower came from.. Because to do otherwise would be messing with nature. Hope those chemical defenses that were bred out of all our crop plants don't give you cancer.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[TapeCutter]

Once you open Pandora's box, you can't shut it again

So let's nail it shut with a few facts from a random but reputable source on the subject of prussic acid poisioning, ....
1. Sudangrass, forage sorghum, and sorghum-sudangrass hybrids are often used for summer pasture, green chop, hay, or silage. Under certain conditions, livestock consuming these feedstuffs may be poisoned by prussic acid (HCN).
2. Exposure to excessive prussic acid--also called hydrocyanic acid, hydrogen cyanide, or cyanide--can be fatal. However, producers can manage and feed their livestock to avoid problems with prussic acid.
3. Grazing stunted plants during drought is the most common cause of poisoning of livestock by prussic acid-producing plants.

Sounds to me that the farmer simply neglected to check his cattle for problems after he moved them. The GM angle has no basis in fact, it is a literary device to attract eyeballs.

Disclaimer: I've labeled myself an environmentalist for nearly 40yrs, I have no problem with GM food because the accusations against it have no basis in reality. I do have a problem with a economic system where it makes commercial sense to rip up mature orange orchards in Australia because we can import them cheaper from California. Unfortunately I don't have an answer and neither do the 'invisible hand' crowd.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[Hartree]

Save that there has been a major anti-Monsanto push going on for the past few weeks that's repeating things like this. I've been seeing neatly prepared images being reposted all over my social media multiple times.

Pointing out some of the errors in them just gets you insulted. Much like what is happening here. Someone notes "this isn't GMO" and is then rebuked for pointing out the truth.

These anti-gmo claims about non-gmo products are like the "acceptable truths" that Scientology uses. They're seen as fine since, though lies, they advance the cause, huzzah.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[lightknight]

In a way, he's right. Consider what happened with Fukushima -> even though the reactor was ~50 years old, and was designed to survive what was considered a fairly unlikely, but powerful earthquake, this did not prevent a bunch of dime-store politicians from attempting to extract as much political capital as they could from the situation. Broad declarations were made less than a month after the incident, with unaffected countries making grand statements of embracing green technologies & shutting off their nuclear reactors. The same politicians, mind you, having gotten all they were going to get from that incident, who have turned around, and are now ordering those nuclear reactors back online, or, if they have found themselves backed into a corner by their own words, are preparing to build a large number of coal power plants.

So yes, it may affect GMs, with a number of ill-informed members of the human race switching from vitamin-enhanced products to 'organic' versions. When their kids come down with some really interesting nutritional deficiencies, their homeopathic doctors will probably recommend removing the kids' spleens or something.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[Anonymous Coward]

My take on GMO's is not that they are inherently evil, but that the behavior of not telling customers is fundamentally immoral. I have a right to know wtf I am buying and ingesting. I don't go to the store and buy a bag of apples. I buy a bag of Golden Delicious, or Granny Smith, or some other breed. If my corn has genetic material from peanuts in it, I want to know since I have a son with an anaphylactic allergy. I KNOW that it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be unsafe, but the seller does NOT have the right NOT to tell me. I have the right to make that decision, not Monsanto.

Furthermore, while Monsanto's crops definitely can provide a benefit to farmers, their business practices go beyond immoral, it is truly evil. I have a right to know whether or not I am perpetuating their crimes against small farms, but currently I don't have that option.

It's not GMO's or hybrids or any of that that are the issue, it is the lack of disclosure. And for companies to say "Well people might not buy or product if it was labeled", to that I say tough f... s.... Funny how they are only fans of the "free market" when it works in their favor.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[ChromeAeonium]

I buy a bag of Golden Delicious, or Granny Smith, or some other breed.

That is probably the worst example to use. A lot of the apples you eat are actually bud sports. Basically, when a bud develops, sometimes there is a mutation in the cells that the bud originates from, resulting in a mutated branch. sometimes these have desirable properties, and are cultivated, but go labeled as the original cultivar, for example, that Golden Delicious might actually be a Gibson Golden Delicious, and you'd never know because they aren't labeled. You didn't even know that bud sports were a thing until just now I'd bet. Of course, you don't know if your peaches are Flamin' Fur or Redhaven, or if your blueberries are Patriot or Bluecrop, or if your raspberries are Meeker or Heritage, or the variety of the vast majority of your vegetables, so what strain of apple you're getting is hardly the only thing you are not being told in the produce isle.

If my corn has genetic material from peanuts in it, I want to know since I have a son with an anaphylactic allergy.

Fortunately no proteins put into crops via genetic engineering are unsafe (nor are they from peanuts), so that is not even an issue.

I KNOW that it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be unsafe, but the seller does NOT have the right NOT to tell me.

What if I told you that the pathogenesis related proteins in plants may provoke allergic reactions, and that we have been, through breeding, increasing them in crops to get better disease resistance? Does the seller have the obligation to tell you that too? The problem with your argument is that there is a lot of things we do to crops, and that genetic engineering is actually only pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Thousands of genes get shuffled around while only a few well understood ones are inserted. To focus on the inserted few and ignore the rest is neither consistent nor rational.

I have the right to make that decision, not Monsanto.

I agree that you have the right to do as you will, but so do the food producers, and if you do not believe they are telling you enough, don't buy their food. Simple as that. If you wish to avoid GE crops, either eat organic, or avoid tings with corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya in them (as those are the only crops currently genetically engineered).

while Monsanto's crops definitely can provide a benefit to farmers, their business practices go beyond immoral, it is truly evil

And I find reports of their evil to range from overblown to downright made up. When you look into what it is they do, sometimes its dickish, and in cases in the past (usually relating to their chemical manufacturing) it is pretty evil, but most cases today involving their crops, usually the person they are suing was in the wrong and everyone knew it. But stories like that don't sell was well as 'Evil corporation sues little guy for the heck of it'

I have a right to know whether or not I am perpetuating their crimes against small farms, but currently I don't have that option.

I'd like to know if my produce was picked by migrant workers being paid unfair wages living in exploitative conditions. I consider that pretty evil. At the same time, because it isn't something that affect the end product, I cannot support mandatory labeling for such things.

It's not GMO's or hybrids or any of that that are the issue, it is the lack of disclosure

Baloney. No one labels induced polyploidy or mutagenesis or wide crosses or embryo rescue or anything else, yet no one acts as if they are problems for not being labeled. the problem is not lack of disclosure, it is fearmongers who act as if that is something sinister and people who do not

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[makomk]

Unfortunately Fukushima wasn't designed to survive a fairly unlikely but powerful tsunami, and it turned out that the regulators in charge of making sure it was safe knew that and didn't do anything, and there was already a history of safety failures within the Japanese nuclear industry being covered up. Nuclear power's a brilliant technology but in practice there doesn't seem to any way of operating it safely given human nature and the way politics works.

Re:meddle with nature and suffer the concequences

[lightknight]

Or, you know, the Japanese could just spec in new reactor that's built to withstand a stronger quake / tsunami. Kind of like New Orleans, which was only protected up to level 3, and it needed a level 5 to survive Katrina.

But yes, the cover-up at Fukushima is reprehensible, and on the same level of the Western media declaring the end of the world during the same time. It's make it difficult to defend a highly useful technology in discussions like these when I'm forced to factor in human nature.

Except it isn't GM grass.

[mc6809e]

Tifton 85 is actually a hybrid of African Bermuda grass and Tifton 68, a different hybrid produced in Tifton, Texas.

It's not a GM grass.

Re:Except it isn't GM grass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey your facts are getting in the way of the usual anti GM circle jerk around here!

Re:Except it isn't GM grass.

[cervesaebraciator]

For those who're interested, here's a reference from the Texas Ag Extension Service. Finding more info on the matter is proving difficult (by which I mean it's taking more than five minutes) but here's a relevant quote:

Tifton 85 is a hybrid bermudagrass that was jointly developed and officially released in 1992 by the USDAARS and the University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station in Tifton, Georgia. It is a cross between a selection from South Africa (PI 290884) and Tifton 68.

Re:Except it isn't GM grass.

[Anonymous Coward]

So hybridization, which is a thoroughly understood genetic process that has been in use for hundreds of years, has unexpectedly killed a bunch of cattle. And this should not increase my concern about genetic modification, for which the bio-engineers have a couple of decades of experience?

Re:Except it isn't GM grass.

[Anonymous Coward]

And killing cows is something that might occur in grass because of natural selection. Remember nature is not your friend. Plants and animals want to kill you.

Re:Except it isn't GM grass.

[yndrd1984]

So hybridization, which is a thoroughly understood genetic process that has been in use for hundreds of years, has unexpectedly killed a bunch of cattle.

No. Some grass killed cattle, the same way grass has killed animals that eat it for millions of years.

And this should not increase my concern about genetic modification, for which the bio-engineers have a couple of decades of experience?

No. Because when someone chokes to death on an apple, only an idiot would start worrying about the 'dangers of irrigation'. There simply isn't a relationship between the two things.

CAPTCHA?

[6Yankee]

I guess those cows failed the Turing test...

BS

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to be kidding: this report needs to be retracted as it is completely wrong. Tifton 85 is a conventionally bred grass.

It's incredibly irresponsible to print something this inflammatory and wrong. You've now aerated people all over the world with this misunderstanding, and it will continue to be flogged forever with this incorrect information.

Further, people who hear about this won't know what the real issue is and it could cause more cow deaths.

Fix or retract this article immediately.

Pull the story. Get your facts straight. This farmer needs education from a local co-op extention. Any native or hybrid (NOT GM) grass can create this condition! Those that care for truth and real data go here and learn: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/sorghum.htm

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

This same comment (close enough as to make certain that it is the same author) appears on the comments of the news article itself. It seems to me that Monsanto's team of hired spin doctors are working some overtime this weekend.

Re:BS

[CAIMLAS]

So? That's really not all important at the time being. Whether it's conventional or not, the grass needs to be firebombed before it's allowed to spread any further.

No, I'm not kidding.

It's reputedly a cold intolerant grass which has high yields. That means it spreads quickly and will only become more prevalent as the world warms. Supposedly, this is an actual mutation and not just a short-term response to the severe climatic stressors.

If it spreads, it will not only kill off one of the most effective and inexpensive sources of fat and protein everywhere it goes, but it will make the land unsuitable for grazing at all, for who knows how long. Possibly forever. Everywhere the plant grows will eventually become a deadzone to pretty much everything else due to the cyanide content (which will kill anything which eats it or the things which eat the things which eat it, including insects, other mammals, and birds). In all possibility, this would result in the entire warm region of America becoming desert, for all we know.

Maybe I'm being alarmist, but to me, it's better safe than sorry - sorry being a desert planet. :(

Re:BS

[jamesh]

Lets hope Monsanto can quickly genetically engineer this dangerous hybrid grass to something safer before it destroys the world!!

Realistically though, their business model would be more likely to come up with cyanide resistant cows as a more marketable solution...

Re:BS

[jamesh]

So? That's really not all important at the time being.

No it's very important. A major piece of misinformation like that is enough to cast doubt on all aspects of the story.

Maybe I'm being alarmist, but to me, it's better safe than sorry - sorry being a desert planet. :(

The "think of the children" approach?

Re:BS

[yndrd1984]

--Tifton 85 is a conventionally bred grass.

-Monsanto's team of hired spin doctors are working some overtime this weekend.

How is correcting a major factual mistake in a story "spinning" anything?

Re:BS

[rohan972]

Maybe I'm being alarmist, but to me, it's better safe than sorry - sorry being a desert planet.

You are being alarmist and it is not better to take drastic action unnecessarily than to know what you are doing. You are not going to get a desert planet from this. They are testing to see if it's a mutation because the weather events were not the ones they would have expected to produce cyanide. Production of cyanide by grasses is known and understood, this just happened unexpectedly and in combination with poor animal husbandry.

It's not the only pasture crop that can kill cows if you put them in hungry to fresh grass, either. Even lucerne and other legumes can kill cows by releasing gas and foam in the stomach. I hope you don't think we should kill all legumes just in case.

Re:BS

[khallow]

I assume by "spin" he's referring to propaganda, communication which propagates a particular point of view. Even the truth is "spin" in that context.

Re:BS

[westlake]

Pull the story. Get your facts straight. This farmer needs education from a local co-op extention.

Cyanide poisoning in veterinary medicine:

Cyanides are found in plants, fumigants, soil sterilizers, fertilizers, and rodenticides (eg, calcium cyanomide). Toxicity can result from improper or malicious use, but in the case of livestock, the most frequent cause is ingestion of plants that contain cyanogenic glycosides. These include Triglochin maritima (arrow grass), Hoecus lunatus (velvet grass), Sorghum spp (Johnson grass, Sudan grass, common sorghum), Prunus spp (apricot, peach, chokecherry, pincherry, wild black cherry), Sambucus canadensis (elderberry), Pyrus malus (apple), Zea mays (corn), and Linum spp (flax). The seeds (pits) of several plants such as the peach have been the source of cyanogenic glycosides in many cases. Eucalyptus spp , kept as ornamental houseplants, have been implicated in deaths of small animals.

The cyanogenic glycosides in plants yield free hydrocyanic acid (HCN), otherwise known as prussic acid, when hydrolyzed by Î-glycosidase or when other plant cell structure is disrupted or damaged, eg, by freezing, chopping, or chewing. Microbial action in the rumen can further release free cyanide.

Apple and other fruit trees contain prussic acid glycosides in leaves and seeds but little or none in the fleshy part of the fruits. In Sorghum spp forage grasses, leaves usually produce 2-25 times more HCN than do stems; seeds contain none. New shoots from young, rapidly growing plants often contain high concentrations of prussic acid glycosides.
The cyanogenic glycoside potential is slow to decrease in drought-stricken plants containing mostly leaves. Grazing stunted plants during drought is the most common cause of poisoning of livestock by plants that produce prussic acid.

Frozen plants may release high concentrations of prussic acid for several days. After wilting, release of prussic acid from plant tissues declines. Dead plants have less free prussic acid. When plant tops have been frosted, new shoots may regrow at the base; these can be dangerous because of glycoside content and because livestock selectively graze them.

Ruminants are more susceptible than monogastric animals, and cattle slightly more so than sheep. Hereford cattle have been reported to be less susceptible than other breeds.

Cyanide Poisoning: Introduction

A history of cyanide poisoning generally, and a good read: Cyanide Poisoning

Some common cyanogenic edible plants reported to cause cyanide poisoning include cassava, sorghum, sweet potatoes, yams, maize, millet, bamboo, sugarcane, peas, lima beans, soybeans, almond kernels, lemons, limes, apples, pears, peach, chokecherries, apricots, prunes, and plums. Cassava (manioc) and sorghum are staple foods for hundreds of millions of people in many tropical countries and are blamed in part for the high incidence of central and peripheral neuropathies in those areas.

Since the time of ancient Egypt, plants containing cyanide derivatives, such as bitter almonds, cherry laurel leaves, peach pits, and cassava, have been used as lethal poisons. Peach pits used in judicial executions by the ancient Egyptians are on display in the Louvre Museum, Paris, and an Egyptian papyrus refers to the "penalty of the peach."

Re:BS

[no-body]

Tifton 85 is a conventionally bred grass.

Ah - a conventionally bred grass doing this?

Just wait and see what GM can do.

Maybe the whole story is just to whitewash GM.....

Re:BS

[LordLimecat]

Newsflash: Several plants-- even some grasses-- produce cyanide in response to stress.
http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/local/x1255111318/Cattle-deaths-blamed-on-natural-poisoning

What is really being displayed in these posts are the dangers of being both opinionated and ignorant.

Re:BS

[viperidaenz]

Just wait and see what GM can do.

Produce a grass that doesn't kill cows?

Re:BS

[marcosdumay]

It's reputedly a cold intolerant grass which has high yields. That means it spreads quickly...

No, it does not mean that it spreads fast. In fact, Tifton 85 doesn't spread fast. One could say that it doesn't "spread" at all in the way you used that word, as making a Tifton 85 field is hard work, and depends on a bit of luck.

That grass not only doesn't go away growing where it was not planted (and the soil was not prepared, and it didn't get the right amount of water, and other kinds of grass were kept low so it can grow, and...), but killing it is as easy as just putting more cows on an area that it supports (yeah, just using a tractor is faster, and as effective).

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, produce a cow that can metabolize and bind cyanide from grass into something useful. Nylon-producing cows would be neat.

Re:BS

[Rayonic]

To paraphrase a lot of smug idiots: the truth has a well known GMO bias.

Re:BS

[TapeCutter]

I know it's you're constitutional right to firebomb anything you don't understand, but please settle down and google "prussic acid poisoning in cattle". Also realise you're going to need something more powerfull than firebombs to get rid of the entire family of sorghum grasses which do exactly the same thing under the right conditions. I think you would basically have to sterilise the top 3 feet of the Earth's crust but I'm sure there are places near the Mexican border where you can get that sort of weaponry.

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

The day I sit on a Jury with Monsanto as a defendant, is the day they have at least one juror with a guilty verdict. If it's an attack on a farmer, infected/infested crops, it will be a nullification of all this GM bullshit and it's secrecy.

Just like for the officials want GMO's, but don't want GMO labels. Two can play this game.

I don't have to give you a reason for you to be my mortal enemy anymore you fucking mafia piece of shit

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

How is correcting a major factual mistake in a story "spinning" anything?

1. The story was purposely glitched. It's called propaganda. Note how quickly corrections came in. .2 It's root is CBS. CBS has an interest in Monsanto
3. It's end result will be the Monsanto point of view legally and other.
4. Meanwhile you just forgot the scummy shit your officials have been doing during this time segment. Welcome to the GRAND ILLUSION

Re:BS

[Paradise Pete]

Propaganda is by definition biased and misleading information. Including the truth in the definition neuters and diminishes the word.

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem Reaction Solution

1. Glitched story
2. Outraged Public
3. Make Monsanto Law known.

Re:BS

[khallow]

Propaganda is by definition biased and misleading information. Including the truth in the definition neuters and diminishes the word.

Good thing I didn't do that then. I merely note that the truth, selectively and perhaps misleadingly presented, can be propaganda.

Re:BS

[rubycodez]

no, only the "biased" part of your definition is correct. Propaganda can even be correct and not misleading at all. But it will be biased and be from source with an agenda.

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to be kidding: this report needs to be retracted as it is completely wrong. Tifton 85 is a conventionally bred grass.

It's incredibly irresponsible to print something this inflammatory and wrong. You've now aerated people all over the world with this misunderstanding, and it will continue to be flogged forever with this incorrect information.

Further, people who hear about this won't know what the real issue is and it could cause more cow deaths.

Fix or retract this article immediately.

Pull the story. Get your facts straight. This farmer needs education from a local co-op extention. Any native or hybrid (NOT GM) grass can create this condition! Those that care for truth and real data go here and learn: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/sorghum.htm

Ah, who told you the Tifton 85 they used was absolutely unmodified. No one is argueing the breed of grass here..

http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0201085-molecular-improvement-for-insect-resistance-in-turf-and-forage-grasses.html

But Tifton85 is a grass that has been modified genetically, if the farmer knew it was GM that is because it was.

Re:BS

[no-body]

Just wait and see what GM can do.

Produce a grass that doesn't kill cows?

Not really. You know of Endocrine Disruptors, right?

GM modified plants (roundup ready) tolerate and contain Glyphosate remnants when sprayed with it.

Glyphosate is an Edocrine Disruptor (Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines ).

That's far more potent than increased cyanide in some grass killing a few cows on an - "uups, it's not GM, see!" incident.

Re:BS

[viperidaenz]

Still, nothing to do with GM. Its the poisons that get sprayed on them that do harm.

It you sprayed it on dirt then ate the dirt it would be just as bad.

Re:BS

[WaffleMonster]

You've got to be kidding: this report needs to be retracted as it is completely wrong. Tifton 85 is a conventionally bred grass.

Tomato Tomato... Forgive me for not much caring about the difference between Hybrid and GM. People have been playing god and rolling the dice since they started selecting seeds for next season and simply importing shit from places that don't belong. All that matters is RESULTS. Any of these methods can and have lead to disasters. They have also lead to significant increases in yield.

It's incredibly irresponsible to print something this inflammatory and wrong. You've now aerated people all over the world with this misunderstanding, and it will continue to be flogged forever with this incorrect information.

Get your facts straight. Any native or hybrid (NOT GM) grass can create this condition!

The issue is not production it is increased production due to a specific mutation being investigated by the department of agriculture.

Re:BS

[no-body]

Still, nothing to do with GM. ...

Sure does - take the RR GM plant away, crop plants would need to be shielded from Glyphosate or they would die. Glyphosate is not entering crop plants through leaves as with RR GM plants.

Shielding crop plants when spraying is expensive, that's the benefit with RR GM. Just spray it 100 times over and everything else but the RR GM crop plant dies.

With RR GM plants, everything growing gets sprayed. That comes with the package.

Besides Glyphosate being a Edocrine Disruptor and more present in RR GM crop plants, there are other consequential effects, like lower resistance to other pests needing higher insecticide use, diminishing vitality of GM plants over time, changed protein structure of plants etc. and yeah, farmers committing suicide.

As for your spraying Roundup on dirt, then eating it, won't work (but that's not true either, there is residue): "Roundup is deactivated in the soil" from Roundup Hype - enjoy!

Re:BS

[viperidaenz]

Roundup only works when absorbed by the leaves of growing plants, so it is "deactivated" in the soil but is not going to instantly disappear.

Yes RR plants are made by Monsanto, Yes Glyphosate is made by them as well, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the plant. Its the practice of spraying toxic chemicals indiscriminately over entire crops that is the bad part.

Mr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this guy up. He's absolutely right, GMOs are going to get screwed.

The general public will go apeshit when / if they hear about this.

Re:Mr.

[cheater512]

Both of you are bloody idiots of course. Google the terms 'research' and 'fact checking' please. You both need more of them.

interesting, but

[aheadinabox]

I don't really understand the need to put one paragraph of story per page, its just freaking annoying. I didn't realize how far down the GM road we have come. OK, I understand corn is being GM'd and by logical extension things that eat corn, but grass? I really hope technology improvements allow time travel real quick like...I'd love to relocate to a period in time BEFORE we completely fuck this planet up

Re:interesting, but

[viperidaenz]

I don't really understand the need to put one paragraph of story per page, its just freaking annoying

Higher ad to content ratio.

I'd love to relocate to a period in time BEFORE we completely fuck this planet up

Its not genetically modified grass, it's selective breeding, like what humans started doing > 40,000 years ago when they moved out of Africa and started farming.

Looks like crap from CBS

[mynamestolen]

A different report says this can happen in any type of grass. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/sorghum.htm Young plants, including roots, and leaves of older plants contain a compound called dhurrin which can break down to release a substance called prussic acid or hydrogen cyanide (HCN). The recommendation is not to graze or cut for green chop until the plant is 18 to 20 inches tall.

Re:Looks like crap from CBS

[Gideon Wells]

This was something I was wondering.

Even though I don't doubt this happened, the whole summary and concept sounds too much like a cheap scare tactic. The mechanisms for cyanide production had to come from somewhere. The cyanide production had to either be natural to the plant strain originally or involved with whatever was added. What you say is similarly true for yeast. Fermentation of alcohol has to occur in anaerobic environments as otherwise yeast produce other compounds. Still more research needs to be done.

If what was added, kill use of this strain while examining it as one would a medical treatment/substance that passed FDA inspection, but started killing people.

If else natural, could be a coincidence that this was GM. Perform studied/experiments against un-GM versions of same plant strain to see if this is the capabilities of the "normal plant" in similar environmental factors, or a mutation in part of the plant's genome that should not have been influenced by the GM modifications.

Else a combination of the two, study to see how to prevent this from happening again. If unprovable either way, release a version that removes the capability to produce cyanide unless it is a necessary requirement for the plant to survive.

Re:Looks like crap from CBS

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what is called in the industry... a workaround. Your beautiful hybrid plants kill animals other than the bugs they were meant to kill... hmm... then just wait to graze on those plants until they have released most of their payload of deadly chemical. PROBLEM SOLVED!

Except that..

[Anonymous Coward]

These two grasses likely would have never been close enough in nature to influence each other. While genetically modified doesn't technically include selective breeding, I would argue that we are still screwing with nature and creating something that wouldn't have otherwise occurred naturally. That's how we should be defining 'Genetically Modified.'

Re:Except that..

[Anonymous Coward]

Then virtually every single crop cultivated would then be defined as "Genetically Modified" if we went along with that logic. It astonishes me that people actually think this way and it scares the shit out of me that they could ever be in a position to make policy.

Re:Except that..

[arose]

So? What about rhubarb leaves to pull a random example? Not natural enough still?

Re:Except that..

[LordLucless]

I hope you've never eaten corn in your life, then. Or wheat. Or tomato. Or basically any commercially grown crop. Because that would make you a filthy hypocrite.

Re:Except that..

[khipu]

I would argue that we are still screwing with nature and creating something that wouldn't have otherwise occurred naturally

We've been screwing with plants in this way for millennia. Almost every plant and animal you eat has been screwed with this way. Without it, humanity wouldn't have survived.

Re:Except that..

[Tastecicles]

by literal definition, all our cultivated crops *are* genetically modified. From high-yield wheat and rice crops, to triticale* and rape, to grapes and oranges, apples and potatoes. All selected for yield, biomass, taste, texture, use in processed food and in their raw forms, we as a species have been fucking with genetics in levels from cross-pollination to interbreeding animals and injecting chromosomes into cells in the lab, for thousands of years.

*an entirely manmade hybrid of durum wheat and rye, developed in a lab in the late 19th Century to try and come up with a cereal crop that was high yield but with low collateral biomass. It worked, and is still cultivated today in Canada.

Re:Except that..

[Anonymous Coward]

You stupid fucking moron. Nearly every plant and vegetable you eat is the result of "screwing with nature" and producing a better version of it. In fact, the very act you're dismissing is credited with saving more lives than any other single act in the history of the planet. You stupid fucking moron.

Re:Except that..

[Anonymous Coward]

bwah

Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is General Motors producing grass?

It was already in the genome

[Anonymous Coward]

First it is doubtful the grass produces a free form of cyanide, the cyanide is most likely bound to a sugar like
it is in cherry pits and the like. During metabolism the cyanide is liberated when it is split from the sugar.
The interesting thing is the Triton85 has either a timer (so and so many seed / growth cycles) that expired
for the toxine producing genes to activate or there was some other external condition 'programmed' that activated
these genes.

Enjoy your future (or what little you will have of it), humans.

Re:It was already in the genome

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your Monsanto corn at Walmart btw... that may have other goodies hidden in it as well but
really it is toxic and unbecoming as it is ... it produces a wonderful toxine that will give you cramps
while you shit your inflamed and cancerous intestines into the bowl. Again, enjoy your final days
human scum.

Re:It was already in the genome

[Immerman]

Ah yes, because a substance that doesn't become toxic until digested it is fine...

Re:It was already in the genome

[Cyberax]

No, lots of plants produce cyanide (in form of free CN ions) all the time. Its mostly poisonous because it shuts down a key enzyme in mitochondria, but plants have an alternative pathway that is not affected by it. So they can tolerate much higher levels of CN ions (they are still poisonous via other mechanisms, though).

The famous example: cassava roots.

Re:It was already in the genome

[tomhath]

Prussic acid poisoning happens when conditions are right, and this farmer did everything right. And CBS is totally wrong calling an F1 hybrid "GM".

Re:It was already in the genome

[Anonymous Coward]

No, lots of plants produce cyanide (in form of free CN ions) ...

Apple seeds also contain cyanide compounds,
    http://chemistry.about.com/b/2007/09/12/yes-apple-seeds-and-cherry-pits-are-poisonous.htm

Re:It was already in the genome

[Cyberax]

Several nitpicks:
1) Cyanide compounds are not necessarily poisonous. Most organic compounds with bound CN group are totally harmless.
2) Your organism can tolerate fairly large amounts of CN ions just fine. In fact, it's produced as a by-product of several normal biochemical reactions.

Re:It was already in the genome

[lightknight]

Nonsense. CBS got what it wanted -> more viewers feeling faux outrage who will recommend that their friends and family watch the CBS report to 'get the facts about what they've been saying for years.' Temporarily, their viewership goes up, CBS makes a little more money off of their sponsors / advertisers / whatever, they apologize later about 'their mistake,' wash, rinse, repeat.

Re:It was already in the genome

[careysub]

Cyanide production is very widespread in plants - which is why all mammals have multiple detoxification mechanisms. A human can detoxify in an hour a dose that would be immediately fatal if administered all at once.

This proves science is bad

[flibbidyfloo]

Something deadly like this could never naturally evolve in plants! This must be the work of unnatural, man-driven processes! Stop all science now! Anthropocentrism at its finest.

Re:This proves science is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

A joke right? There are plenty of poisonous plants. So evolved because the plants that aren't eaten have a better chance of producing new plants. . .

Re:This proves science is bad

[tbird81]

It's as if producing cyanide has some sort of adaptive advantage to the grass. Why would Gaia do this? It's those evil scientists.

Here's some propaganda from HowStuffWorks, pretending that clover does the same thing:

"Some species of clover developed a mutation that caused the poison cyanide to form in the plant's cells. This gave the clover a bitter taste, making it less likely to be eaten. However, when the temperature drops below freezing, some cells ruptur, releasing the cyanide into the plant's tissues and killing the plant. In warm climates, natural selection acted in favor of the cyanide-producing clover, but where the winters are cold, non-cyanide clover was favored. Each kind exists almost exclusively in each climate area."

They're even teaching this stuff in public schools!.

Re:This proves science is bad

[jamstar7]

It's as if producing cyanide has some sort of adaptive advantage to the grass.

Correct. A good many plants create their own natural pesticides. Yeah, I know, citation needed, but google your own damned results, I'm not your high school biology teacher, dammit!

STOP THIS PSEUDO

[Anonymous Coward]

STOP THIS PSEUDO SCIENCE!!! no more GM crops, it's just not smart.
and nobody can tell me it will increase crop yields because it will only increase infant mortality, because that IS THEIR GOAL...

Nice try CBS, but it's not GM

[daninaustin]

http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified

yeah, except for the true part

[daninaustin]

It's not GM. http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Peristaltic]

Damn. I was just pulling my pitchfork and torch out of the shed. Thought it was interesting; should have done more research.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[kanto]

Damn. I was just pulling my pitchfork and torch out of the shed. Thought it was interesting; should have done more research.

Stay negative; just with the old hybridization-method they managed to create something that in field conditions produced enough cyanide to kill a cow. Now consider GM crops, including possible hybrids, and if they're more or less likely to have unintended consequences. Yes, they're the most tested seeds and plants ever, but we test medicines too and there are occasional failures... also boxes of pills are easier to recall than plants from the wild.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[khallow]

just with the old hybridization-method they managed to create something that in field conditions produced enough cyanide to kill a cow.

Cyanide poisoning is apparently a potential problem with any variety of grass, not just the hybrids.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[LordLimecat]

Whoops, minor error. Very clearly no editorial bias here, right?

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Khyber]

Selective breeding is nothing more than GM on a low-tech scale. Please.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[sp332]

Selective breeding does not make plants RoundUp-resistant. Monsanto modifies the genes of the plants in specific ways that do not occur randomly in plant genomes.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

I betcha can't lick my buttcheeks!

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[ChromeAeonium]

Damn. I was just pulling my pitchfork and torch out of the shed.

That right there sums up the problem with the GMO debate (well, one of them). Caring about the process, not the product. You can bet your ass that none of the anti-GMO groups out there are going to see this and other problems that have arisen from breeding (like the Lenape potato and high psoralens celery) are going to take this story and call for more stringent research of conventionally bred crops where heaven only known how many genetic changes may be happening. No one is going to say that breeding is unpredictable with dangerous results,or that is should be labeled, or that it should be banned until the precautionary principle proves a negative, or anything else people say about GMOs, but if this really were the product of biotechnology, you know damned well that is exactly what they, and many others, would be saying.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[sjames]

Actually, it can and has produced roundup resistant plants, both through deliberate breeding programs and through basic natural selection in the fields.

GM can do things that wouldn't happen in nature and it can be a problem. That just isn't an example of it.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[phantomfive]

They might. I know people who are opposed to pasteurization. It's really annoying.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

Pasteurization's fine, as long as all the flavor isn't cooked out of the milk. It's homogenization and poor overall diet of the cattle that bothers me. In effect, cows that eat a poor diet produce awful tasting milk, and that seems to be standard, at least for most commercial grade stuff in the U.S.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[mr_exit]

The Roundup resistant gene was found in nature, and Monsanto just copied it into soya beans. There are also plenty of weeds that have naturally generated a resistance to Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

Yes. If I, for example, want to breed mice with ears on their backs, I'd just for some generations pick the mice that hear best...

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[ChromeAeonium]

There are actually some people who oppose hybrids already. I've encountered some real extreme heirloom crop zealots who believe that hybrids are generally bad things. Funny enough, people once said of hybrids, unknowingly foreshadowing what would later be said of GMOs, that they 'did violence to the plant' and they would 'befoul the soil'. Of course, we know know that hybridization ranks right up there with vaccination in terms of life saving technologies, and I have no idea how anyone could oppose something that the world could not get by without. Well, without being ignorant anyway, which no doubt they are.

Fun fact: once there were people who opposed grafting, which is now used for pretty much every fruit tree. Johnny Appleseed was actually one of the, who believed that grafting was against the will of God, or some nonsense like that. He was something of a religious nut. Ironically because the trees he spread were seed grown and not grafted, they were only good for making applejack (well, I guess you could make other things out of them too, but take a wild guess as to what most people did with them back then). I guess grafting was ungodly but getting hammered on that stuff wasn't.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[phantomfive]

Yes, not only are hybrids higher yield, they also taste better. Even in my life there's been improvements in taste in fruits. I generally see this as a good thing, even if I do end up dying a couple years earlier.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I oppose pasteurization!!!! Or rather, anti-anti-pasteurization. Pasteurization kills flavor. Try it, it's crazy delicious. Not gonna cure you of anything like the crazies claim, except it might cure you of milk boredom.

I also eat sushi and oysters and host of other things that kill dozens (dozens, I say!) of people a year, although oddly the only things that have made me sick are uncooked vegetables. Now there's a dangerous food! Although, I suppose unlike tainted milk or meat it's probably not as lethal, just more common.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

While we could do without nuttery as such, it is a good thing that some people do grow heirloom crops for whatever reason -- if we were ever to suffer nuclear winter, krakatau mk.2, or a similar ecological disaster, we could jumpstart a much faster recovery (although to lower yields -- we'd still need hybrids longterm) with heirloom crops, where every fruit is equally usable as food or seed.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that GM can do, nature can do, almost by definition. Bacteria do in the wild, and virii in other populations, what technicians do in the lab. GM just does it much faster and with more control. In that sense, it's not that different than hybridization. Except GM is probably safer, all things considered, 'cause any nut job can create hybrids, while scientists generally must follow rigorous safety procedures. African killer bees, anyone?

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[ciotog]

Pasteurization is the process that allows farmers to subject their milk producing cattle to the poor conditions that produce poor milk - they feel they can get away with things that they wouldn't be able to without it, like mastitis, tuberculosis, feces contamination, etc.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[ChromeAeonium]

I do agree with that. I personally like them because they tend to have unique traits not usually found in the widely grown hybrid lines (for example, I've got heirloom purple broccoli, white watermelons, and exceptionally tasty orange tomatoes that I grow) and the ability to save seeds and maintain the line for a long period of time is nifty. When I support hybrids & GE crops and talk of their benefits I do not mean to imply being dismissive of heirlooms. They've got some genetic diversity that could be useful or at least novel. I like heirlooms, its just that some of the people who very strongly promote them go a bit off the deep end.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

if you weren't ignorant on the history of pasteurization of dairy products and the harms that pasteurization bring, you too would be opposed to it. Nothing sadder than a poorly informed science fan-boy. Not all science is good (agent orange, DDT, etc..)

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Larryish]

I grew up on farms.

Raw milk = good.

I do not, however, understand the problem with pasteurization.

Isn't milk cooked into a variety of foods?

If you have any good links to sites that clearly outline any downsides of heated milk, please do so. I am interested.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[flyingfsck]

Why not? This grass is cattle resistant. Finding a strain that is weed resistant is not infeasible, it will just take a while longer.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Khyber]

I said low-tech, not direct implantation into the genome to control where it was grown.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Belial6]

To play the devils advocate... If there were no hybrids, there would be less food, and thus less people, so all of the other ill effects that overpopulation brings would not have happened.

That's the funny thing about history. It is hard to say what would have happened if just a few things had changed.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

According to that examiner article, the grass was Tifton 85, a hybrid non-GM grass.

Wondering whether it was a hybrid combining GM grasses, I found that it's entirely non-GM.

Tifton 85' is a tall, coarse, dark green F1 hybrid between PI 290884 from South Africa and 'Tifton 68 ...
Tifton 68', an F1 hybrid between PI 255450 and PI 293606 both from Kenya

(http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1993/v2-294.html)

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[dAzED1]

yeah, and raw meat too! Except you're not drinking the milk from the cow's teet, you're drinking it from a jug several weeks later. If it weren't pasturized, the mass quanitities of milk would be very unhealthy. Same with meat - fine to eat the stuff raw if you're whacking the deer on the head, ripping off its skin, and chowing down right there. That's not what you're doing though - you're letting someone else kill the animal far away, where it is transported to a grocery store, where you then buy it and take it home, where you store it a little longer until you finally eat it. But I agree that milk isn't good for you - it is meant for babies, not adults. But - I don't do dairy (raw or not) so - meh.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[X0563511]

I'd say GM is less likely to cause such things. Why?

Well, when you hybridize you're "patching in" shitloads of other genes in an attempt to get the trait you want. GM is much more targeted, therefore much less chances of something you didn't want coming over.

Of course, in both cases you'll still have the problems that might come up because of a lack of understanding in the trait you are after. If a gene that makes wheat grow faster makes it build up toxins, it doesn't really matter how you got the trait in there, because it's the trait itself that is at fault!

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but without Monsanto, they wouldnt have developed that would they?

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[sjames]

OK, You tell me the procedure for mating a cucumber with a salmon.

while scientists generally must follow rigorous safety procedures.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! That's a good one! Some are careful, some not.

The advantage of conventional breeding is that there are several generations between start and end where problems can be seen Even then, things can and do go wrong.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a bigger problem with grasses w.r.t. grazing animals are endophytes. Most/all of your grass seed used in your yards, has endophytes in it. It helps keep it green later into the summer (compare to the patches of Poa annua that you try to get rid of all of the time), handle low water better, etc. But most of them cause all sorts of neato effects in grazing animals (e.g., rye grass staggers, hooves falling off on horses, etc.).

While cyanide poisoning is a potential problem with any variety of grass, let's guess how common it is in practice...

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

ChromeAeonium (1026952) is a fucking shill for the industry.

This is a reverse reverse story.
Starting with "journalists" (sic) at CBS who aren't going to publish a story which harms Monsanto.
So the story goes out purposely glitched.
This allows the shills to come in make the corrections Monsanto wants you to understand, and explain differences from a Monsanto legal perspective.
The end result will be more people will less angry with Monsanto.
During the ride, we are dictated to learn everything from a Monsanto point of view.
GM isn't Hybrid, all plants have bad in them naturally, natural isn't good, organic isn't organic, on and fuckin on.
Meanwhile when enjoying this confusion, propaganda and social engineering
We forget about the scum fuck officials who just said no GMO labels.
We forget about Indian Farmers committing suicide over bt cotton
We forget about how pissed off Mexican Farmers in the birthplace of corn being CONTAMINATED with fucking GM.

This is like a Mafia, and needs to be treated as such.
You don't have discussions with the Mafia, You shoot them from a distance

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Soralin]

OK, You tell me the procedure for mating a cucumber with a salmon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Virus infects salmon, new virus being produced ends up incorporating part of salmon DNA, virus gets passed to cucumber, virus inserts salmon DNA into cucumber and it ends up incorporated into it's genome, new offspring has genetic material from both cucumber and salmon. In practice, there may have to be a number of intermediaries there, but that's the idea, and it's 100% natural, and has happened numerous times before, and the results of such can be seen in the DNA of a number of living things.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[sjames]

That doesn't seem to happen very often in things with more than one cell especially not into the germline.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Richard_at_work]

I'd say GM is less likely for one other reason - no one is going to splice something into a sequence and then immediately go and throw it out into a field and graze cattle on it, while that is exactly what happens when you use traditional hybridisation techniques. GM has a huge obstacle course of tests that must happen before it gets into the wild.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[f3rret]

It's not GM.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified

Strictly speaking conventional breeding and hybridization is still 'genetically modifying' the stuff.
It is just significantly less Frankenstein-y.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

Well considering this grass has been used for 20 years, I doubt testing would have caught the problem.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[khallow]

While cyanide poisoning is a potential problem with any variety of grass, let's guess how common it is in practice...

It's not a matter of common or not. We didn't hear about this story because cyanide poisoning of cattle became common, but because it had the right buzzwords in it (such as "genetically modified").

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[msobkow]

That's a nice theory, but in reality they gene engineer entire strands of DNA in most cases, not just a few targetted genes. So our current level of GM technology is no better than old fashioned hybridization in terms of targetting specific traits.

Worse, we really don't have a detailed understanding of genetics and their interactions. We know that specific genes affect traits, but we don't know how all the genes that affect those traits interact. We are jumping the gun with our current efforts, and it is not only possible but very likely that we're going to create some truly monstrous mutations in the near future.

Worse, we have no idea what the long term interactions of the GM genetics will be. GMs are not sterile. They are mixing with native crops and infesting the gene pool; Monsanto and others rely on that infestation to sue farmers they claim are "stealing" their technology when their pollen infests neighbouring crops, and blocking farmers from using their own crops as seed stock.

Personally I have far greater faith in the productivity of "land race" genetics produced by self-seeding crop land with last year's seed for 15-20 years sequentially. You end up with a plant that is tailor grown for the specific environment, whereas a GM crop is a shotgun approach that is tailored for a specific trait rather than the general growing conditions of the environment.

As far as I'm concerned, GM crops to date have one purpose and one purpose only: to sell more pesticides and herbicides.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[DarkOx]

Tell that to all the farmers down south struggling with Pig weed. Its become very resistant to herbicide, in many cases more resistant then their deliberately engineered to be resistant crop. Nature adapts and can do some amazing and horrifying things in the process.

The only real issue with GM, is that it means potentially you mix genetic traits that come from completely foreign organisms; maybe even belonging to different kingdoms. Where as with breeding you are restricted to selecting traits that already exist within the organisms genome, or traits from organisms closely related enough to produce viable offspring.

In theory with GM you might be able to make a grass that produces some protein normally found in say fish, and there is concern that doing so might upset ecology.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Cruciform]

Here in Canada the tank of milk is sampled before it even leaves the farm. If it's contaminated they get hit with a heavy fine and the tank is dumped, for about 12k+ in losses for a single tank.
It's in the best interest of the farmer to isolate every cow with mastitis or a high somatic cell count from the line as the testing can easily determine even a small amount of those contaminants.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

You need to go to a Grade A dairy sometime. Dairies thar produce drinking milk aka Grade A are cleaner than the glass you drink from. A Grade B dairy aka for cheese can be considerably dirtier. Oh, that neighbor you buy your organic milk from is probably totally unregulated with no testing of his cows for hidden disease.

I love raw milk, we kept a jersey just for the family milk, just don,t be deceived by the FUD the organic idiots put out about farmers. No farmer, including the corporate guy will want a sick cow producing milk on his farm. Razor thin margins won't allow themto keep a sick milker.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Reziac]

And historically, where do you think your heirloom varieties came from? A: From the selective breeding and hybridization efforts of the distant past. They didn't all just magically appear as sports in someone's garden.

Oh, and what *is* a sport? A: an unexpected mutation or accidental hybrid. Many sports of the past are the heirloom varieties of the present.

While I agree with you about the quality and value (both as food and historically) of heirloom varieties, let's not kid ourselves that they're not the product of *someone's* attempt to manipulate nature. Otherwise we'd be grinding our teeth to the roots eating wild maize, not enjoying heirloom sweet corn.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[zzyzyx]

You can't make good cheese with pasteurized milk.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[westlake]

Johnny Appleseed was actually one of the, who believed that grafting was against the will of God, or some nonsense like that.

On the practical level, securing and carrying scions from established orchards on the East Coast over frontier roads posed real problems. Keeping the scions moist and viable over the long periods needed to make the trek was difficult, and they required far more space than seeds. It had, however, been done. In the first years of the nineteenth century, General Rufus Putnam had brought scions from the famous Putnam Orchards of Connecticut and developed a substantial quantity of grafted trees at the mouth of the Muskingum River near Marietta, Ohio. By 1808 the area boasted 774 acres of apple orchards made up largely of grafted trees

Despite the criticism, there was still practical merit in Chapman's technique. Most apples in the frontier settlements wound up as cider, and the apples produced by ordinary seedlings were perfectly adequate for this purpose. Cider was drunk in huge quantities by the early settlers. Some of it went on to become hard cider, or apple brandy, which also enjoyed widespread popularity. For such purposes, wild apples --- the kind produced by trees grown from seeds ---were fully adequate, and occasionally the throw of the genetic dice would produce a tree bearing outstanding apples.

The result of Chapman's efforts was that an apple orchard existed on virtually every new farm created in the Ohio wilderness. The apples were used for cider, dried to make fruit that could last through the winter, or turned into apple butter. Those who had cold cellars could keep some apples fresh through the winter. The part of the crop that wound up as apple brandy was drunk throughout the region, and some even found its way down the Ohio River to New Orleans, Louisiana, where it had commercial value.

Early Nineteenth Century: Johnny Appleseed Introduces Apple Trees to the Ohio River Valley

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

And hybridization has happened in nature for much longer than humans have been around. We now know that the "tree of life" isn't so straight-forward, that horizontal gene transfer is a huge part of evolution, and it happens and has happened very readily in plants.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[budgenator]

I don't know how you would cross a cucumber with a salmon, but if your interested in crossing two species of plants, reasonably closely related, with the same number of chromosomes, then Colchicine is what you want to use.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

selective breeding is genetic engineering also.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, You tell me the procedure for mating with a cucumber

Go ask your mom.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[datavirtue]

Hybrids do not taste better and the yield improvement is only a concern for commercial growers. Anyone growing heirlooms for personal consumption is not going to be able to handle the entire yield anyway. Hybrids are not going to make you die a few years earlier. WTF?! The good thing about heirlooms is that a family can collect seeds from the crop and expect the same yield and quality as the initial crop. A good feeling and a lot cheaper. The heirlooms seeds I get from Baker Creek are awesome, and the yields are far from spindly.

Commercial growers have to use hybrids and GMO or they risk losing their asses.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[phantomfive]

Clearly, 'better' is a matter of taste.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Cyberllama]

So because the old method, which relies on random chance can be dangerous, we should not use a more targeted technique? How do you imagine that would be *more* dangerous instead of less?

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[Genda]

Damn skippie!!! When the GM grass hits a drought, it grows tentacle, pulls itself out of the ground and begins eating cows, screw this cyanide silliness!

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[blackpaw]

Tomatoes and Strawberries have had the taste bred out of them. Heirloom ones taste much better.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[airdweller]

you might want to read up on what pasteurization really is and what it's for. as long as you're at it, read up on logic too please.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[airdweller]

Go back to high school. Please.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[ciotog]

Here's an interesting article concerning bovine TB: http://www.lung.ca/tb/abouttb/animal/

Heat pasteurization of milk, which means heating the milk to a certain temperature for a prescribed length of time, kills the TB bacteria found in the milk and makes it safe for humans to drink.

Here's a somewhat longer article that to me backs up the idea: http://www.york.ca/Departments/Health+Services/Raw+Milk.htm

The pasteurization of milk was implemented specifically to destroy common pathogens found in raw milk and, secondarily, to give milk a longer shelf life by reducing the number of spoilage-causing organisms. Even under the strictest conditions, cows naturally carry certain disease-causing bacteria which may be passed to the milk that they produce, including Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria, Tuberculosis and E.coli 0157:H7.

I'm quite comfortable with the logic.

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[airdweller]

I don't understand then how you came to the conclusion "Pasteurization is the process that allows farmers to subject their milk producing cattle to the poor conditions that produce poor milk...". Pathogens and/or spoilage organisms can be found in milk from any cows, not just the sick ones. You quoted it yourself: "Even under the strictest conditions, cows naturally carry certain disease-causing bacteria which may be passed to the milk that they produce..."

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[ciotog]

Here's the thought process: "since this milk will be pasteurized, it's ok if I include milk from this sick cow over here". Are you suggesting that this train of thought isn't widespread? Beyond this particular application?

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[airdweller]

So, is this just a thought exercise of what is possible or you have any real evidence that it happens on a significant scale? You do know that it can be determined whether milk had any harmful organisms even after pasteurization?

Re:yeah, except for the true part

[ciotog]

It depends what you mean "real evidence" and "significant scale". I grew up partially in the country and I've seen first hand things that I would rather not have, but no, I haven't performed any in-depth studies on the matter.

NOW they'll get off my lawn!

[couchslug]

Also:

"Moo!" (thud)

no, they are still quacks.

[daninaustin]

It's not GM. http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified

Re:no, they are still quacks.

[Johann Lau]

Before you call people quacks, make sure your arguments aren't fucking dumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)#Hybrid_plants

Many hybrids are created by humans, but natural hybrids occur as well.

So, the question is, which one is this?

And yes, even if it's man-made, it's not technically GM, because that is a set of specific technologies -- but your argument is still fucked in the ass, because GM, in effect, is this process on steroids. So maybe try "if even mere hybrids can go so haywire, how much more so GM stuff?" -- haha.

Pardon the pun, but diving towards the "BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY GM!!!!111" exit is just grasping for straws.

Re:no, they are still quacks.

[Johann Lau]

meh, sorry.

Many hybrids are created by humans, but natural hybrids occur as well.

was meant to be a quote, the rest is my post.

Re:no, they are still quacks.

[Hentes]

There exist plants which don't crossbreed naturally but lab chimeras can be created from them so being a hybrid doesn't necessarily mean that it's not GMO.

Re:no, they are still quacks.

[yndrd1984]

GM, in effect, is this process on steroids. - "BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY GM!!!!111" exit is just grasping for straws.

What about the "lots of naturally occurring grasses do this, it just doesn't make the news" argument?

Re:no, they are still quacks.

[MemoryAid]

Creating hybrids involves crossing to varietals to produce a third varietal, hoping for an improvement. It would be expected for the new strain to have characteristics that combine those of the two parents in some way, but it's not guaranteed.
Now, we put that on steroids. I would expect a random mish-mash of new characteristics along with some or all of the characteristics of the parents. That's what the steroids analogy does for me.

Genetic modification, in contrast, usually involves isolating the gene sequence for a specific trait that is desired in the new strain, then splicing the genes into an existing genome. Much more precise.

I propose a different analogy: if hybridization efforts were surgery, they would be done with a spoon. GM would then be like SURGERY WITH A SCALPEL!!! Horrors.

Re:no, they are still quacks.

[meerling]

Hybridization is more like surgery by a blind 'surgeon' using a shotgun, with the nurses in post-op making the decision if the patient shows any improvements or if they have to go in and try again.
The process of hybridization is one of breed a hybrid, check the offspring for the desired trait, keep at it until you have some successes. But wait, even when you have the success in getting the trait, you aren't done. You may need to strengthen the trait as it could be too feeble or recessive, and you tend to have bunch of undesirable traits. You try again with your last batch of 'successes' and try to improve the weak stuff you want, and reduce the bad stuff you don't. Lets just say it's never 100%.
You want some examples, sure, look at pure bred animals. How about dogs, they are popular in the USA. Those purebreeds almost always have negative traits, some of which are not insignificant. As a professional dog breeder, they can tell you all about them. Even when a breed has been around for centuries, they are still trying to get rid of the bad traits. Yeah, the main difference between those and plants is you can grow a lot more plants and throw away the undesirables without the SPCA having you arrested, and plants usually don't bite you.

Re:no, they are still quacks.

[Johann Lau]

I propose a different analogy: if hybridization efforts were surgery, they would be done with a spoon. GM would then be like SURGERY WITH A SCALPEL!!! Horrors.

That's right, and depending on wether the person wielding the scalpel is a surgeon, or accessory of greedy fuckwits, you can do so much more damage with a scalpel than with a spoon. It's also much more precise in the hands of Jack the Ripper. You seem to mistake precision of the tool with the person handling it, that's bollocks. Expected, but still bollocks.

Re:no, they are still quacks.

[kurzweilfreak]

Right, because people that are creating these products are psychopaths who just get a kick out of killing us all, and these companies just love opening themselves up to class action lawsuits. Sure, if someone had the knowledge and tools to maliciously create some dangerous, poisonous plant, they could do it. Good luck getting it through product testing and onto the shelves though. Class action lawsuits usually look really bad to shareholders.

Good plan.

[daninaustin]

Let's get rid of all those awful hybrid plants and let most of the people in the world starve. We should be thankful for all the wonderful discoveries that saved billions of lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

Re:Good plan.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the problem is exactly that hybridization, genetic modification, factory farming, pesticides, selective herbicides, and so on have enabled us to feed millions of people who otherwise would have starved. These millions have bred several millions more persons, and now more are starving than before. Another horn of the problem is that it is not the hungry people who are using this technology to feed themselves, it is people with more heart than brain are giving them food to keep them from starving.
This cycle runs around and around with every year more starving people and every year more land being brought under better cultivation with better techniques to feed those starving who breed even more starving...
When the cycle crashes, it will result in more deaths than the Black Death could ever aspire to in its wildest dreams.

Re:Good plan.

[drinkypoo]

It has never actually been proven that Green Revolution agriculture saved one single life, but it has been proven that Green Revolution agriculture has numerous significant drawbacks and has done massive damage to our long-term ability to produce food. The end result of Green Revolution agriculture will be that all crops will have to be produced hydroponically, and in greenhouses.

Re:Good plan.

[ChrisMaple]

There's a moral point to be made here, and it lies not with people who make it possible for others to live longer, richer, better fed lives. The bad people are those who irresponsibly create offspring they cannot support, offspring who will never be able to support themselves.

A second moral point is that those who blame innovators in agriculture for some mythical future Malthusian disaster are more than just bad, they're evil.

Re:Good plan.

[phantomfive]

You criticize the idea that the green revolution has saved lives, but you consider that "hydroponic crops are the true green revolution," you consider that to be a substantiated statement?

You need to read Feynman's talk on cargo cults, you're failing.

Re:Good plan.

[couchslug]

Their hunger is due to the deliberate and relentlessly sustained refusal to control their birth rates.

Nature ruthlessly punishes "overgrazing" no matter the species.

Re:Good plan.

[jaymemaurice]

So what you are saying is that those people and their kids, are, and forever will be, a burden on society because you have determined they, are, and forever will be, unable to add positive contributions to society. It appears from your argument have prejudged the currently poor/hungry in a way that society has determined to be morally wrong. The same way that it is "wrong" to be prejudice of any ethnic minority. Welcome to the real world where everyone is pretty unique, and in reality, you are a minority. You never know, maybe one day the mob will come for you.

Re:Good plan.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't help. Evidently, drinkypoo read some other book by some other guy first, and he shut his mind down at that point.

If he'd read Feynman first, he'd be just as close-minded, but in a direction leading him to parrot whatever was believed at that time. Even Feynman's cautionary tale against cargo-cult thinking would be incorporated into a fixed framework that would prevent consideration of any new thinking.

 

Re:Good plan.

[Hartree]

Like many, he likely assumes that all those that would (perhaps read that as "should" in his opinion) have died are ones who don't agree with him politically.

Thus it's morally fine.

How this is different from religion saying those who believe are good and will be saved, and those who don't are evil and will be damned, I'm not sure. But if you made the comparison, he'd likely be outraged.

Re:Good plan.

[kurzweilfreak]

Bravo. It boils down to whether you are in favor of personal responsibility or seeing who you can find to place blame. According to the Anon GP, he would rather us compassionately starve people to prevent the suffering of future hypothetical unborns and blame those who won't sit around and let that happen. How anyone can see that as the correct moral position is not something I can comprehend.

Re:Good plan.

[drinkypoo]

You criticize the idea that the green revolution has saved lives, but you consider that "hydroponic crops are the true green revolution," you consider that to be a substantiated statement?

You are a disingenuous or stupid bastard who should not be permitted to post on slashdot. Green revolution farming is harmful to topsoil and thus it inhibits our ability to grow food on a given piece of land over the long term, and increases the energy used to produce the food that does come from that land. You can actually produce more food per acre using organic methods. Green revolution farming must be stopped or we will no longer be able to produce food without it.

It would be nice if you learned to speak and write English before replying to my comments. First of all, you do not put things in quotes that people have not said. Second of all, you are an asshole when you put words in people's mouths that they clearly have not said. Now spend some time with your dictionary until you understand the difference between "The end result" and "the true green revolution" before you come back and make your sophomoric, disingenuous replies to my comments.

You actually produce both more food per acre and more nutritious food using traditional organic farming methods. The down side is that this does not lend itself to machine cultivation. Robotics technology is poised to make this fact less relevant, but until then, we have massive worldwide unemployment. The only up side to green revolution farming is that corn and wheat become really cheap. Unfortunately, we're now making the corn into fuel and as a nation we should be eating less wheat...

The simple truth is that so-called "Green Revolution" agriculture destroys topsoil, changing it from a mixture of mostly biological components into a mostly inert mineral-based medium. Even when you grow crops in this soil, you are essentially growing hydroponic crops on dirt (not soil) medium, as there is nothing in that dirt that the plants actually need. This is why the use of synthetic fertilizers increase yields in the first year, and then lead to declining yields each subsequent year.

When you grow crops with organic methods, and harvest it by human power, virtually all of the energy comes from the sun including the fuel for the harvest. But the very point of "Green Revolution" agriculture is that you can use machines. These machines not only consume fossil fuels (since they have to run all day, battery power is not really a fit for them until we get shipstones) but they also compact the earth both by running over it and through mechanical tilth, which creates hardpan. Hardpan traps water, creating anaerobic conditions which kill the natural biological components of soil, like bacteria and nematodes, not to mention worms which are also critical for soil health. Simply using these farming methods creates problems which will persist long after the topsoil is replaced, whether by art, artifice, or nature.

I have clearly shown that you are putting words into my mouth that do not belong there. Green revolution farming is not only not helping anyone survive, but it is actually doing significant harm to the planet. Organic farming produces more food with less environmental impact. We need evolution past the Green revolution and you, sir, are helping to hold that back. Ironically, what needs to happen is that we go back to the future.

Re:Good plan.

[phantomfive]

Yeah, sure. I see you attacking 'green revolution farming' with great eloquence. Excellent.

Let's see if you've attacked your own ideas at all. Have you even thought about the drawbacks? A true scientist will attack his own ideas with more fury than he attacks ideas he disagrees with. Can you do that, or are you just another crank who only listens to ideas that supports his conclusions, and ignores the rest?

This is the point of Richard Feynman's cargo cult speech. Do you attack the ideas you favor? Let's see.

Re:Good plan.

[jaymemaurice]

I had to re-edit in fear I was getting too close to proving Godwin's rule :)

Re:Good plan.

[airdweller]

"You actually produce both more food per acre and more nutritious food using traditional organic farming methods."
Any unbiased sources? Otherwise - bullshit.

"When you grow crops with organic methods, and harvest it by human power, virtually all of the energy comes from the sun including the fuel for the harvest."
Are you naive or silly?

Know your GMO

[pubwvj]

Ah, so this is why Monstersanto doesn't want GMO's labeled... Pride in what one produces be damned.

Re:Know your GMO

[yndrd1984]

Ah, so this is why Monstersanto doesn't want GMO's labeled... Pride in what one produces be damned.

1. It isn't from Monsanto.

2. It isn't GM.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

More mutations required

[fragMasterFlash]

This grass is obviously defective and should be replaced with a variety that produces equal parts cyanide and happiness.

Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, we can't all be idealists like you.

Poor oversight is what caused these cattle to die. I'm sure you can understand what happens at a larger scale.

Re:Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

And refraining from using modern agricultural techniques will cause people to die, by the hundreds of millions.

But I'm sure you anti-GM fruitcakes are fine with that, being about one step up from the Unabomber on any given psychological assessment test.

Re:Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm with you! I think we should all fuck like bunnies and force EVERY woman to bear a child EVERY YEAR of her life, from when she first becomes fertile, until she stops being fertile. It's the only responsible way to make sure we humans survive!

Oh, yes, I almost forgot -

How many bloody times are you going to post this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about spam. STFU, daninaustin (985354)!

Mod pp -100: spam attack.

You should get dis-usered.

It's not GM

[Alien Being]

This is a cross of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia. 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.

Re:It's not GM

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 for oblique Caddyshack reference

Re:It's not GM

[Anonymous Coward]

When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So you got that goin' for you, which is nice.

Re:It's not GM

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job, Carl!

if the title is wrong, change it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're purposefully trying to mislead people.

What's the term when your agenda pushing news turns out to be wrong, false but accurate?

Fuck you in the heart slashdot. This shit is stupid. I can remember when this site used to post news stories relevant to geeks, and wasn't just a POS repeater.

This is Genetic Modification

[Khyber]

Selective pressure hybridization is just a really low-tech form of genetic modification.

Saying this is not a GM crop is misleading.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[tbird81]

Ahhh, so we've been doing GM for thousands of years then?

Well good. Because now there's nothing new for the "Greenies" (who are more about control and stopping science than helping the environment) to complain about.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[viperidaenz]

Yeah... only since prehistoric times.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[viperidaenz]

By that definition there has never been one farm on this planet that isn't GM.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[phantomfive]

Do you really believe that? I'm curious. It's hard for me to believe that anyone would actually think it's misleading to say that a non-GM crop is non-GM.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Nemyst]

So having kids is GM too, then?

Guess a few people would get a stroke if they knew that.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[pesho]

Selective pressure hybridization is just a really low-tech form of genetic modification.

Saying this is not a GM crop is misleading.

And so is evolution. This is why all the GM hoopla is missing the point.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[pesho]

So having kids is GM too, then?

Guess a few people would get a stroke if they knew that.

Of course it is. What makes it worse is that it is a combination of GM and human cloning.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Khyber]

That is essentially the truth. At the bare core of it all, we're tampering with genetics that wouldn't evolve or exist for a very long time in pretty much every theoretical model.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[ChromeAeonium]

It's a problem of language. The term 'genetically modified' literally means just that: the genetics have been modified. So, if I cross a Huge Lemon Oxheart tomato with a Carbon tomato, the resulting tomatoes will have modified genetics from the mixing of the genes of the two varieties, in other words, they will be GM. If I take a watermelon, double its chromosomes so that it has four sets of chromosomes instead of the usual two and cross that with a normal one to get a watermelon with three chromosomes (this is how you make a seedless watermelon) it will be genetically modified. If I grow out thousands of durians and select the tree that produces the least pungent fruit, then there will be modifications to the genes for certain chemical pathways in that plant, so it will be GM.

However, if I take rice and insert the psy gene from daffodil and the crtI gene from a bacteria, (the genes inserted into Golden Rice), then that rice has also been genetically modified, but it has been modified through genetic engineering, so it is both GM and GE. The problem arises in that the vast majority of the population uses the terms interchangeably. Genetically modified/GM has come to mean genetically altered via biotechnology. So, technically speaking, it is fair to say that the grass this story is about is GM, however, the majority of readers will almost certainty take that to mean genetically engineered via biotech, and most likely that is what the author meant. I try to use the terms right (although sometimes to avoid having this sort of conversation I just use whatever), but its pretty much a lost cause at this point getting people to use the right terms. The term GMO as it is almost always used is really pretty bad, and should be GEO, but that horse has already left the barn.

The GM vs GE thing causes way more confusion than it should, but since most people don't know much about crop genetics it is to be expected I suppose. Basically, almost all crops are GM, but only a few crops are GE, however GE is a form of GM, but most people use both terms to mean GE, so while I try to use the term GE when referring to GE and not use GM much at all to avoid the confusion, in the end its best to just not get pedantic about it unless someone specifically opposes GE on the basic that they don't like things to be GM in which case remind them that everything is GM.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Khyber]

I work in this field. (note my sig, which is photobiology related) It's pretty easy to logically come to this conclusion with enough information.

I have a BBC blurb regarding my work in the UK, and we're focusing on the LED aspect (my primary focus) sometime this year.

I'm no typical bloke, mate.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Khyber]

Well, no they're missing the point that we're pushing this stuff faster than it would naturally occur. And with our current state of existence, who is to say that this won't cause dire issues later on?

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[lightknight]

Fairly certain "Genetically-Modified" foods colloquially refers to foods in which genetic material has been inserted, removed, or mutated via gene-splicing & friends. Selectively bred food is not considered a "Genetically-Modified" food, except perhaps as a retcon.

When you breed a pair of dogs together for certain traits, the offspring are not considered "Genetically-Modified."
When you splice in a gene into a canine embryo, which causes the pup to fluoresce green under a UV light, that is "Genetically-Modified."

Stop trying to confuse people.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[phantomfive]

I don't care who you are. Anyone can lie on the internet. You need to be able to back yourself up.

That said, typically when people say "GMO" they mean modified using specific techniques.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[phantomfive]

If you want GMO to mean that, then everything has been modified in some way or another, either by nature or man, in the last million years.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[lightknight]

Scaring people whose understanding of science does not extend beyond high-school biology? I'd say they've succeeded in trolling a fair portion of the human race.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Khyber]

And those using that definition are fools.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Khyber]

Selective hybrid-pressure is a known form of GM, pal. It's the insertion of selective genes via natural means of reproduction and then taking those which show the genetic sequence and breeding those until you have a 'landrace.'

Pardon me while I get to finishing my bean plant that produces what a plant 3x its normal size would produce. 8" and producing a huge cluster of beans.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[ChromeAeonium]

True, although generally when we speak of genetic modification it is usually assumed that you mean modified from a currently existing population (be it a wild population or a landrace or open pollinated line or whatever), and usually it should be put in the context of what was used to modify the plant and what the modification was, for example in the case of the Green Zebra tomatoes you might say that they were modified by selective breeding to halt the conversion of chloroplasts into chromoplasts thus preventing the synthesis and accumulation of carotenoid pigments resulting in a green when ripe tomato (I think that's how that one works) or something like that. It does get pretty fuzzy when you think of it in evolutionary terms, which is why I try not to get too caught up in the exact terminology people are using.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[bytesex]

Yeah, and the difference between a poison, a drug, and a food is concentration. Those poor cows should have just evolved quicker - I'm sure this will teach them!

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[phantomfive]

You do realize that by the strict definition, every living thing has had its genes modified at one time or another?

You MIGHT know about biology, but you sure are dumb when it comes to human language. Really dumb.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Attila Dimedici]

I believe it would be reasonable to limit the term "genetically modified" to those where it was done by human action (which means it only applies to plants and animals that have been cultivated by humans for several generations, of the plant or animal, at some point. Which is still a fairly large group of organisms).

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Attila Dimedici]

What is misleading are the people who use the term 'genetically modified' to refer to organisms that have been genetically engineered in some manner. While technically hybrids are genetically modified, that is not what the general public understands GM to mean, nor is it what the original article meant by GM.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[phantomfive]

Beliefs are a good thing.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Anonymous Coward]

"You MIGHT know about biology, but you sure are dumb when it comes to human language. Really dumb."

No, it appears he's got a more hyper-realistic version of a language that you're totally incapable of comprehending, because you lack certain critical logic skills.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem arises in that the vast majority of the population is horrifically undereducated, would rather defer to a book written between 1,800 and 3,000 years ago for knowledge about the world around them, and love getting themselves all riled up over manufactured crisis after manufactured crisis.

FTFY

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[phantomfive]

The purpose of language is communication. Fail at that, you fail at language.

Re:This is Genetic Modification

[viperidaenz]

We've been doing it for 40,000+ years, hasn't turned out that bad so far

Grasses producing cyanide is not new or unknown.

[Jerry]

Tifton 85 was bred using PI290884, from South Africa, and Tifton 68, which is a cross between PI255450, from Kiboko, Kenya, and PI293606, from Nairobi, Kenya.

See Fact Sheet - Cynodon Dactylon

"Toxicity
Some varieties have the potential to produce high levels of prussic or hydrocyanic acid (HCN), especially when high levels of nitrogen are applied. However, instances of prussic acid poisoning in cattle grazing C. dactylon are rare. Although levels of total oxalate of >1% of the DM have been recorded, there is no experience of detrimental effects on grazing cattle. Frosted C. dactylon can cause photosensitization."

What happened at ELGIN, Texas, is just an example of a RARE event. That the field in question has been in production for 15 years, and no other sites using Tifton 85 have reported animal deaths from cyanide, proves how rare the event is.

Tifton 85 has nothing to do with the laboratory manipulation of DNA (Genes).

GM? That's new...

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew they made cars, but I had no idea they made grass. And grass that produces cyanide? For shame!

When will these auto/turf wars end...

Yeah... GM...

[viperidaenz]

It's a much GM as cats, dogs and the cattle that died are. Selective breeding is not genetic modification. Good way to get people to click on your headline though.

Grass?

[Coppit]

I for one am shocked... shocked... that any cattle eat grass these days. I guess ethanol really is putting the screws to cattle farmers.

Raising Lemurs

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to switch that cow for a lemur capable of eating so much cyanide containing bamboo that it would kill several people. There are reported incidents in Africa where the normally harmless tree plants on a savannah produce toxic chemicals under stressful conditions, killing the antelopes trying to eat them. The plants communicate with each other through chemical messages in such a way that when one of them gets eaten, the others react by producing toxin.

Re:Grasses producing cyanide is not new or unknown

[kakaburra]

Running with Linux for over 12 years!

Gee.. dont your feet hurt?

Woooosh

[pesho]

The Stop all science now! exclamation on Slashdot should have been enough to identify the post as sarcasm. It is beyond me why ot got labeled 'Ineteresting' instead of 'Funny'. If the moderators insist on taking it seriously a 'Troll' label may have been more appropriate.

Change the Title

[Anonymous Coward]

If possible, please change the title ...does not match the reality and some people only read titles.

Re:Change the Title

[Anonymous Coward]

The title has already been modified genetically.

2,4-D, Most Forage Grasses, and Drought Conditions

[qtp]

Most forage grasses (such as Tifton 85) produce prussic acid (HCN) in the young plants and new shoots.

The level of prussic acid reduces as the plants mature, but the reducion of prussic acid levels is much less during drought conditions.

When establishing a forage plot, it is comon practice to apply the selective broadleaf killing herbicide 2,4-D. A side effect of 2,4-D application is an increase in prussic acid levels 3 hours and 6 hours after application.

The combination of drought conditions and 2,4-D application, as well as early grazing on this plot are likely to be the culprit here.

In terms that the slashdot crowd can understand: Operator Error and Not Reading the Documentation are likely to be the cause.

And yes, I am an Agricultural Worker.

(Also, I know how to google for facts before I post.)

"GM" Scare Headline

[careysub]

I was very skeptical of the original headline claiming this was "GM" when I saw it, and thus not surprised at all to see it was bogus. The one thing that GM is (in comparison to conventional breeding) is it is very precise and selective in its effects.

Cyanide is widely distributed in plants, which is why all mammals have multiple mechanisms to detoxify it (a human can detoxify in an hour a dose that would be immediately fatal if administered all at once). Cyanide poisoning in forage is hardly unknown, and the leap to try to connect it (based on zero evidence) to genetic engineering as some sort of Frankenstein's monster is sheer ignorance and scare mongering.

Correction?

[Joska]

If you publish a correction, would it not be appropriate to maybe actually make the correction in the faulty headline? This is a new low in sensationalism when you deliberately leave misinformation in place. It's heartbreaking to see a reputation for noble intentions gained over many years squandered so casually and pointlessly. I've been checking this site for news daily since the late 90s but maybe it's run its course now and the time has come to move on. So sad.

but we need to be angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop throwing in these dampening facts, we're trying to wax rhetorical here!

Still Waiting for No-Mow Lawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit, where's my no-mow lawn? We can make poisonous cyanide grass, but we can't make no-mow lawn?
Oh well, I might as well buy the cyanide grass to poison the neighbor's pets. Any possibility of some variety that will produce cyanide in response to poop?

Re:Still Waiting for No-Mow Lawn

[rubycodez]

you can have a no-moo lawn

It didn't START producing cyanide.

[Maxo-Texas]

It's not hybridization gone wrong. And the grass didn't START producing cyanide.

It's a perfect example of natural selection.

In an extreme event where over 90% of the grass population died, the survivors had some trait that helped them survive.

In this case, some the grass with more cyanide survived- probably a little less insect predation gave the grass a survival edge under the harsh conditions. Now all the descendents of that grass have the trait of increased cyanide.

Elsewhere, some of the grass probably survived due to better water handling traits. They should check for that because it will be useful.

If its not correct why not fix it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really pretty shoddy journalism - we're wrong. Issue a small footnote correction. This is the web. Change it. Makes me think of Brasseye.

It's equivalent according to Monsanto et al.

[Anonymous Coward]

So? Monsanto's first response to objections to their crops it that "they're no different than conventional selectively bred plants".

Once you had BT everything else is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

BT Cotton linked to a death of an Indian farmer every 30 minutes.

A few monsanto nightmares.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july122011/india-monsanto-beaten-tk.php
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/05/Could-Monsanto-Be-Responsible-for-One-Indian-Farmers-Death-Every-Thirty-Minutes.aspx
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-Av6dx9yNiCA/monsanto_indian_farmer_suicide/

DNA is a one way trip.
No wonder these people like monsanto, and the nuclear industry want their secrecy.
Us? Our secrets, not so important.
In fact they spy cause they are scared we find out they are fucking trying to kill us.
That's the only state secret left.

We are only being polite about this discussion, while our officials keep doing the wrong thing, at this segment of time. But like the mafia, they will go down

Re:Once you had BT everything else is BS

[tomhath]

BT Cotton linked to a death of an Indian farmer every 30 minutes.

Your entire post is BS. The only "link" is this organic farming website's unsubstantiated claim. There's no connection to Monsanto or GMO, just the observation that crop failures are driving Indian farmers to commit suicide, so let's blame GMO. Makes perfect sense to you I suppose.

Re:Once you had BT everything else is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Failure%20of%20Bt%20Cotton.pdf
Indian farmers go into debt buying counterfeit seed without the Bt toxin trait, don't spray for bollworms, lose their crops, and off themselves.

White-guilt science-haters blame it on Monsanto (conveniently ignoring the non-Monsanto Bt Cotton in the market -- Monsanto has dickish business practices, so pin everything on them!)

You fools eat it up.

Meanwhile, Indian farmers who got genuine Bt seed make record profits thanks to reduced pesticide costs.

I laugh my ass off.

Re:Once you had BT everything else is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

BT Cotton linked to a death of an Indian farmer every 30 minutes.

Your entire post is BS. The only "link" is this organic farming website's unsubstantiated claim. There's no connection to Monsanto or GMO, just the observation that crop failures are driving Indian farmers to commit suicide, so let's blame GMO. Makes perfect sense to you I suppose.

There's no connection between the nazis and millions of jews dying, either. They were just all really sick, honest!

Re:BS some are more culpritish than others......

[Anonymous Coward]

Having familiarity with this area of Texas Triglochin maritima (arrow grass), , Sorghum spp (Johnson grass, Sudan grass), Hoecus lunatus (velvet grass) Linum spp (flax). are the most likely culprits, as this is a pasture and hay producing field,and THOSE GRASSES WOULD BE PREVALENT THERE. Johnsongrass is a big problem after first hard freeze in fall, but not a problem in late May. It would be really interesting to know if the cyanide compound was in, or on the grasses in question.

Jesus christ. What a fuckwit.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, if that use of GMO is foolish, then GMO has NO FRIGGING MEANING. Since evolution is undergoing, mutating the genes of species and even life processes themselves modify the genes in an individual organism, then GMO HAS NO FRIGGING MEANING because it doesn't define anything.

What word would YOU use for "directly engineering an artifical genetic modification in plants or animals"? We have one for "artificial breeding selection to combine genetic traits through natural processes": hybridisation. So what is the "GMO" that isn't hybridisation called?

Or are you just an ignorant arsehole who hates people because you hate their reasons for actions?

Tifton 85 is a variety of Bermuda grass.

[John Hasler]

Like a number of other plants, Bermuda grass produces cyanide when stressed. Under extreme stress (as in a drought) it can produce lethal quantities. See Animal Health and many others.

don't worry, this is only a test

[Anonymous Coward]

monsanto is simply refining a gm grass that will kill cattle at the appropriate time, thus sparing them ugly scenes at the slaughterhouse.

Asked and answered

[wonkey_monkey]

Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are trying to determine if an unexpected mutation in a popular GM grass, Tifton 85, is responsible for the sudden deaths of a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas three weeks ago.

So they don't know if that's what killed the cows yet?

the grass started producing cyanide in sufficient quantities to kill a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas.

The way this second bit is written implies that it definitely was the grass's fault. Or do they only know that it did produce enough cyanide but haven't been able to confirm that that's what killed the cows?

Simple Solution

[kelemvor4]

Don't smoke this grass.

Tifton, GA

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm thinking Tifton!"

Poisonous Plants are natural

[ZombieBraintrust]

I would argue that we are still screwing with nature and creating something that wouldn't have otherwise occurred naturally.

Poisonous plants exist in nature. There are all kinds of plants cows will eat that will kill them. Here is a long list of plants that can kill a goat. http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/goatlist.html

Glad it was cattle

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Glad the incident that is destined to change sane, sober, science loving and technologically progressive individuals away from the perception that GM is generally safe to the perception that it's safety cannot be reliably established involved cattle and not people.

I know I am one such person.

Switching sides in three, two, one.. .... now!

Someone's watching

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Big Brother watching? Why the 'correction' that this is NOT a GM modified but a 'conventionally bred hybrid' ?!?

Slashdot needs to hire an editor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad idea, slashdot to leave a bogus title like this on your website.

Re:Grasses producing cyanide is not new or unknown

[captainClassLoader]

Well, good thing it's rare. I've got a friend in Elgin with a herd of 20 - 30 sheep, which provide her livelihood. Poison grass would be a rather bad thing for her.