Slashdot Mirror
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."
This is scary movie nightmare stuff come true!!!
Grass that kills!!!
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.
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
I hope so!!
You know, of course, that a lot of the food you eat is GM food.
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.
I guess those cows failed the Turing test...
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
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.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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!
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.
work in progress
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.'
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.
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.
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.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified
Unlikely this will affect GM since this grass is a hybrid, not a GM product.
It's not GM. http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified
Floating point bitches?! Damn, and here I messin' with my integer bitches... Where can I buy?
Also:
"Moo!" (thud)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It's not GM. http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This grass is obviously defective and should be replaced with a variety that produces equal parts cyanide and happiness.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's worth noting here that the grass may not have mutated at all and simply behave this way under these circumstances.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Selective pressure hybridization is just a really low-tech form of genetic modification.
Saying this is not a GM crop is misleading.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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).
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
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
D'oh South Africa not South America.
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?
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.
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.
I for one am shocked... shocked... that any cattle eat grass these days. I guess ethanol really is putting the screws to cattle farmers.
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.
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?!
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
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.
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Running with Linux for over 12 years!
Gee.. dont your feet hurt?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
Read, L
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.
I am John Hurt.
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.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
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.
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.
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.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
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. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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
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.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The title has already been modified genetically.
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.
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.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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.
you can have a no-moo lawn
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?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Don't smoke this grass.
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
Both of you are bloody idiots of course. Google the terms 'research' and 'fact checking' please. You both need more of them.
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!
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.
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
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.
I am John Hurt.