GM Rice Passes Unexpected Benefits To Weeds

ananyo writes "A genetic-modification technique used widely to make crops herbicide resistant has been shown to confer advantages on a weedy form of rice, even in the absence of the herbicide. Used in Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready' crops, for example, resistance to the herbicide glyphosate enables farmers to wipe out most weeds from the fields without damaging their crops. A common assumption has been that if such herbicide resistance genes manage to make it into weedy or wild relatives, they would be disadvantageous and plants containing them would die out. But the new study led by Lu Baorong, an ecologist at Fudan University in Shanghai, challenges that view: it shows that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant fitness boost from glyphosate resistance, even when glyphosate is not applied. The transgenic hybrids had higher rates of photosynthesis, grew more shoots and flowers and produced 48 — 125% more seeds per plant than non-transgenic hybrids — in the absence of glyphosate, the weedkiller they were resistant to."

Comments

GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Genetically modifying plants and then letting them "run wild" in nature. What could possible go wrong. Wasn't this a horror movie or an Itchy & Scratchy episode?

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see the horror in this. Do you expect that the weedy rice variants are going to become sentient and start killing people or soemthing?

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

I fail to see the horror in this.

If you were a farmer faced with a big bill for herbicides and a field full of vigorous weeds that it won't kill after all, you might see the horror.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Truekaiser]

Not to mention monsanto has had the courts rule in their favor that patents follow the genes.
So if these weeds are growing on your property, monsanto can now sue you for illegally obtaining their patented product. it doesn't mater nor do the courts care that it got there by means beyond your control.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are testing the failiures in open feilds as well. If something like the GMO Klebsiella Planticola had gotten out into the the wild we would be sent back to the Proterozoic era as all plant life and concequently all animal life would be extinct.

Even if they did follow safe practices you still have the problem of them patenting life, allowing them to use these patents to hold back the progress of medical research. Just look at Myriad's ownership of the brest cancer gene.

What would stop a company like Monsanto that sues companies for geting their seed stock contaminated with GMs from suing you for not having paid a license because that jellyfish gene in that GMO Cheeto you ate migrated into your DNA and has shown up on a recent blood test? Dangerously cheesy indeed.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't true and I bet you can't find one court case of it ever actually happening.

Re:GM Goodness?

[meerling]

There has been one case of Monsanto successfully suing a farmer that wasn't supposed to be growing that strain. He apparently bought it on the open market as feed, not seed, so he paid a lower price. I know it sounds pretty screwed up, but there's a reason they have laws like that. (Greed comes to mind, but there might be others.)

Did you know that truckers have to buy a different diesel fuel than non-commercial drivers? It's more expensive than the regular diesel, the only real difference other than price is the non-commercial has a dye in it so the tax collectors can identify when a driver cheaps out and buys the wrong fuel. This is just an example of where two otherwise identical products are priced differently and are required to be used for different purposes.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't true and I bet you can't find one court case of it ever actually happening.

Your denial is false. Here's "one case of it ever actually happening" for you: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml

Re:GM Goodness?

[srw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser It's true, and here's a case if it actually happening.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, unless you consider soybeans to be weeds rather than crops.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canola: also not a weed and Roundup Ready canola is a Monsanto product. Monsanto isn't suing people over them having Roundup-resistant weeds. That's not in Monsanto's best interest because they'd have to argue, in court, that genes from their GMO crops are jumping species--what a weapon to give the anti-GMOers.

Re:GM Goodness?

[plopez]

Think "Invasive Species". Fast reproduction, genetic mutation, resistance to herbicides, and since they are not domesticated difficulty in using it as a food source. If it gets into domesticated crops and destroys them the ghost of Malthus could rear its ugly head.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Ian A. Shill]

Umm, no. Trucks use clear diesel, just the same as cars. Dyed fuel is for tractors and other farm equipment, and furnace fuel. The difference is clear diesel is priced to include "road tax", whereas dyed fuel is not to be used for fueling vehicles that travel on public roads. As for trains, I have no idea.

Did you know that truckers have to buy a different diesel fuel than non-commercial drivers? It's more expensive than the regular diesel, the only real difference other than price is the non-commercial has a dye in it so the tax collectors can identify when a driver cheaps out and buys the wrong fuel. This is just an example of where two otherwise identical products are priced differently and are required to be used for different purposes.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Neuronwelder]

To add to what you said. I just read an article this year, in a science magazine which has found out this year that we are not an island to ourselves. We are directly affected by what we eat.

Re:GM Goodness?

[kheldan]

Monsanto, in it's headlong rush to satisfy it's greed, will probably singlehandedly raise food prices all over the world because of their epic fuck-ups.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Dare nMc]

> He apparently bought it on the open market as feed, not seed, so he paid a lower price.

This is the majority of cases of Monsanto suing, the farmers know 90%+ of the soybeans are RR beans, so they know if they buy the soy as feed, they will get RR beans. Nothing screwed up about that (other than the farmers trying to cheat the system) They buy seed agreeing not to plant it, then do, then some get caught. That's OK with me. Although the 90%+ market share of Monsanto worries me, but that is not Monsanto's fault IMO.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Neuronwelder]

At least we can remove and try different pesticides. We can't remove genes out of the plants we modify. And the GMO plant pollen has been spread by wind to other species that were previously certified as being organic.

Re:GM Goodness?

[dryeo]

Canola: also not a weed and Roundup Ready canola is a Monsanto product. Monsanto isn't suing people over them having Roundup-resistant weeds. That's not in Monsanto's best interest because they'd have to argue, in court, that genes from their GMO crops are jumping species--what a weapon to give the anti-GMOers.

A weed is just a plant out of place, any plant can be a weed. If you aren't growing Canola and your field is full of glyphosate resistant Canola,you're not going to be happy.

Re:GM Goodness?

[haruchai]

+2 Insightful

Re:GM Goodness?

[kurzweilfreak]

What would stop a company like Monsanto that sues companies for geting their seed stock contaminated with GMs from suing you for not having paid a license because that jellyfish gene in that GMO Cheeto you ate migrated into your DNA and has shown up on a recent blood test?

Biology.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Ol Olsoc]

Genetically modifying plants and then letting them "run wild" in nature. What could possible go wrong. Wasn't this a horror movie or an Itchy & Scratchy episode?

Genetic modifcation doesn't bother me as long as it is used properly. Higher yield, disease resistance, better taste even. Not unlike what we have done for thousands of years, just more quickly.

But to do GM in order to make a plant more resistant to a herbicide is asshattery of the stinkiest sort. Putting Roundup ready crops in the field is a first class method of generating weeds that are also Roundup ready. So ten years from now, we'll be making GMO crops resistant to more and more powerful herbicides, and breeding better superweeds. Eventually, we could be spraying Vietnam era herbicides and defoliants.

Oh yeah, and we'll be eating some of it.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

Actually, it's a fairly unique and problematic situation.In all of the history of agriculture, saving seed from year to year has been the standard practice. Even with proprietary seed, if you could get your strain to cross with the proprietary one, the result was yours.

Meanwhile, the agricultural practices Monsanto has promoted have produced 'superweeds' that are also roundup resistant (funny considering how many times Monsanto has sworn that ONLY their GM technique could produce a roundup ready plant).

The success of agriculture is the proper business and concern of every person on the planet and that easily trumps the business interest of Monsanto.

As for 'agreed', where's the signed contract? Where's the evidence that the plants growing came from any seed under contract?

Re:GM Goodness?

[NoKaOi]

Meanwhile, the agricultural practices Monsanto has promoted have produced 'superweeds' that are also roundup resistant (funny considering how many times Monsanto has sworn that ONLY their GM technique could produce a roundup ready plant).

You're both right, sort of. The "superweeds" you refer to don't have the gene that makes RR plants RR. Roundup (glyphosate) works by inhibiting a particular enzyme, EPSPS. RR plants are different in that instead of producing that particular enzyme, they produce a different one that fulfills the same function, which glyphosate does not inhibit. Superweeds don't produce that different enzyme, they produce the typical EPSPS, except they produce enough of it so that when it's inhibited by glyphosate there's still enough to survive. They got that way through selection pressure, not from getting the gene from GM plants. Of course, there wouldn't have been that selection pressure without dumping tons of roundup on crops, and there wouldn't be dumping lots of roundup on crops if those crops weren't Roundup Ready, so that's why I say you're both sort of right.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow ecology fail.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Farmers have been doing this for millenia.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

"He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998." You must have poor reading comprehension, Monsanto has never sued anyone for UNINTENTIONALLY planting the crop. read the damn op.

Re:GM Goodness?

[marcello_dl]

And, remember that the GM revolution was publicized like this: "we will alter the DNA so we will make species that are resistant to *parasites* so there will be less need to spray the fields with chemicals".

Instead we end up spraying the fields with chemicals that are even more harmful to natural species (you know, the ones you can freely plant with leftover seeds instead of bending over to patented sterile offerings).

Best scam of the century, even better than the "oh you want to get porn or cute cat pictures online? let us control your data and activity instead" internet.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sFurbo]

In that case, the farmer knowingly selected for round-up resistance. What was claimed was that Monsanto had never sued anybody having round-up resistant seeds through no act of the own. That case is not applicable here.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

This one? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vitamins-minerals-and-microrna

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

Monsanto has sworn that ONLY their GM technique could produce a roundup ready plant

I doubt that, because only an idiot would claim that. Hell, there were moderately resistant weeds before GM crops were available.

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

"we will alter the DNA so we will make species that are resistant to *parasites* so there will be less need to spray the fields with chemicals"

Some GM crops work that way. Others don't.

we end up spraying the fields with chemicals that are even more harmful to natural species

Roundup is fairly environmentally friendly compared to many other herbicides, and we were using lots of it before GM crops existed.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

Doubt all you want, but Monsanto DID make that claim. They claimed that Schmeiser's canola had to be from 'stolen' seed and NOT the result of cross breeding for exactly that reason.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Muad'Dave]

Eventually, we could be spraying Vietnam era herbicides and defoliants.

We already are. The most popular herbicide around, 2,4-D, was a major ingredient in Agent Orange.

Re:GM Goodness?

[jbengt]

IIRC, dyes are also used to mark actual differences in the fuels: high sulphur vs low sulphur, Avgas, etc.

Re:GM Goodness?

[jbengt]

RR plants are different in that instead of producing that particular enzyme, they produce a different one that fulfills the same function, which glyphosate does not inhibit. Superweeds don't produce that different enzyme, they produce the typical EPSPS, except they produce enough of it so that when it's inhibited by glyphosate there's still enough to survive. They got that way through selection pressure, not from getting the gene from GM plants.

The GM rice was specifically modified to over-express the enzyme that glyphosate inhibits, and these particular "superweeds" obtained that trait through cross-pollination, at least according to TFA,.

Re:GM Goodness?

[mcvos]

No they haven't. If you really think they have then you either thoroughly misunderstand what genetic modification is, or you grossly overestimate the biotechnological resources of medieval farmers.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Dare nMc]

No, what I remember is that the farmers defense was that the farmer didn't want a resistant crop, and never sprayed the crop with roundup (so no selective breeding occurred), and was just caused by cross breading from the neighbors crops pollen. Monsanto tested his "first" generation crop, and found nearly 100% of the resulting plants to be resistant. Monsanto's claim, backed by science showing it to be nearly impossible (1 in billion chance.) That cross pollination without generations of selective breeding couldn't produce anything close to a 100% resistant seed stock. So Monsanto never claimed that their technique was the only way, they proved that without intent, you couldn't have a 100% resistant crop occur naturally in 1 generation from non RR stock.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Will.Woodhull]

Gee. Maybe genetic modification is not about changing the genes of a species.

Maybe it is about changing the genes in an ecosystem.

Could it be that living things do not respect the abstract categories like "species" that genetic engineers use to partition their imaginations?

Re:GM Goodness?

[Will.Woodhull]

Diesel sold in bulk to farms is road-tax free, and dyed so that the farmer can get nailed for tax evasion if he uses it in his trucks and cars.

I once had a fun side business doing rototilling and trenching with a diesel 18 hp Kubota tractor. I could buy diesel without paying the road tax at any service station, if I asked for it. I usually didn't bother: I was buying 5 gallons at a time and the hassle involved was not worth the little bit I saved. But my neighbors would buy 1,000 gallons of diesel at a time, several times a year, and for them it was worth it.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Will.Woodhull]

Monsanto is just as capable of being an idiot as any other legally defined person. More so, if being an idiot increases profits.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Thomas Miconi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser
It's true, and here's a case if it actually happening.

Well, no it's not. Read the article you link to. Schmeiser specifically selected the GM plants, then re-planted seeds from these plants over his whole field. There was nothing "beyond his control" about it.

The Percy Schmeiser case: thousands of anti-GMO activists worldwide join forces to defend, supporting and fund an enthusiastic GMO planter!

Re:GM Goodness?

[Reziac]

How much is selection pressure, and how much being adapted that way before Roundup came along? I'm thinking specifically of Canadian thistle, which is resistant even in areas that have never been Roundup'd, and perhaps not entirely because of its root system.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

No. Monnsanto threw a bunch of jargon at some judges that left them convinced that there was evidence of a science-like nature that there was only a 1 in a billion chance.

Since then, volunteer canola has been found growing wild and expressing the RR trait along with traits from other varieties. They also failed to account for the possibility that the RR crop had some other positive trait that Schmeiser was selecting for in his breeding. Otherwise, since Schmeiser wasn't using roundup, why would he bother with RR crops at all?

What's really comical (in a sad way) is a posting on monsantoblog.com where they report roadside wild canola with 86% expressing GM traits. That is in canola that is not being managed at all.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Dare nMc]

The farmers position that he got enough seed for a hundred acres that was 100% Roundup resistant, that he had harvested from a crop he claimed was cross pollinated from a neighbors field, without him selecting it. That was so out in left field, that it would take proof to make me believe it was possible, it just doesn't make any sense at all. Then the farmer lost all credibility to me, when he claimed in his counter suit that he didn't want Round up resistant seed, but admitted he had detected this "contaminated" area by accident while spraying weeds in a ditch, so harvested that section separately, then used the contaminated seed he "didn't want" for seed for the next year. Not the seed from the 99% of his acreage that he knew wasn't contaminated.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Same as dyed kerosene. You buy both at farm supply places.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do something similar with ethanol to avoid liquor taxes. Bittering agents are used to make it unfit to drink, but it's still useful as a fuel, cleaner, etc.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

It is entirely possible that he believed the resistance developed through natural selection, just like it did for the superweeds.

I don't know why you assume only a single generation of crops. A dominant trait can spread quite fast.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Dare nMc]

That was the farmers story. Probably because he didn't want to pay royalties for more years. Resistance would only develop through natural selection, if it was advantageous. When the farmer claims he never sprayed roundup on his crops (again part of his defense, "I didn't even benefit from violating the patent") to develop a new trait for 100% natural selection to occur, it would take a similar natural advantage for canola. With the weeds, it makes sense, only the weeds with the trait survived being sprayed, so those with that trait will take over. For the same to occur to the canola, would have required a similar advantage, of the farmer spraying his plants with roundup to select the winner.
It would have been interesting, had the farmer claimed to develop his own variety, by claiming he didn't know what his neighbors planted, and through human selection; by spraying to select his naturally resistant crop to develop his own variety. Had he claimed, and proven this, I suspect when Monsanto showed it had the patented DNA anyway, thus developed from cross contamination, then the farmer shouldn't have been liable for his violations. Definitely a Cease and Desist from selling to his neighbors, but this natural selection defense is all fiction, the farmer never claimed this.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

And as TFA tells us, it might have been advantageous even in the absence of roundup (150% more seed for instance would tend to make it dominate the saved seed in a short time). Meanwhile, on appeal even the courts agreed that he really hadn't benefited from the roundup resistance of the crop and so awarded Monsanto nothing.

Probably closer to the truth is that neither the farmer nor Monsanto know how the gene got there. Much like Monsanto has no idea how their experimental GM wheat somehow 'escaped' containment and came to be growing in our food supply. However, one answer would be if the assumption that the GM crop would be at a disadvantage in the absence of roundup proved false. According to TFA it is at least proven not necessarily true.

Re:GM Goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so much. All on-road diesel is EPA mandated low-sulfur. Off road vehicles are exempt thus the difference in price. Price was very close (minus the tax) until Europe mandated the low sulfur for their fuels. Since we were the only producers of the low sulfur, the price sky rocketed.

HTH,

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

I see what I did - the GP conflated "roundup ready" and "roundup resistance" and I missed it:

produced 'superweeds' that are also roundup resistant (funny considering how many times Monsanto has sworn that ONLY their GM technique could produce a roundup ready plant)

Resistance is almost certain to develop eventually, but getting the exact gene that was transferred is very, very unlikely.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

There certainly is a difference, but given cross pollination I would say that natural breeding could produce a roundup READY plant or a roundup resistant plant. Monsanto denies the former to this day in spite of wild canola being found that has the roundup ready gene and traits from competing proprietary canola combined.

Their argument has been that roundup resistance (including roundup ready) is a disadvantage to the plant in the absence of roundup and so the trait wouldn't last under natural selection. However, TFA indicates that we can't be so sure of that.

Re:GM Goodness?

[RockDoctor]

If you were a farmer faced with a big bill for herbicides and a field full of vigorous weeds that it won't kill after all, you might see the horror.

Use a different herbicide, and make sure that your competitors (a.k.a. "neighbours") are also infested with the same strains of weeds (they probably are already, but you can ensure they don't get any advantage relative to you).

Monsanto may have killed their golden-egg-laying goose (glyphosate, a.k.a. "Roundup") with this. I mourn for people with money invested in Monsanto (not knowing if my pension fund includes holdings in them).

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

And wipe out your roundup read crop./p

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

given cross pollination I would say that natural breeding could produce a roundup READY plant or a roundup resistant plant

Except that "cross pollinating with a RR strain" isn't "natural breeding".

Their argument has been that roundup resistance (including roundup ready) is a disadvantage to the plant in the absence of roundup and so the trait wouldn't last under natural selection. However, TFA indicates that we can't be so sure of that.

That is a surprise, and needs to be looked into. But even if it turns out not to be a disadvantage ... OK, so resistance shows up earlier than expected ... and ... ?

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

Except that "cross pollinating with a RR strain" isn't "natural breeding".

What in the world would lead you to say that? That is how plants have been doing it since before man existed. As I pointed out, there is wildly growing canola that clearly has done this.

OK, so resistance shows up earlier than expected ... and ... ?

Some poor schmoe gets sued for patent violations when in reality the patented gene has violated his crop.

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

The original claim you made was in essence:

[Monsanto has falsely claimed that] ONLY their GM technique could produce a roundup ready plant

But their statement is pretty much true. With the exception of bizarrely unlikely scenarios, like viral transfer and complete coincidence, genes from bacteria are not going to show up in plants by natural means.

Now you seems to want "crossed with with a GM variety" to mean the same thing as "produced without GM techniques", which is getting absurd.

Some poor schmoe gets sued for patent violations when in reality the patented gene has violated his crop.

Which is why we need more research.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

Since they claimed it in the context of accusations of patent violations, yes. Their contention was that if you sprayed it with roundup and it didn't die, you must have knowingly infringed their patent. There certainly was by then a way for other varieties of canola to end up roundup ready that did not involve further GM techniques. There was also a way for plants to become roundup resistant with no GM techniques at all.

I'm sure that further research will be a great comfort to the people who lose their farms in the patent madness first. We need to shut down the suits while that research happens.

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

Their contention was that if you sprayed it with roundup and it didn't die, you must have knowingly infringed their patent.

I don't think that's true, testing for the gene (or rather the markers for it) is trivial at this point, and I know it has been used in lawsuits.

There certainly was by then a way for other varieties of canola to end up roundup ready that did not involve further GM techniques. There was also a way for plants to become roundup resistant with no GM techniques at all.

I don't know anyone who disputes that.

We need to shut down the suits while that research happens.

And I think that's a bit premature.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

I don't think that's true, testing for the gene (or rather the markers for it) is trivial at this point, and I know it has been used in lawsuits.

Yes, now that there is a quick and inexpensive test, the new claim is that if the gene is in your crops, you infringed the patent. They would very much not like to talk about the proven possibility that their patent infringed your crop. In other words, they have disputed the possibility of innocent gene transfer and intend to continue doing so as long as they can continue to pull the wool over the eyes of judges and juries.

If the suits are not shut down, then any claims based on poor viability of the crop without roundup should be barred from the trial as unfounded. Any claim that pollination cannot carry the gene to another crop should result in a conviction for perjury at this point.

Google around a bit and you'll find that Monsanto has made every single claim I have called out at one time or another in order to win dubious cases against farmers. It's unfortunate that new facts don't trigger an automatic review.

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

the new claim is that if the gene is in your crops, you infringed the patent ... they have disputed the possibility of innocent gene transfer

Give me a citation, then, of Monsanto saying that innocent gene transfer, in general, doesn't happen, or that the mere presence of genes proves infringement.

Any claim that pollination cannot carry the gene to another crop should result in a conviction for perjury at this point.

Yeah, and it should also trigger a mental health evaluation. It's an undisputed (so far as I know) fact that cross pollination happens in (most) commercial crops.

claims based on poor viability of the crop without roundup should be barred from the trial as unfounded

I don't think it's played any significant role in any case, feel free to correct me. But (and please forgive me if I'm wrong) it appears that your knowledge of farming comes entirely from "Food, Inc." - and I really would like to know where you're getting your information from.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

From the horse's mouth

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

From the horse's mouth

Did you read it? That article pretty much contradicts everything you've said.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

I certainly did. Did you read it? Keep in mind, it is written by Monsanto and is in full spin.

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

Here are the statements I quoted that you think this supports, rebutted using only that source:

the new claim is that if the gene is in your crops, you infringed the patent ... they have disputed the possibility of innocent gene transfer

They clearly say "...it has never been Monsanto policy nor will it be to exercise patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means." and that quote also implicitly admits that transfer is possible.

Any claim that pollination cannot carry the gene to another crop should result in a conviction for perjury at this point.

Since they say "The study also found two plants (0.7 percent) had both the Liberty Link and the Roundup Ready gene.", and since as far as I know they've never been sold in the same plant, it seems pretty clear that they understand that crossing happens.

claims based on poor viability of the crop without roundup should be barred from the trial as unfounded

1. Again, I don't believe that this has been an issue in any court case, and your source doesn't even use the word "viability" (in any version) anywhere.

2. As the article you cited points out, government agencies think that crosses are unlikely to be more weedy (i.e. they can still be easily be controlled by other means), not have poor viability.

3. This thread's original article's research on non-commercial rice (not commercial canola) is troubling, but probably has to do with weedy rice having a less effective EPSP synthase gene to start with, and shouldn't be generalized.

At this point I can only conclude that you have a reading comprehension problem, or are trolling.

Re:GM Goodness?

[sjames]

They use the claim of limited viability to support the claim that anything over a trace indicates infringement. You are also ignoring the timeline of claims they have made in court when.

It is notable that as a very recently cultivated crop, canola is close to being a weed anyway.

All in all, the evolving nature of our knowledge on the subject makes nearly any evidence that doesn't involve video of the defendant in the act a bit questionable for my taste. All the more so now they Monsanto is completely at a loss to explain how their experimental wheat that they say they destroyed without ever releasing is now contaminating crops.

Re:GM Goodness?

[yndrd1984]

They use the claim of limited viability to support the claim that anything over a trace indicates infringement.

We have well-done studies of how quickly gene flow happens in commercial canola operations. Anything about viability would merely be an explanation for more important, already separately quantified, information.

the evolving nature of our knowledge on the subject makes nearly any evidence that doesn't involve video of the defendant in the act a bit questionable for my taste.

Skepticism is good, but using skepticism as a cover for bias isn't.

so

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is Monsanto going to sue over this??

Re:so

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is Monsanto going to sue over this??

Mother Fucking Nature.

Re:so

[Baloroth]

Who is Monsanto going to sue over this??

Why would you assume Monsanto doesn't like this news? If the resistance in weeds won't naturally die out over time, that means glyphosate will become less effective over time even if it stops being used. Since Monsanto's patents don't last forever (yet), that means they can develop and patent a new genetic modification and herbicide (and the "process" of using one with the other, because that is apparently inventive all in itself) that will be required once glyphosate loses its effectiveness. If glyphosate didn't lose it's effectiveness, people would just keep using that after Monsanto lost their monopoly.

In fact, I wouldn't be terribly surprised, given Monsanto's history, to find out they already knew about this "problem." Maybe even planned it that way.

Re:so

[Opportunist]

They might like the news that their modifications don't harm other plants, but why do you think that'd keep them from suing? Wanting to have the cake and eat it too is hardly news for any corporation.

Re:so

[sjames]

That doesn't mean they don't want to sue someone. They always want to sue someone.

Re:so

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? This is exactly what Monsanto wants.
After 20 or so years from when their GMO patents are granted it is beneficial that it is no longer valuable. Next up is a new herbacide and new GMO strains and best of all, new patents!

Re:so

[ebno-10db]

And they'd win too, but I'd like to see them collect.

Re:so

[kheldan]

Who is Monsanto going to sue over this??

Honey bees, obviously. And since honey bees don't have lawyers, and Monsanto obviously will have cross-bred honey badgers with lawyers, the bees will quickly become toast in court. Since bees don't have money or own property, Monsanto will just take posession of honey bees all over the world (read as: make them intellectual property of Monsanto), anyone using pollination as part of the process of raising any crops without paying royalties to Monsanto will have the crap sued out of them (by Monsanto's crack team of honey-badger-crossbreed lawyers, of course), thus tying up pretty much the entire lifecycle of plants on the entire planet.

Then the T-Virus will be "accidentally" released into the wild, and the zombie apocalypse will occur.

Re:so

[davester666]

> In fact, I wouldn't be terribly surprised, given Monsanto's history, to find out they already knew about this "problem." Maybe even planned it that way.

Or even, say, developed glyphosate-resistant weeds that will just happen to shortly after their patents run out.

In the absence of glyphosate

[Khyber]

Which means that it's very likely that in the presence of glyphosate their yield will drop.

Which means glyphosate is acting on other biological pathways we still do not yet understand.

And yet we still consider this stuff to be safe to use.

I'd rather just use bacillus thuringiensis.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[drakonandor]

Might be wrong, but bacillus thuringiensis is primarily used because of it's effectiveness as a -pesticide-. Glyphosate, as discussed here, is primarily used as a -herbicide-.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure your logic truly follows. Just because it does well without the herbacide but with the herbacide resistant genes does not imply at all that it would not also do well with the herbacide.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[tsa]

Which means that it's very likely that in the presence of glyphosate their yield will drop.

Which means glyphosate is acting on other biological pathways we still do not yet understand.

And yet we still consider this stuff to be safe to use.

It seems on first sight to be a positive story but it's actually pretty scary. Who knows what secret abilities other GM plants have? How will you ever know that the modification you give an organism only does what it's intended to do?q

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[mcgrew]

No, I read the article when I saw it in the firehose. The headline is exactly backwards and doesn't even jibe with the summary. It doesn't pass any benefits to weeds at all. It does confer benefits when glysophate is used, as TFA notes. After all, that's what this rice was engineered for.

The interesting thing is that rather than unintended consequences, there were unexpected benefits.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Zontar The Mindless]

As luck would have it, I was reading this earlier today...

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[the plant doctor]

Might be wrong, but bacillus thuringiensis is primarily used because of it's effectiveness as a -pesticide-. Glyphosate, as discussed here, is primarily used as a -herbicide-.

Both are pesticides...

Bt is used as an insecticide, both in GMO and conventional forms.

Glyphosate is a herbicide.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[slick7]

Which means that it's very likely that in the presence of glyphosate their yield will drop.

Which means glyphosate is acting on other biological pathways we still do not yet understand.

And yet we still consider this stuff to be safe to use.

I'd rather just use bacillus thuringiensis.

If GMO rice passes traits to weeds, what does it pass on to humans?

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[phantomfive]

Which means glyphosate is acting on other biological pathways we still do not yet understand.

Manure acts on biological pathways we do not understand, and some of the ways it does act are known to be dangerous. Yet it's a fully organic fertilizer.

In biology, if you wait until you know everything, then nothing will ever get done. Sometimes you just have to narrow down the risk to as small as possible. In the case of Roundup, a lot of studies have been done testing the danger to human health, and it seems to be no more dangerous than manure.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[slick7]

Might be wrong, but bacillus thuringiensis is primarily used because of it's effectiveness as a -pesticide-. Glyphosate, as discussed here, is primarily used as a -herbicide-.

Both are pesticides...

Bt is used as an insecticide, both in GMO and conventional forms.

Glyphosate is a herbicide.

Monsanto is a genetic humana-cide.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[sjames]

According to TFS and TFA, the hybrid weeds produce 48-125% more seeds and have a higher rate of photosynthesis, both are beneficial.

But now a study led by Lu Baorong, an ecologist at Fudan University in Shanghai, challenges that view: it shows that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant fitness boost from glyphosate resistance, even when glyphosate is not applied.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Curunir_wolf]

In the case of Roundup, a lot of studies have been done testing the danger to human health, and it seems to be no more dangerous than manure.

Well, there have been a lot of studies run by Monsanto that seem to show that. But then there are other studies that show links to Parkinson's and Autism, cancer, degradation of soil nutrients, as well as lethal effects in amphibians, and perhaps most alarming, a recent study found roundup in the urine of 44% of European Union citizens. Not only that, but it seems that it is actually many of the adjucts used in Roundup applications that are being shown to have the most toxicity, an issue most of the studies completely ignore by studying only the glyphosate, instead of the entirety of the compounds being used in such abundance.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[ebno-10db]

Manure acts on biological pathways we do not understand, and some of the ways it does act are known to be dangerous.

But whatever the supposed dangers of manure, it has been used for thousands of years without any observed significant ill effect. I'd call that a pretty solid testing period.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[aXis100]

I would think it's just hybrid vigor

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[viperidaenz]

Who knows what secret abilities other non-GM plants have?

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[phantomfive]

But whatever the supposed dangers of manure, it has been used for thousands of years without any observed significant ill effect.

There's plenty of ill effect from using manure. I don't even know why you would not think that putting shit on food would not cause ill effect.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[TCPhotography]

Without proper sanitation, it's a known pathway for pathogens - you see it every so often in leafy greens from California (and other places) when feces end up in the fields.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[plopez]

Except by wiping out competitors, some of which may be critical in the overall food chain.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[plopez]

Until domesticated strains are wiped out by herbicide resistant wild strains....

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[ebno-10db]

"Without proper sanitation" being the key phrase. In other words it's known how to use it properly. Very few things are so idiot proof that they can't be used incorrectly.

As for "you see it every so often in leafy greens from California (and other places) when feces end up in the fields", the big problem there is human feces from harvesters who don't have a proper and convenient place to go. Yeah, somebody taking a dump on the veggies is a health hazard, but has nothing to do with the application of properly composted manure long before the harvest.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[phantomfive]

Indeed, in cultures where it is tradition to use manure as fertilizer, vegetables are usually cooked instead of eaten fresh to prevent the spread of bacteria.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[phantomfive]

Great, you have some exploratory studies that show potential research avenues for further looking into. Now compare those to the known negative effects of manure, and you'll have a more complete view of the topic.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Curunir_wolf]

Great, you have some exploratory studies that show potential research avenues for further looking into. Now compare those to the known negative effects of manure, and you'll have a more complete view of the topic.

Because Roundup has just as long and wide-spread history of use in human agriculture as manure?

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[ozydingo]

That's one possibility, among many. That doesn't get us to it being "very likely that in the presence of glyphosate their yield will drop".

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[ozydingo]

That must be some kinky pr0n you're watching...

(Hint for the slow ... it passes these traits by cross-breeding, which is, of course, not saying anything about the presence or absence of effects due to consumption and digestion)

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[phantomfive]

Because you're foolish if you only look at one side of an issue.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[ebno-10db]

You mean like France, Italy, Spain and Greece, all of which traditionally use manure as fertilizer and have lots of raw vegetables in their foods?

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Dare nMc]

Exactly the same is Roundup. We know that you don't want to get any on the farmers (during application), and we know we don't want to spray it close to harvest. They know if you don't spray either close to harvest, insignificant amounts (ie none) will be on/in the food. And no one will get ill.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Anonymous Coward]

But whatever the supposed dangers of manure, it has been used for thousands of years without any observed significant ill effect.

There's plenty of ill effect from using manure. I don't even know why you would not think that putting shit on food would not cause ill effect.

You're just kinda talking -- forgive the pun -- out of your ass here. Go read up on fertilizer, manure, and composting before making a bigger fool of yourself. Any extension service website will have plenty of information for using manure (raw and composted) in crops.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Nemyst]

Lead has had an extremely long life as a common metal throughout humanity for piping, building and much more. You can't assume that just because something has been around for a long time that it's going to be fine, that's foolish. Likewise, assuming that anything GM is going to be more dangerous is rather shortsighted. Remember, most of the stuff we eat is GM, it just happened through more traditional methods.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[sFurbo]

The first link seems to simply sum up the second one, so excuse me for no reading any more health news in the Huffington post than I need to, I have a sanity to take care of.

The second link is to a study that, at least from what I can read from the abstract, goes from "glyphosate can inhibit cytochrom P450" to "DEATH INSANITY AUTISM BALDNESS" without wondering whether this would have shown up in the animal tests of glyphosate or of compounds that are more active P450 inhibitors (e.g. azole fungicides are).

From the abstract of the third link: "Recommended dosages of glyphosate did not affect growth rates [of bacteria]."

About the fourth link, glyphosate is toxic to amphibians, but it also binds strongly to soil particles, so it isn't transported very far. It is important to keep it out of the waterways as much as possible, but not spraying too close to streams and not spraying just before rain should take care of that.

Finding glyphosate in the urine of people really isn't alarming, given that is is non-toxic to humans and we are really good at finding very small concentrations.

Yes, the soaps are the most toxic part of any glyphosate formulation is not glyphosate, for the simple reason that glyphosate is not very toxic. We need to evaluate the entire package.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[indeterminator]

Those are exactly the countries in which I would expect to get a food poisoning as a tourist.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[ozydingo]

The point above I believe is that rapid genetic modification (transgeneses) is more likely than existing flora that co-evolved with its ecosystem to cause harmful disruption to that ecosystem. The questions "what are my assumptions" and "what happens if they are wrong" should always be on a scientist's mind.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[ozydingo]

Likewise, assuming that anything GM is going to be more dangerous is rather shortsighted.

Perhaps, as stated, sure. In the same breath, though, I'd also call not devoting just a little more of our finite resources toward scrutiny of the effects of rapid GM (i.e. transgenic methods over cross-breeding) similarly short-sighted.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[mcgrew]

That would only happen if farmers were stupid enough to spray a grass herbicide on a non-GM strain. No farmer that stupid would stay in business long.

There may indeed be downsides, they didn't expect the upsides.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[drinkypoo]

Remember, most of the stuff we eat is GM, it just happened through more traditional methods.

No, that is bullshit and you are attempting to redefine the term GM, which specifically means that it didn't happen through more traditional methods. If you want to argue that they're functionally identical, you're still wrong, but you're not necessarily outright lying.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Agent0013]

Plus it makes a difference when the creator of the GM is a for profit company that has proven themselves to care not one iota for the health and safety of humans or the environment. And it is their tests we have that say it is safe. Sorry, I will look for a non-interested party to test the substance and determine it is safe. Also, so Monsanto test ever goes over 3 months. That's not long enough for harmful effects to appear.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[jbengt]

Manure acts on biological pathways we do not understand, and some of the ways it does act are known to be dangerous. Yet it's a fully organic fertilizer.

I don't know about the manure on Monsanto's organic farms, but most manure is full of artificial hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, etc.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Anonymous Coward]

the negative effects of manure are not from the manure itself.

but from the industrialization of the process.

of course since industry is in bed with government, and the money/power flow is circular, you will hear propaganda otherwise.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Richy_T]

Arguably beneficial. Probably not. It may make the plant mismatched for it's usual niche environment. Being a top-flight athlete is not an advantage if all you can get is 500 calories a day.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of Roundup, a lot of studies have been done testing the danger to human health, and it seems to be no more dangerous than manure.

Citation needed

How about this I'll eat a cup full of manure if you drink a cup full of roundup.?

Monsanto GM spin machine ..

[Anonymous Coward]

How to spin GM weed contamination into a positive story about glyphosate ..

Re:Monsanto GM spin machine ..

[Zontar The Mindless]

I don't like Monsanto any more than you do, but you are simply projecting.

The article says this appears to be better for the weeds. It does not say this is a Generally Good Thing(TM).

Re:Monsanto GM spin machine ..

[__aaltlg1547]

This is actually bad news for Monsanto. It means that farmers will be fighting weeds that can't be controlled with glyphosate, so they won't be using Roundup to fight them and they won't find RR1 seeds to be a smart buy.

ok so that was cheesey

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, just had to get the first post bug out there, sorry!

Just curious how many other GM crops have conferred special abilities upon their pedestrian 'natural' neighbors? It just seems to me the the potential benefits of GM crops with improved disease/pest resistance are outweighed by the possible negative side effects such as terminator crops, increased use of pesticides/herbicides, conferred resistance, and unchecked cross-pollination of supposedly "organic" crops in surrounding fields

Re:ok so that was cheesey

[Opportunist]

The problem starts when weeds start to "learn" from their GM "friends" how to survive herbicides, which makes your herbicides quite ineffective.

Re:ok so that was cheesey

[minstrelmike]

High Times (a pot mag) reported last century about a 'naturally' occurring RoundUp-resistant cocaine plant.
The US sprayed indiscriminately in Colombia and a few plants survived and passed on the trait.
Evolution happens.
For the folks who hate Monsanto, the difference between a GMO Franken-plant and a regular, sexually-modified plant is a matter of years or decades, nothing else.
But for Monsanto or Congress to expect natural selection to restrict itself to human needs seems bizarrely optimistic given the rest of evolutionary history.

Re:ok so that was cheesey

[Nanoda]

Or wipes out competing plants entirely. I read a book last month by Paolo Bacigalupi called The Windup Girl which involved a world where multinational conglomerates owned the genetic codes for engineered plants, and engineered plants were all that was left.

Pretty scary that things are getting even this close to that.

Wait...what?

[djupedal]

"A common assumption has been that if such herbicide resistance genes manage to make it into weedy or wild relatives, they would be disadvantageous and plants containing them would die out. "

...errr....don't you mean...not die out? And isn't the story here that a presumed barrier was crossed, not that it was a good thing...to some?

Re:Wait...what?

[Zontar The Mindless]

No. We're talking about the plants here, so that's "disadvantageous" from the viewpoint of the plants.

Re:Wait...what?

[Baloroth]

The assumption is that the gene results in changes that are energy unfavorable to the plant (the protection against glyphosate is presumably not free, requiring the production of extra proteins or something. I'm not a biologists, not sure how the resistance works). This energy deficit in herbicide resistant weeds means they will naturally be selected against, without exposure to the herbicide. This is the case for bacteria and anti-biotic resistance (at least in most cases). Turns out, in this case, the gene has beneficial side effects, even if the resistance itself is not (absent the herbicide).

Re:Wait...what?

[Valdrax]

The notion was that traits like glyphosate resistance bear a certain cost which would be why they haven't arisen naturally and been preserved. This can be seen in antibiotic resistance in bacteria, though even there it takes many, many generations for this to sort itself out.

So, if genes cross into wild plants, the idea was that they'd cause the "contaminated" wild plants to be losers, which would self-limit the propagation of such genes in the wild. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case: the genes that cause glyphosate resistance are actually a win-win for the plants receiving them, meaning that they'll have a competitive advantage even without glyphosate artificially putting selection pressure on them, which means the genes will actively spread in wild plants due to natural selection.

Re:Wait...what?

[mcgrew]

The only thing bad found (aside from the already known resistance weeds evolve for) was the headline. The real story is that these have higher yields than non-GM even in the absence of glyphosate.

Re:Wait...what?

[radtea]

...errr....don't you mean...not die out? And isn't the story here that a presumed barrier was crossed, not that it was a good thing...to some?

Nope. Hybridization is incredibly common amongst plants, so everyone who has ever given GMOs any thought has known all along that the genes would get loose. I've posted about this on /. and elsewhere for years, and presumably others have too.

The important story is that the GMO/hybrids are seeing some selective advantage, which is what people are surprised at: the assumption was that since these genes do not occur in these plants in nature, the odds of them conferring any selective advantage were extremely low. It would be like any random mutation: billions-to-one odds against being beneficial, because there are billions of ways of screwing up the molecular machinery of the cell and only a few ways of making it better (in part because organisms are by definition pretty well adapted to their environment in almost all cases... if they weren't they would have been out-competed by their better-adapted cousins.

I'm not opposed to GMOs as such, because it is stupid to be opposed to an abstraction as diverse as "GMO"--it would be like being opposed to "nuclear power", say, because one particular type of reactor has proven to be uneconomic. But putting responsibility for GMOs into the hands of a small number of global agri-corps seems to me a fairly bad idea because they are going to downplay the risks posed by the genes getting loose, be more concerned with deploying organisms that are profitable rather than sustainable (Roundup Ready plants are a good example of something I'm very leery of.)

Re:Wait...what?

[lkcl]

which means the genes will actively spread in wild plants due to natural selection.

and we've seen how the introduction of rabbits, foxes and other non-naturally-occurring animals into australia worked out, and how japanese bind weed has worked out when introduced outside of japan.

i cannot begin to voice how insanely dangerous it is to put random genes into food crops like this. the nightmare i "made up" one day was these insane "time-bomb" crops, where crops can be planted and grow but the seeds it creates are sterile. "commercially" this is incredibly "valuable" as it allows total control over the supply. now imagine some completely insane person creating "generation" time-bomb seeds, which grow, seed, grow, seed then grow sterile. now imagine _those_ cross-pollenating with wild crops and other species. you'd be looking at a world-wide famine in 5-10 years as the time-bomb gene would be both latent and undetectable.

what really shocked me was that i heard *ten years ago* that time-bomb crops ALREADY EXIST.

Re:Wait...what?

[ebno-10db]

Not true. FTA:

it shows that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant fitness boost from glyphosate resistance, even when glyphosate is not applied. ...The researchers also found that the transgenic hybrids had higher rates of photosynthesis, grew more shoots and flowers and produced 48–125% more seeds per plant than non-transgenic hybrids — in the absence of glyphosate. Making weedy rice more competitive could exacerbate the problems it causes for farmers around the world whose plots are invaded by the pest, Lu says.

Having weeds that are hardier and more competitive, even in the absence of glyphosate, is hardly desirable.

Re:Wait...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

seeds, which grow, seed, grow, seed then grow sterile.

you can achieve this through hybridization, no need for GMO there... I have a cucumber variety that is exactly like this : first years : fruit with viable seed, next year 90% male flower and some viable female flowers but the next generation will be 100% male.....

Re:Wait...what?

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

" I'm not a biologists, not sure how the resistance works"

You got the explanation right, maybe you should take up biology :-)

Glyphosphate resistance is actually relatively subtle - the "foreign" gene that's been inserted is one for a protein that serves the same function as one of the plant's "natural" genes that is inhibited by glyposphate, but this version comes from a bacterium. It's different enough that glyphosphate doesn't bother it, so while the plant's "natural" version of the gene is affected by the herbicide just as unmodified plants are, the bacterial version of the gene keeps chugging along and producing the vital protein for the plant anyway.

The possibility that the "weedy version" of the same species (Oryza sativa) expresses less of this protein that it would be able to make use of in a cultivated field, or perhaps in rice, the bacterial version of the gene functions more efficiently than the "native" protein, or something of the sort.

(I'm hoping there are followup studies investigating this, it's very interesting to me, and I'm not even into plant biology...)

Re:Wait...what?

[ebno-10db]

I'm not opposed to GMOs as such, because it is stupid to be opposed to an abstraction as diverse as "GMO"

A very sensible attitude, far from the usual unqualified pro or con.

But putting responsibility for GMOs into the hands of a small number of global agri-corps seems to me a fairly bad idea because they are going to downplay the risks posed by the genes getting loose, be more concerned with deploying organisms that are profitable rather than sustainable (Roundup Ready plants are a good example of something I'm very leery of.)

Gotta agree there too. Some things are potentially just too dangerous to be left to those whose only interest is making a buck in the short-term (and have a known history of being seriously sleazy bastards about it). Tetraethyl lead was introduced by people who knew damn well just how dangerous the stuff could be, but pulled all sorts of crap to hide that.

Re:Wait...what?

[Holi]

Yes the technology exists to make plants sterile, but the use of the Terminator Gene has never been sold or used by Monsanto.

Re:Wait...what?

[radarskiy]

To be specific, putting responsibility for GMOs in the hands of people *who do not understand natural selection* is a fairly bad idea.

Re:Wait...what?

[evilviper]

i cannot begin to voice how insanely dangerous it is to put random genes into food crops like this.

We've been modifying crops for millennia. What you think of "natural" is heavily modified. Apocalypse has been entirely averted thus far. I see no reason to go all tin-foil hat just because we've gotten significantly better at doing it quicker and with fewer side effects.

now imagine some completely insane person creating "generation" time-bomb seeds, which grow, seed, grow, seed then grow sterile. now imagine _those_ cross-pollenating with wild crops and other species. you'd be looking at a world-wide famine in 5-10 years as the time-bomb gene would be both latent and undetectable.

Plants' DNA aren't computer programs... You can't stick some code in there which will just self destruct exactly when you want to.

But hypothetically; you'd need much more than 10 years for your hybrid weeds to take over the wild parts of this plant, and then you'd be contending with mutations and evolution... Those plants that turned-off your modification would survive the mass extinction, and they would take over the empty space your mass die-off created.

Re:Wait...what?

[Spykk]

The important story is that the GMO/hybrids are seeing some selective advantage

But do those advantages have anything to do with genetic modifications? Food crops have been selectively bred for thousands of years. The result of hybridizing a wild strain with a strain that has been carefully cultivated is all but guaranteed to produce something superior to the wild strain. Why assume those advantages are a result of the direct modification of genes rather than plain old unnatural selection?

Re:Wait...what?

[kurzweilfreak]

Well, it's a typical catch-22: people want these things extremely tested (which they are) and regulated. Testing and regulation is expensive on top of already highly expensive high-tech science R&D. Hence, there's a very, very high barrier to entry in these industries and it's left up to the mega-corps that can afford it.

Re:Wait...what?

[10101001 10101001]

The notion was that traits like glyphosate resistance bear a certain cost which would be why they haven't arisen naturally and been preserved.

Yes, glyphosate resistance bears a certain cost. But what causes a gene to be preserved generally are (a) that cost not having significant enough impact to not be selected against and/or (b) there being enough regular pressure to retain that gene to be selected for. The major reason, presumably, for the lack of a widespread naturally occurring resistance to glyphosate probably has a lot more to do with (b), such that the few plants that by random mutation obtained that resistance would have no particular advantage and statistically die off (which also implies the trait has likely evolved numerous times in the past). I don't think (a) really even enters much into it given just how much crap DNA produces all the time.

This can be seen in antibiotic resistance in bacteria, though even there it takes many, many generations for this to sort itself out.

Or cross-breeding/gene transfer can make it go much faster.

So, if genes cross into wild plants, the idea was that they'd cause the "contaminated" wild plants to be losers, which would self-limit the propagation of such genes in the wild.

That's just wishful thinking, actually. The largest way I could see there being a disadvantage would seem most likely to be the transgenic method of incorporating that gene being something like a retrovirus and that action incorporating enough retrovirus DNA to cause the plants to be more prone to cancers. But given the life span of the plants in question, I don't think even that would be much of a selective pressure.

Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case: the genes that cause glyphosate resistance are actually a win-win for the plants receiving them, meaning that they'll have a competitive advantage even without glyphosate artificially putting selection pressure on them, which means the genes will actively spread in wild plants due to natural selection.

Yea, well, it'd seem bloody obvious that the should have done actual testing. If they had, they wouldn't have done simple hand waving upon a presumption of costs involved. Of course, it's always possible that the issue has to do with wild rice in particular or a specific subspecies/batch of wild rice, of which the latter might make it very difficult to test. Regardless, cross-breeding should have been reason enough to deeply consider whether it was worth it to grant domesticated plants herbicide resistance; it can almost be presumed that given enough time wild plants would eventually evolve resistance as well, but that tends to take decades (based on the scale of many, many generations).

Re:Wait...what?

[ozydingo]

Calling it "insanely dangerous" and talking about a famine in 5-10 years may be going all tin-foil hat, but you still can see why faster can potentially mean more dangerous, right? (Of course, I'd be more inclined to spend energy on investigating the Bt modification than the roundup ready, but anywho...)

Re:Wait...what?

[ozydingo]

As I have read it (in the paper itself), the authors cross-bred the rice & weedy rice, then split up the following generation of plants into those that expressed or did not express the modified gene. So the comparison was amongst hybrids. Still, it may be that this division has an inherent bias as to the presence or absence of other beneficial genes from the food crop, so it is interesting to question what the mechanism behind the reported benefits were.

The take-home point, however, is still that the hybrids containing the modified gene possessed an advantage over hybrids not containing that gene.

Re:Wait...what?

[fatphil]

Why did they patent it? To protect their commercial exploitation of it.

Why did they not commercially exploit it? Because there was widespread outcry before it got to market, and moratoria (and laws) were imposed forbidding same.

Ockham's razor helps in such situations.

Re:Wait...what?

[drinkypoo]

You're either trolling or dumb. You said you "made up" the nightmare, though, so I guess I hope you're just trolling.

It would take more than 5-10 years for even a very valuable gene to proliferate.

Convincing humanity that the "terminator gene" was their enemy is one of the most effective concepts Monsanto has ever put forward. We should have demanded it be placed into every GM organism in which it will function so that they do not reproduce, so that they do not spread their genes. Instead we simply have Monsanto enforcing their ownership of these organisms through the courts and destroying lives in the process...

Re:Wait...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This can be seen in antibiotic resistance in bacteria, though even there it takes many, many generations for this to sort itself out.

Yep, it takes so many generations it's almost five minutes.

Resistance

[Anonymous Coward]

A common assumption has been that if such herbicide resistance genes manage to make it into weedy or wild relatives, they would be disadvantageous and plants containing them would die out.

Who made that assumption? The genes are good for the plants we go out of our way to keep alive but the ones we have trouble killing off would somehow have a problem with them?

Re:Resistance

[Artifakt]

The idea is that there is always an energy cost in producing extra chemicals or biological structures in a living thing. If there's nothing around to make the extra chemicals or structures useful, the living thing would be better off not wasting energy making it. That's probably true in the vast majority of cases, but some compounds and structures have more than one use, and there's a second possibility (see below).
          The people who did this doubtless figured that there was a cost in producing round-up resisting compounds if there wasn't any roundup in that wild plant's environment. Again, that's solidly in accord with one part of modern Evolutionary theory. It would count as a real fluke if these compounds turned out to be useful for something else so the plant still benefited from making them. I'd expect most professional mollecular biologists to work from that principle and take it into account routinely. However, what the persons considering that probably did is, they thought something like "It would count as a real fluke if these compounds turned out to be useful for something else so the plant still benefited from making them, but it didn't already evolve naturally.". That sounds logical too, but the last clause doesn't always follow from theory, again because of the second possibility.
          What's that possibility? Another idea that's a solid part of modern evolutionary theory is that selection proceeds, as a metaphorical mindless robot, towards a local optimum at the time the selection pressure is being applied, never towards any abstract goal of longer term perfection. There may be many things that some organism might benefit from if they could be developed enough, but the intermediate stages have drawbacks and so selection never makes it 'over the hump'. These plants may have never evolved whatever advantage this gene gives them because there was an intermediate disadvantage unless the plant had the whole package. it isn't a fluke that something advantagious hasn't already evolved because of this - it happens all the time.
          There's probably several ways humans might have naturally developed with more of many traits we think of as positive, but they have short term consequences that aren't (for ex. there's an idea that what kept humans from naturally evolving down one pathway towards more strength is that the pathway has an intermediate stage where people get more succeptable to famine, and if we keep advanced civilization together for a few tens of thousands more years, traits supporting more strength will evolve naturally, just so we manage to feed a good portion of each generation without famine becoming near universal.
          Even the pros have to resist the tendency to say 'nature wants' or 'this gene wants', or other such phrases. It's hard to really visualize that selection has no goals, but proceeds mechanically towards the most locally optimum outcome, and take that consistently into account in describing evolutionary outcomes.

125% more seeds per plant....

[Anonymous Coward]

How far is it necessary to go before the "weedy" rice plants become a food source?

Obviously they have a good survivability in the presence of poor conditions. 125% more seeds might just make it useful with some other modifications to become a crop.

Re:125% more seeds per plant....

[ebno-10db]

How far is it necessary to go before the "weedy" rice plants become a food source?

As far as they went to get the domesticated rice. Asian rice is Oryza sativa. The weedy rice they're talking about is a subspecies, Oryza sativa f. spontanea, that degenerated from the cultivated rice. So if you got the weedy rice to be a food source, all you'd get is what we already have as a food source.

Re:125% more seeds per plant....

[AK Marc]

Only heartier, more prolific and already resistant to roundup.

It's like some selection is taking place naturally

[sandbagger]

Weird. Who could have foreseen that?

GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[NoKaOi]

The headline is outright wrong and misleading. The headline implies that GM rice is passing the trait onto weeds. That is not the case here. The study has nothing to do with whether or not the traits can get passed to weeds from GM rice. The study is not saying that GM rice passed anything along to weeds. It is saying that when intentionally GM'd, the weeds get benefits other than just glyphosate resistance. The stated conclusion of the article is that if the trait got into the weed it would be bad. Duh. The thing that makes the study a bit interesting is that it challenges a previous assumption regarding why it would be bad.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[ubergeek65536]

From the abstract
"herbicide resistance is expected to spread to conspecific weedy rice (Oryza sativa f. spontanea) via hybridization"

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[zippthorne]

Wait.. someone intentionally created GM weeds?!?

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[NoKaOi]

From the abstract
"herbicide resistance is expected to spread to conspecific weedy rice (Oryza sativa f. spontanea) via hybridization"

Exactly. The study does not say it has. And this particular study isn't even related to how or how likely resistance would get passed to the weeds. The headline, on the other hand, says GM rice "passes" which means it currently is passing, which is a lie. I'm not saying the study doesn't mean anything important, I'm saying it doesn't mean what the headline says it means. It is the headline that is the problem, not the study. Something about journalistic integrity or whatever that concept was that doesn't seem to exist anymore.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[minstrelmike]

Wait.. someone intentionally created GM weeds?!?

Yes. We do this with every chemical used on 'weeds.' It's called evolution.
It is similar to the way we are currently creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
What goes around comes around.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[ebno-10db]

Just to emphasize your point, the weeds they're talking about are a "degenerated" subspecies of the cultivated rice. They're the same species, which makes it awfully easy to pass on the traits.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[ebno-10db]

The headline says rice passes unexpected benefits to weeds. It does not say how or under what circumstances it passes them. You're making assumptions and reading something into the headline that isn't there.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[ubergeek65536]

No it doesn't say that it has happened. Only an idiot would release this into the environment.

That would be like the NTSB allowing a car on the road that they expected to explode under normal usage.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwinian evolution is based on natural selection. Human intervention on a massive scale is hardly 'natural selection'.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[Bad Ad]

Sure it is, we are just one of the pressures.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Monsanto is directly responsible for making weeds worse are they liable for the extra costs for fighting these weeds? I would expect so... and it would only be appropriate that they get bit in the ass first by their experiment.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[ozydingo]

"GM rice passes unexpected benefits to weeds" is true. This does not imply that this is occurring on any particular scale at any particular location, it just states that it happens. Which it does. When GM rice cross-breeds with a wild variety, the offspring has a benefit.

To this point, the weeds were not GM'd directly with the transgenic gene, they were cross-bred with GM rice crop. So, it is reasonable to suspect this is likely to happen in the wild. I wonder how difficult it is to collect a reasonably meaningful survey of wild crops to detect this occurrence, and if anyone has attempted it.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, only an idiot would release this into the environment.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait.. someone intentionally created GM weeds?!?

These "weeds" are what farmers here in the US call "volunteer corn" (because they don't grow much rice). When last year's roundup ready corn is harvested and plowed and you're planting soybeans this year, any roundup ready volunteer corn (which grew from last year's seeds) are weeds. A "weed" is any unwanted plant.

Re:GM Rice NOT passing to weeds

[AK Marc]

"natural selection" is persistence of desirable traits through environmental pressures (even unnatural ones). The "natural" part is procreation, as opposed to gene splicing. So yes, human unnatural selection of crops/dogs/whatever is still a subset of "natural selection" so long as the humans aren't splicing bacterial DNA into the plant.

GMO CROPS?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Feed me, Seymour!"

yes and no

[camus1]

Genetically modified crops can be very good for future earth but with wrong intention this can lethal for our existence. Even if the intention is not wrong there can thousands of unknown risks....So in short....Don't dare to f*** with nature...

Re:yes and no

[TsuruchiBrian]

So in short....Don't dare to f*** with nature...

As humans it is what we are best at. If you look at how dominant our species has been graphed with how much we fuck with nature, there is a pretty strong correlation.

I am not saying we should fuck with nature every chance we get, but rather that we should keep trying to do it in a way that is for our own good, rather than in ways that might cause us to get fucked back.

Re:yes and no

[phantomfive]

in short....Don't dare to f*** with nature..

That boat sailed a long time ago (I say, posting from an air-conditioned office, built on land that was reclaimed from the sea).

Re:It's like some selection is taking place natura

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's a perfect demonstration of "Intelligent Design".

Perhaps they should rename that theory "Stupid Design".

Unstoppable?

[GigaBurglar]

I guess the domestic security state is unstoppable too, right? Why don't you just roll over now - oh wait..

Why would that be a common assumption?

[TsuruchiBrian]

A common assumption has been that if such herbicide resistance genes manage to make it into weedy or wild relatives, they would be disadvantageous and plants containing them would die out.

Why would resistance to herbicide be disadvantageous? Obviously it might turn out to be, but why would anyone just assume that? If anything I would be tempted to assume the opposite.

Re:Why would that be a common assumption?

[ebno-10db]

It's assumed that the extra effort the plant puts into being glyphosate resistant (producing more of an enzyme known as EPSP synthase), which they assume serves no purpose in the wild (i.e. in the absence of glyphosate) would take away from some "effort" that the plant puts into being hardy under wild conditions. It's the same reason that cultivated fruit trees (e.g. oranges, apples) don't do as well in the wild as their native cousins. They've been breed to put "effort" into producing large fruits, which is great in the orchard, but is wasteful and evolutionarily disadvantageous in the wild.

Note that I used the word "assume" (in it's different forms) a number of times above. You know what they say about assumptions.

On Behalf of Monsanto...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

On behallf of Monsanto let me say, "Tough shit!"

So much for the one-gene one-trait theory

[Anonymous Coward]

GMO is based on a one-gene one-trait theory. This kind of blows a hole in that. It was previously shown that modifying a single gene can have effects other than the originally intended one. This is just more confirmation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_gene-one_enzyme_hypothesis This doesn't mean that 'all gmo is bad', but it does mean that there is a lot of experimentation and risk being pushed onto the public. But don't worry, the government regulators have us covered.

Re:So much for the one-gene one-trait theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone considered that Bt crops could be responsible for reduced bee populations?
If bees are using Bt crops as forage, there could be some major problems with pollination down the track.

Profit!

[the eric conspiracy]

1. Read an interesting article on GMO rice.
2. Totally botch the summary.
3. Even further botch the headline.
4. Submit to Slashdot.
5. ????
6. Your work is on the front page of Slashdot!!

Re:Profit!

[mangobrain]

Really, +5 Insightful? I actually thought the summary and headline were quite good. Let's take it point by point:

1. "A genetic-modification technique used widely to make crops herbicide resistant has been shown to confer advantages on a weedy form of rice, even in the absence of the herbicide."
Yep, that seems to be what they're saying - they took genetically-modified rice, cross-bred it with weedy rice, cross-bred the offspring to make a second generation, and found that the resulting plants were fitter than their weedy grandparents, according to several fitness measures.

2. "A common assumption has been that if such herbicide resistance genes manage to make it into weedy or wild relatives, they would be disadvantageous and plants containing them would die out."
Well, yes. From TFA: "“The traditional expectation is that any sort of transgene will confer disadvantage in the wild in the absence of selection pressure, because the extra machinery would reduce the fitness,” says Norman Ellstrand, a plant geneticist at the University of California in Riverside." Seems legit.

3. "But the new study led by Lu Baorong, an ecologist at Fudan University in Shanghai, challenges that view: it shows that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant fitness boost from glyphosate resistance, even when glyphosate is not applied."
This is taken almost word-for-word from TFA, so is also pretty accurate.

4. "The transgenic hybrids had higher rates of photosynthesis, grew more shoots and flowers and produced 48 — 125% more seeds per plant than non-transgenic hybrids — in the absence of glyphosate, the weedkiller they were resistant to."
Yep, these numbers come from TFA. The point being that this "extra fitness" was measured under normal conditions, with no glysophate application; so the weeds are not only glysophate-resistant, but natural selection will operate in their favour.

So yes, this is totally botched; an outrage, I say! Oh, wait...

So a higher yield of patented seeds?

[erroneus]

I heartily expect the GMO, patent encumbered rice will be rejected all over. Nothing says "our rice will weed out your rice and sue you into slavery" quite like this.

Completely unexpected!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody ever once mentioned the possible danger of super-weeds. </sarcasm>

Seriously though, nobody ever listened to the environmentalists warning of this eventuality, instead labeling them 'eco-terrorists'.
Similar thing happened with the people warning of creeping fascism being labelled 'tin-foil-hatters'.
Where are we now? Super-weeds and an authoritarian regime in charge of the largest super-power in history.

Will people ever learn? Probably not, but I have not given up hope. Yet...

not a fitness boost

[stenvar]

The transgenic hybrids had higher rates of photosynthesis, grew more shoots and flowers and produced 48 — 125% more seeds per plant than non-transgenic hybrids

That's not necessarily a fitness boost.

By analogy, having the genes that let you become a top athlete isn't a fitness boost either, otherwise we'd all have them by now.

Re:not a fitness boost

[Richy_T]

+1. This may make the plant less successful in its niche environment. A very anthropomorphic view of evolution. It's not all a race to become energy based trans-dimensional super-beings.

Not a problem...

[ilsaloving]

Monsanto can just sue the weeds for copyright infringement. Problem solved. ;)

Nothing to do with glyphosphate resistance

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

"his colleagues genetically modified the cultivated rice species to overexpress its own EPSP synthase[...] genetically identical to one another except in the number of copies of the gene encoding EPSP synthase."

Whoa, I missed that from the summary initially - this is NOT the foreign "glyphosphate resistant" bacterial version of the gene they're talking about here.

This sort of thing ("gene duplication" mutations) can happen naturally - it sounds like this exact variety of "GM Rice" COULD have been produced by natural "traditional" methods (it would have taken much longer and been much more expensive in labor, of course). This says more about the potential for "weed" varieties of Oryzae sativa to mutate to be more prolific than anything to do with glyphosphate resistance being beneficial to weeds outside of cultivated fields.

(Also, as stenvar pointed out in another comment, having "higher rates of photosynthesis, [growing] more shoots and flowers and producing 48-125% more seeds per plant" is not necessarily an evolutionary benefit if the resulting increased growth, for example, made the weeds more sensitive to drought or more attractive to herbivorous insects or something of the sort)

Not that it's unreasonable to hypothesize that "weedy" varieties of the rice plant would get a similar boost from having more EPSP Synthase expressed regardless of the reason, but there's also no guarantee that the result will hold when the "extra" enzyme is a version from a different species (as happens with "Roundup-Ready" plants)

I would be interested in seeing this experiment repeated for other common crops that have glyphosphate-resistant versions, it could be useful to know if this affects anything besides rice (and whether this effect could be useful if intentionally added to crop varieties, for that matter.)

Re:Nothing to do with glyphosphate resistance

[hibiki_r]

Molecular breeding helps increase the yield of wildtypes, film at 11!

Next, we'll hear that hybrid corn has better yield than straight inbreds.

Future Slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto. If it's alive, it's patently ours!

Re:first post?

[Anonymous Coward]

FIRST POST!

Wow, now THAT was expected.

But, GM foods passing genes to weeds that are close relatives that increases their survival capacity? Who'd a thunk it?

Diesel, by any other name, is still diesel

[Taco Cowboy]

Did you know that truckers have to buy a different diesel fuel than non-commercial drivers? It's more expensive than the regular diesel, the only real difference other than price is the non-commercial has a dye in it so the tax collectors can identify when a driver cheaps out and buys the wrong fuel. This is just an example of where two otherwise identical products are priced differently and are required to be used for different purposes

Want to buy the cheapest diesel ?

Try home-heating fuel oil

They are heavily subsidized for home owners to heat their house during winter, and the only difference in between the home-heating fuel oil and the on-road diesel is that the on-road diesel has most of the sulfur removed

Back in the 1980's a group of Russians was raking in truckloads of money by selling home-heating fuel oils in gas stations they own, in New Jersey

Re:Diesel, by any other name, is still diesel

[compro01]

Back in the 1980's a group of Russians was raking in truckloads of money by selling home-heating fuel oils in gas stations they own, in New Jersey

That'll work for a diesel engine of that era, but a modern direct injected turbodiesel is less forgiving about lousy cetane numbers and will run like crap.

Resistance is

[future assassin]

futile

- Space 1999

The road to hell...

[NotQuiteReal]

The road to hell is paved with gold... no, that's not right.

The road to hell is paved with unintended consequenses... no that's not it, either.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yes, that sounds right.

Weedy

[Anonymous Coward]

What the heck does "weedy" mean?

Who man!

[Maxo-Texas]

Weed with nutritional benefits.

That would be a twofer twofer.

Re:Who man!

[ozydingo]

There are plenty

Royalties on weeds?

[Tablizer]

Democrats tax weeds, while Republicans make you pay royalties on weeds. Your pocket is emptied either way.

(Although one tends to flow to the poor, the other to the rich.)

I dont see how that would be good...

[YoungManKlaus]

No text

News: plant grows better in absence of weedkiller

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, it's resistant, but not totally bloody immune to it -- it has to express a gene, translate through RNA into protein, and get rid of the by-products. Without it, it can just grow and reproduce without this irritation.

How was this unexpected?

Foolish assumptions

[mangobrain]

From TFA: “The traditional expectation is that any sort of transgene will confer disadvantage in the wild in the absence of selection pressure, because the extra machinery would reduce the fitness,” says Norman Ellstrand, a plant geneticist at the University of California in Riverside.

Well, that seems like a foolish expectation. These modifications aren't already common in the wild, therefore they must be disadvantageous? This seems to be assuming that evolution has already made these plants as fit as they are going to get, and can't possibly be altered in a way that might make them more so (regardless of whether the alteration has any desirable side-effects). To me, it seems pretty stupid to assume that evolution has somehow peaked, for *any* species, given the time scales, diversity and mechanisms involved.

It's not often I come away from an article like this thinking "those stupid scientists, this is clearly wrong because of X", because normally they've been looking at it for a lot longer than I have and there is something (often a whole wealth of things) I don't understand or am not aware of. But in this case - those stupid scientists, this is clearly wrong because evolution will keep going unless we somehow eliminate all natural sources of genetic mutation.

Re:Foolish assumptions

[DMUTPeregrine]

No, the point is that adding extra proteins for a cell to make costs energy, and that has a much higher probability of reducing fitness than increasing it. It says nothing about evolution having "peaked."

Re: Foolish assumptions

[mangobrain]

Surely though this is entirely dependent on the effects - expected and otherwise - of those extra proteins? The energy argument sounds convincing in its simplicity, but I am doubtful precisely because of that simplicity. We are not dealing with simple organisms in simple environments; the very existence of this article speaks to a complexity and subtlety of interactions which cannot be easily predicted.

Re: Foolish assumptions

[DMUTPeregrine]

.Note that I said "higher probability of reducing fitness" not "always reduces fitness." The energy argument is correct, but probabilistic. The effects of the proteins are likely to be poor if the proteins are chosen randomly out of the set of all possible proteins (similar to the case with natural mutation) but not as likely to be poor if the proteins are chosen deliberately for a purpose.

Roundup ready autoimmune & inflamation disease

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_AHLDXF5aw

Dr Seneff has published a paper that shows the pathway that Roundup can poison the bacteria in the human gut and cause huge problems.

So the more crops that are Roundup ready the more Roundup you eat and poison yourself and your kids with.

BT

[PortHaven]

BT is not an insecticide. BT is just a bacteria? So you are essentially covering your plants with a predatory infection.

Re:In the absence of glyphosate: Why???

[Anonymous Coward]

"Which means that it's very likely that in the presence of glyphosate their yield will drop."

How is that? The modification is specifically intended to provide immunity. The fact that the strain affected is 'weedy' or perhaps better described as feral shouldn't preclude it from immunity. If anything this demonstrates the real terror behind the terminator gene.