Genetically Modified Canola Spreads To Wild Plants 414
eldavojohn writes "A research team conducting a survey has found that about 86% of wild canola plants in North Dakota have genetically modified genes in them, and 'two samples contained multiple genes from different species of genetically modified plants.' Canola usually has little competition when cultivated but does not fare well in the wild. The Roundup Ready and Liberty Link strains of genetically modified canola appear to be crossing over to wild plants and helping it survive. The University of Arkansas team claims that the ease in which genetically modified canola has 'escaped' into the wild should be noted by seed makers like Monsanto because this is proof that it will happen."
Reader n4djs notes that Monsanto has been known to sue farmers for patent infringement when their crops unintentionally contain genetically modified plants.
Mansanto Took the Bees to Court (Score:5, Funny)
Prince "must prove anti-GM claim" (Score:5, Funny)
Prince Charles must prove his claim that GM crops could cause a global environmental disaster [newstechnica.com], Monsanto has challenged.
Cylon Number Six of Monsanto Public Relations said it was their "moral responsibility" to investigate whether genetically modified crops, fully owned and patented to the hilt by Monsanto, could help provide a suitably profitable solution to hunger in the developing world. Monsanto famously protect their hard work, having sued and won for patent violation when their seeds have blown onto another farmer's land.
"We see this as part of our Africa strategy," she said. "It's easy for those of us with plentiful food supplies to ignore the issue, but we have a responsibility to use science to get our hooks into the less well off where we can. We certainly wouldn't drive them off their land, they're too useful to us as labour. It's in their own best interest. I think of it as the 'Corporate Man's Burden.'"
Nestlé has also urged the European Union to review its opposition to GM. "People are starting to think Monsanto are a bigger bunch of bastards than we are, and we can't have such strikes against our public image go unchallenged."
It's AOL fault! (Score:4, Funny)
So AOL lost 86% of its customers since 2001 [slashdot.org] and now 86% of wild canola contain genetically modified genes? Something fishy is going on!
Re:capitalism again. (Score:3, Funny)
Your verb tense implies that there is only one "sane". I think *that* is the problem.
Also, nice Shatner comma after "this".
Re:Slashdaughters, let us avoid... (Score:3, Funny)
Are you kidding? I've got enough fat reserves to last at least a year before I turn to Anarchy.
You people on those "Eat 5 times a day" diets are screwed though.
Re:In fact (Score:2, Funny)
And that statement is as useful as saying "A green sky would lead to plants growing poorly."
We do not, and never have had, a completely unregulated free market. What we do have in the US, and in all other free countries, is a fundamentally free market. This means people are free to choose to work in the field they please, and that prices, products, etc are generally set by free market principles. The result is the most efficient, least corrupt economy humans have yet been able to create.
Trying to spin it doesn't change the reality. The free market works. That does not mean it is a be-all, end-all, that does not mean that regulation is not useful and necessary. It does mean that so far, we've got nothing better, regardless of if you like that fact or not.
Re:Mansanto Took the Bees to Court (Score:3, Funny)
Speaking of "Capitalism" (Score:3, Funny)
Is your shift key broken or did a capitalized letter run over your dog? I'm not the sort of person to jump down someone's throat for making a grammatical error. Errors are, after all, unintended -- and I, like most, make them all the time. But what I find much harder to ignore is a person who simply decides to ignore a grammatical convention as a matter of style or lazyness, especially when doing so saves him no time and only serves to give the writer a douchey affectation.
Grammatical conventions exist for a reason. It's significantly harder to parse a paragraph of text when you can't tell at a glance where sentences are beginning and ending. Perhaps you read one word at a time, but many of us parse text in larger chunks and simply leaving out punctuation, or, in your case, capital letters can significantly slow down the speed at which a person is able to read what you have written.
It's not saving you any time. It doesn't make you seem laid back and informal. In fact, unless you are trying to impersonate a 12 year old girl, its not doing anything for you. If you are not a 12 year old girl, and the person reading your post knows this, then he/she will likely assume that you are a douchebag. Please bear this in mind in the future.