Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Roundup Tolerant GM Maize Linked To Tumor Development 356

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the roundup-flavor-soda-proved-disastrous dept.
New submitter spirito writes with this snippet about rats fed Roundup laced water: "The first animal feeding trial studying the lifetime effects of exposure to Roundup tolerant GM maize, and Roundup, the world's best-selling weedkiller, shows that levels currently considered safe can cause tumors and multiple organ damage and lead to premature death in laboratory rats, according to research published online today by the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. ... Three groups were given Roundup in their drinking water, at three different levels consistent with exposure through the food chain from crops sprayed with the weedkiller: the mid level corresponded to the maximum level permitted in the US in some GM feed; the lowest corresponded to contamination found in some tap waters. Three groups were fed diets which contained different proportions of NK603 – 11%, 22% and 33%. Three groups were given both Roundup and NK603 at the same three dosages. The final control group was fed an equivalent diet with no Roundup or NK603 but containing 33% of equivalent non-GM maize." The Chicago Tribune reports that not everyone's convinced of the results: "Experts not involved in the study were highly skeptical about its methods and findings, with some accusing the French scientists of going on a 'statistical fishing trip.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Roundup Tolerant GM Maize Linked To Tumor Development

Comments Filter:
  • by Electrawn (321224) <electrawn@yahoTWAINo.com minus author> on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:29AM (#41387553) Homepage

    All right, we get sick of Slashdot editor bashing, but this needs to be addressed.

    The link to the Chicago Tribune is from a Reuters newsfeed. The attribution should be to Reuters, via Chicago Tribune.

    For quick reference, any "feed" stories from tribune company are going to have "sns" in the title. Other papers will vary.

    (From a former Tribune Co. Employee).

  • Awful headline. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:29AM (#41387567)

    The headline suggests that GM corn causes cancer. This is ludicrous and only feeds the ignorant paranoid anti-GM crowd.

    It's ROUNDUP exposure that's linked to tumors - NOT genetic modifications. I am not at all surprised.

    I've been saying for years that there is nothing particularly risky about GM foods - it's dumping horrendous of herbicide on things that's risky... this is obvious to me, but not to the ignorant masses.

    Don't give the freaks ammunition, please.

    • by binarylarry (1338699) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:37AM (#41387667)

      In other news, Monsanto has patented cancer.

      Joe Baggaleducia, Monsanto Chairperson, said "Monsanto is tired of users benefiting from the use of our proprietary cancer implementation and we're going to be pressing the matter in the courts soon. We don't care if you're old, young, or dying. You will be paying your $599 Monsanto CancerPlus fee, you cock smoking tea baggers. Show me the money!"

      Mr Baggaleducia then stripped naked and jumped into the giant money pit he recently had installed inside his tropical home in the Caymens. A Monsanto Spokesman was not available for comment.

      • Re:Awful headline. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SoulMaster (717007) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:57AM (#41388017)

        You know, as I was RingTFA, I was trying to figure out how the reporter didn't mention Monsanto at all. Seriously, your quote is modded funny, but not including the fact that Monsanto owns (and TIGHTLY controls) both in the article seems to be a significant oversight on the part of the press.

        -SM

      • Re:Awful headline. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Firethorn (177587) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @12:05PM (#41388149) Homepage Journal

        In other news, Monsanto has patented cancer.

        Funny, but while I agree there's a lot of evil at Monsanto, there's the problem that in many cases Roundup is LESS toxic than the alternatives if you want to get the crop yeild per acre/dollar that you can with Roundup & Roundup ready crops. It's sad, but we have limited amounts of fields and only so many resources(in dollar equivalents).

        Theoretically speaking, we could feed pretty much everybody on the planet with 10% of the current planted crop areas if we switched to high density greenhouse hydroponics/aquaculture. We also wouldn't need anywhere near as much fresh water from the environment, but it would come at horrendous cost.

        We could shift to non-greenhouse organic or non-roundup, but then we'd need more acres under cultivation, and it'd ultimately cost more for food. People have already rioted over food prices around the world. Actually heard on the news that they've spotted the price point at which 'global unrest' occurs. Didn't say what that price point is, but said they figured it out.

        Food is serious business; we can only attempt to make food as safe as possible while still producing enough.

        • Re:Awful headline. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Sir_Eptishous (873977) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @12:37PM (#41388745) Homepage
          Meat, especially Beef is the real problem [npr.org].

          It's only a matter of time until the resources required to create meat get stressed to the point of pricing it out of most peoples diet. The fact that the developing world, especially China, is increasing the amount of meat in its diet will only increase the problem and quicken the change.

          The American Fast Food Industrial Complex that has led the way in shaping the American diet and it's addiction to Beef will have to re-shape the American diet towards vegetarianism.
        • Re:Awful headline. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Solandri (704621) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @01:47PM (#41389923)

          It's sad, but we have limited amounts of fields and only so many resources(in dollar equivalents).

          We have plenty of fields. The U.S. produces an oversupply of food each year, and has to figure out ways to get rid of the excess (foreign aid, high fructose corn syrup, cattle feed, corn ethanol). The reason is because we implemented policies to ensure overproduction, to avoid a repeat of the food shortages which followed the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. And population growth in Canada and the U.S. is less than one percent a year [wikipedia.org], trending towards zero growth. There is no need to maximize yield per acre here, just a profit incentive to do so.

          The vast majority of the world's population growth is in third world countries [wordpress.com]. Developed nations all have population growth rates near zero or even negative. There's something about living in a modern post-industrialized economy which makes people want to have fewer kids. So the solution to feeding the burgeoning world population isn't to maximize yield per acre. It's to assist those third world countries in developing their economies so they too can become post-industrialized nations. If you instead concentrate on making more food, that population growth will just continue a vicious cycle of poverty and high population growth, until starvation and fighting over food finally caps it.

    • Re:Awful headline. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Znork (31774) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:38AM (#41387697)

      Of course, since the purpose of the GM in the case of roundup resistant strains is to be able to bathe the GM plants in roundup, it could be argued that only the GM corn will give you roundup related cancer, the non-resistant corn would be dead long before you could eat it.

    • Re:Awful headline. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by o'reor (581921) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:42AM (#41387761) Journal
      Wrong. TFA says:

      Researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats' health whether they were consumed on their own or together.

      (emphasis mine)

      So even without spraying Roundup on it, the GM crop increases the occurences of cancers.

      • Re:Awful headline. (Score:5, Informative)

        by dbet (1607261) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @12:36PM (#41388717)
        The paper [sustainablefoodtrust.org]

        They don't go into detail about how the Roundup is exposed. In previous studies, they use adjuvants to help with delivery, which can increase toxicity. But they say nothing in this paper. They also don't control dietary intake. What if GM corn is tastier and they're eating more? Or less?

        Furthermore, they observe the same health effects in the roundup group, the GM corn group, and the GM+R (both) group, AND these effects are not dose-dependent. Combine this with the small sample size, and the fact they're using a tumor-prone rat breed, you have a paper that's going to be crucified by peer review.

        As of today, there is no citation for this paper by Food and Chemical Toxicity which means... I don't know. But it hasn't been published yet. Was this leaked during peer review process? This stinks and everyone should withhold judgement.
        • Re:Awful headline. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Protoslo (752870) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @03:28PM (#41391199)
          I just read the paper, and wish I had mod points today. You are right, and your view seems very under-represented in this thread (though I am surprised that you are surprised that they released/held a press conference about a pre-print paper: even respectable researchers do that!).

          The grant for the study was from CRIIGEN [criigen.org], a European nonprofit that exists to discredit genetically modified food: the research was certainly conceived with a conclusion already in mind. To be sure, Monsanto and others fund motivated studies of their own; this is a highly fraught and politicized area of research.

          Considering the obvious bias of the researchers, I think their inability to point to any legitimate statistically significant effect of roundup or the corn is...significant. There were 9 experimental groups of 10 of each gender for a single control group, and while the food and water intake were "measured," the results of the measurements are not mentioned in the paper at all or correlated to the mortality. Instead of looking at the actual lifespan of the rats, the more dramatic binary condition of "mortality before mean life expectancy" was measured.

          The vast majority of male rats died on their own, and majority of female rats were eventually euthanized due to massive tumors, something that can far more substantially be explained by the line of rat they used than by the experimental variables: they could have done a different study and as accurately declared that 80% of female rats fed only standard rat chow developed cancer. Among the 100 male rats, there was no even moderately significant result for mortality or tumors between the control and the experimental groups. Among the females, the Roundup groups showed the most tumors, but the GMO Corn + Roundup groups didn't vary significantly from the control! I don't think there is any consistent hypothesis that can adequately explain all of their results except for random variation, possibly modulated by food intake, but the researchers don't even try.

          They devote a whole page to pictures of the most gross-looking rat tumors in the GM groups, and then a page to graphs of high-variation metabolic test results for the single experimental group female 33% GMO Corn v. the control. On the next page you see a table of selected blood tests between all 10 female groups, with the "significant" results highlighted. Unfortunately for the researchers, the variation is often "significant" both above and below the control group's numbers, and with no apparent correlation to the concentration of GM corn or roundup. Judging by the amount of apparent random variation between the experimental groups, there is no reason to believe that the control group's numbers represent anything like the real "mean" at all, so you would expect just what they got: a lot of variation from the control group in both directions, with some measures where it was the control group that was the outlier and thus the experimental groups are normally distributed on one side only. Just as with tumor count, the GMO+Roundup groups ironically had "better" numbers than either the groups on either GM Corn or Roundup alone.

          I think that the paper can be summed up best by this rather apropos xkcd [xkcd.com], with the difference that in this case it was the researchers themselves who made the headline. Their statistics, when even present, are crap, and they bring further discredit to the already-disreputable European anti-GM food movement. At the beginning of the paper, they claim that while glyphosate itself has been tested (negatively) for health effects, the total formulation of roundup has not, and its effects, if any, are unknown. Apparently, that condition still obtains.
    • Re:Awful headline. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nadaka (224565) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:46AM (#41387825)

      No, the interaction of genes to the proteins that are expressed in the field is not an exact science. Fiddling with genes can and will produce unexpected changes in crops with some small number of those being potentially dangerous.

      And that is not even counting the GM foods that have been intentionally modified to naturally contain pesticides.

    • by PSiLiCON (160088)

      Actually if you had RTFA, you would have realized that both Roundup and the GM corn caused cancer independently.

      The headline suggests that GM corn causes cancer. This is ludicrous and only feeds the ignorant paranoid anti-GM crowd.

      It's ROUNDUP exposure that's linked to tumors - NOT genetic modifications. I am not at all surprised.

      I've been saying for years that there is nothing particularly risky about GM foods - it's dumping horrendous of herbicide on things that's risky... this is obvious to me, but not to the ignorant masses.

      Don't give the freaks ammunition, please.

    • Re:Awful headline. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jandersen (462034) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:52AM (#41387939)

      I've been saying for years that there is nothing particularly risky about GM foods - it's dumping horrendous of herbicide on things that's risky... this is obvious to me, but not to the ignorant masses.

      Strictly speaking, we don't know whether GM food is risky; historically, there has been a long list of substances that were regarded as "obviously harmless" or even "beneficial", which none the less turned out to be harmful.

      However, there is a more subtle danger: genes will eventually escape into wild plants. If, say, wheat is given this RoundUp gene, there is a large risk that this gene will spread to closely related grasses one day, and suddenly we have a wild and potetially undesirable, wild plant with resistence to RoundUp. The truth is, we know far too little about how genes transfer between species to rule out any scenario.

      Or, just imagine if pharming takes off as an industry - what will happen if the genes that produce some powerful medicine somehow escape into the wild? And perhaps combine with other genes to produce effects that are completely unexpected? It would be nice if we, as a species, would sometimes look before we jump.

      • Strictly speaking, we don't know whether GM food is risky; historically, there has been a long list of substances that were regarded as "obviously harmless" or even "beneficial", which none the less turned out to be harmful.

        You do realize that nearly everyone's already decided one way or the other, based on their political brainwashing, and your sane and reasonable reality-based statements are useless, right? It's the same as a nuclear power argument; you're just ringing a bell for Pavlov's dogs, who will

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      Wrong, both do:

      Researchers found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 Roundup tolerant GM maize, or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the US, died earlier than rats fed on a standard diet. They suffered mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.

    • The headline suggests that GM corn causes cancer. This is ludicrous and only feeds the ignorant paranoid anti-GM crowd

      As headlines go I think it is fair since in the real world there is some residual roundup contamination which makes it into our food and water supplies.

      The problem with distinctions are in the details of the study itself where Roundup vs NK603 were always kept together and never tested separatly.

      Why should it matter which component is the cause if people are actually being exposed to both in their daily lives by eating round-up ready GM? A study including both with dosages based on regulatory guidelines s

    • Re:Awful headline. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Will.Woodhull (1038600) <wwoodhull@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @12:33PM (#41388665) Homepage Journal

      I am blowing off a couple of mod points to answer this, but parent post's spin doctoring needs to be addressed.

      RTFA, and you will find that the study showed a similar increase in diseases in the experimental groups that received only GM corn (no Roundup), only Roundup, and both GM corn and Roundup. With no statistical difference between the lowest dose groups and the highest dose groups. This, according to the study, suggests that both Roundup and the genetic manipulation that provides corn with protection against Roundup both interfere in the same way with some critical biochemical pathway at levels at least 100 times lower than those that are currently considered safe by the USDA, etc. The interference is described as a "threshhold effect", meaning that the presence of something in the GM manipulated corn and also in Roundup switch a pathway completely from one thing to another. This could happen, for instance, if the pathway was in the epigenetic mechanisms that turn sets of genes on and off. Some product of partial metabolism of Roundup and of the genetics that provide Roundup immunity might be throwing switches the wrong way.

      One would hope that follow-up studies would explore whether the problem occurs at a specific phase of gestation or growth. Perhaps after a certain age there are no ill effects at all (the experiment was designed for whole life exposures, nothing more granular than that).

      There is the possibility that the experimental design was flawed, or that some lowly lab tech was hired by agents of Treehuggers Anonymous to sabotage the work. Those possibilities appear to be vanishingly small, considering the reputations of the agencies behind the study.

      There is however a relatively high probability that agents of the Monsanto Industrialized Food Complex will attempt to introduce FUD into any Slashdot discussion of the subject. Actually, irrespective of the intelligence and naievity levels of author of parent post, the probability of MIFC agents becoming active on ths Slashdot discussion approaches 1.00.

    • it's dumping horrendous of herbicide on things that's risky... this is obvious to me,

      Why is it obvious? Weeds have to be dealt with. Prior to "Roundup Ready" GMO crops, one solution was to spray much stronger herbicides on the fields before planting to kill weeds still in the seed. So non-GMO (but also non-organic) crops often have more herbicide. Roundup is a relatively mild herbicide, it doesn't persist in soil, and less of it is used because it is sprayed when weeds are most vulnerable. For maize, it is usually used when the crop is a few inches high, months before the grain is harv

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:33AM (#41387627)

    1. Analyze a dangerous poison.
    2. Modify a crop's genes to be resistant against said dangerous poison
    3. Treat modified crop liberally with dangerous poison
    4. Have cattle eat crop treated with dangerous poison
    ???
    6. Be amazed at what the poison does to non-resistant life forms.

    • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:59AM (#41388047) Journal

      They should modify the peoples' genes, so they can eat the Roundup directly without having to bother with that silly ol' corn.

    • Re:Dangerous poison. (Score:5, Informative)

      by vlm (69642) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @12:01PM (#41388075)

      1. Analyze a dangerous poison.

      LOL. Glyphosate kills anything that makes its own tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine. People supposedly cannot synthesize it we can only eat it. Much as oxygen will kill some anaerobic bacteria, it would be a huge shock to discover oxygen causes cancer in people.

      A quick "chemists glance" at the MSDS and its about as scary as rubbing alcohol... I would not drink it or wash my hands in it before eating, but I wouldn't freak out either. Everything in a chemistry lab is dangerous, you have to put it in a spectrum, and this is worse than the distilled water but pretty much obviously on the safe edge of the spectrum compared to everything else in a lab. Some of the problem is the solvents and stuff the herbicide is dissolved into to spread it around. I heard there was a court case where some PR clown called it as safe as table salt, which although technically true is misleading because your body has perfectly adequate although extremely unpleasant ways to remove a lethal salt dose from your body, unless you somehow stop it or inject it all at once. Calling it as safe as rubbing alcohol would have been about as true and less likely to get sued.

      Its pretty laughable that glyphosate is a "dangerous poison". Try some organic mercury compounds if you want real danger. Its not even useful for biowarfare, not persistent enough, its highly biodegradable. Which mystifies me... so if it all degrades worst case in 100 days, and twinkie sits on the shelf for 4 months before its eaten, how is anyone eating the stuff? Yeah, I know, field to table salad without rinsing or washing, but that doesn't fit the meme of all american diets being hyper processed.

      The other funny part is its use will be a footnote in history "soon". Too many resistant weeds are spreading. Why spend big bucks to apply something that'll do nothing. Why agitprop to ban something that no one will want to manufacture pretty soon, anyway?

      • Re:Dangerous poison. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by o'reor (581921) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @12:33PM (#41388663) Journal
        Actually, glyphosate is dangerous for plants only. However, the molecule has to find its way across the cell walls of the plant. So Monsanto added surfactant agents to break into the cells, so that the glyphosate could enter the plant. And those are *really* dangerous. [naturescountrystore.com]
        • The article you linked to is baloney. 1,4 dioxane is not a particularly toxic material. It's a trace contaminant in a minor component of RoundUp. It's LD50 is over 5gm/kg and it's IARC rating is 2B. That designation is generally used for things that there is inconclusive evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and no evidence in humans.

          The fact of the matter is there is no real evidence of mammal toxicity in RoundUp despite decades of testing in independent labs. Some aquatic life is affected because the sur

        • by chihowa (366380)

          Actually, glyphosate is dangerous for plants only. However, the molecule has to find its way across the cell walls of the plant.
          So Monsanto added surfactant agents to break into the cells, so that the glyphosate could enter the plant. And those are *really* dangerous. [naturescountrystore.com]

          Huh? Surfactant agents, like soaps? Nothing in your linked page is even remotely dangerous except for the 1,4-dioxane, which is not added deliberately but is a contaminant (granted, they should work that out). It's not even that bad for you in trace amounts, though it should be avoided.

          By no means am I even remotely sympathetic to Monsanto, but making stupid claims just hurts the cause.

      • Re:Dangerous poison. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by lobiusmoop (305328) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @01:15PM (#41389389) Homepage

        "it would be a huge shock to discover oxygen causes cancer in people"

        Er... oxygen causes cancer in people. It's why antioxidants are popular:

        Oxidative Stress [wikipedia.org]

      • by Solandri (704621)

        The other funny part is its use will be a footnote in history "soon". Too many resistant weeds are spreading.

        That's incredibly ironic. Monsanto's earliest court victory for patent infringement on Roundup-Ready GM crops was in Canada. The Canadian Supreme Court bought Monsanto's argument that even if the farmer didn't know why the crop he found on his fields was resistant to Roundup, he "should have known" the only possible reason was that it contained Monsanto's patented gene. And thus they found him gu

  • by judoguy (534886) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:39AM (#41387721) Homepage
    I have a friend that's a food researcher at a large Midwestern university. He's not opposed to Roundup per se, but rather the *massive* use of it on vast areas of monoculture.

    He says that this is guaranteed to produce Roundup impervious weeds. At some point these super weeds will need very toxic chemicals to kill. The real problem is that vast areas of monoculture are unsustainable.

    Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it up with what can tolerate the environment.

    • by pepty (1976012)
      In this, the best of all possible chemical-industrial complexes, we should really be expecting that as each generation of antibiotic, herbicide, or pesticide is kneecapped by the evolution of resistant organisms (and simultaneously goes off patent) a new generation of molecules should come in to fill the gap. Unfortunately the chemical end of the operation doesn't seem to be up to speed these days ...
  • Giant Ragweed (Score:5, Informative)

    by sir_eccles (1235902) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:43AM (#41387775)

    You know what has also become Roundup resistant? Giant ragweed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19585341 [bbc.co.uk]

  • Get it right (Score:2, Informative)

    by nedlohs (1335013)

    roundup is linked to the tumors not GM food.

    Surprise surprise, poison is bad for you.

    Of course there's a simple solution to this. Don't just genetically modify the maize to be resistant to roundup, genetically modify people to be as well. There, problem solved. And Monsanto should love that since everyone needs a patent license from them to have a kid.

    • Re:Get it right (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gideon Wells (1412675) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @12:09PM (#41388225)

      I think you might be wrong. Took me a few readings as the wording was a tad wonky. I believe there were four test groups:

      * Round up and GM corn at three levels.
      * Just round up and normal corn at three levels.
      * Normal water and GM corn at three levels.
      * Control - Tap and normal corn.

      The article claims only the control group was healthy.

    • Key quote from the article:

      "Researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats' health whether they were consumed on their own or together."

      Four groups:
      1. Fed Roundup & GM corn - cancer
      2. Fed Roundup - cancer
      3. Fed GM corn - cancer
      4. Fed no roundup or GM corn - no cancer.

  • Mark Lynas ( https://twitter.com/mark_lynas [twitter.com] ) picked some interesting points out of the paper (and links to a mirror of the paper).

    30% of the 20 control rats also got tumours.

  • So for everyone who did not bother to read TFA and posted rants below to the tune of "Oooooh they fed both GM food and herbicide to the rats ! It's not the GM crops that give cancer, it's the Roundup ! French scientists have surrendered their intelligence" and so on...

    Here is the key sentence in the article:

    Researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats' health whether they were consumed on their own or together.

    (emphasis mine)

  • by edibobb (113989) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @12:11PM (#41388263) Homepage
    NK603 is as dangerous as cell phone radiation.
  • I tried to find this paper online but I don't think its available as a preprint yet. But I did find that the lead author has been stuffing rats with assorted GMO foods for many years. Sometimes its kidney failure, sometimes its cancer, maybe sometimes nothing happens. The important thing is how many negative results he's had and not published. That's statistical GMO cherry-picking.

    • by MaXintosh (159753)
      Here's the link for the article. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 [sciencedirect.com]

      I'm fairly underwhelmed with it. First is the issue you mention of "how many negative results did he not publish?" that is rather insidious. Then there's all the issues that come from his small data set size, and the fact that he did not use large portions of his actual data. And can't be bothered to report it. Or provide it. But it just wasn't useful data, for reasons not explained. I wouldn't accuse the au
  • Since the dawn of civilization, rats have caused humanity lots of trouble. Thank goodness Monsanto has figured out a way to get rid of them!
  • We knew that already. GM tolerant crops don't necessarily have more weedkiller in them, they thrive more with the same given level of weedkiller otherwise.

  • Electronics are soo cheap I can't see it being unreasonably difficult to produce an army of robots which manually tend to fields 24x7 harvesting or killing only the weeds. Perhaps hyperpsectral camera and pattern matching algorithms could be enough for reasonable machine recognition of weeds.

    There may be a large investment in R&D up front yet over the years performance, reliability and affordability would greatly improve. They could even be armed to the teeth with lazers to get rid of any bugs who ma

  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @01:54PM (#41390013)
    I bet they are, given their field (heh). Criticizing Monsanto would be just as deadly career-wise as opening a titty bar in Mecca would be in real life.

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...