Scotts Testing Genetically Modified Grass 454
Caseyscrib writes "There is an article on Yahoo! News that talks about how Scotts is testing a genetically modified version of creeping bentgrass, popular on golf course greens and fairways, that will be resistant to a common weed-killing chemical. Environmentalists have long opposed bioengineered crops of any kind, and fear that '...if it was to escape onto public land, we wouldn't know how to control it.' It is now in the final stages of approval."
Shock! Shock! Horror! Horror! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Shock! Shock! Horror! Horror! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Shock! Shock! Horror! Horror! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Shock! Shock! Horror! Horror! (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
How to control it... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Pour gas, light match
2) Use barriers that most people already use to stop plant growth.
3) Shovel.
In all seriousness, sounds like those afraid of controlling it are just spreading FUD. If we can modify grass to resist weed killer, who says we can't also make it vulnerable to something environmentally friendly like cooking oil?
Re:How to control it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Look up the history of Kudzu [ua.edu] for an example of something that once was thought of a great idea, now everyone hates it.
Re:How to control it... (Score:5, Funny)
Entire towns covered with perfect grass!
Golfers playing through neighborhoods!
Geese in every front yard and in every pot!
Re:How to control it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if the GM grass can be killed with a specific pesticide that only kills off that variety of GM grass that's not a practical solution: what are you going to do about all the other GM varieties that exist: spray once for each specific variety? How does a farmer easily tell which variety has spread onto his land in the first place?
And what about organic farmers who livelyhoods depend on the use of no artificial chemicals whatsoever? GM infestation can destroy their businesses faster than you can imagine.
These and other concerns haven't been properly addressed by Monsanto, etc in their rush to make a profit at any cost.
Re:How to control it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How to control it... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, there are numerous natural processes that can insert foreign DNA into an organism. Many viruses do this. The notion that "natural" is somehow safer has no rational or scientific basis. The effect of a gene, whether generated by natural or artificial mutagenesis or by transgenic modification is determined by what proteins it co
Re:How to control it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's really worked with the rabbits in australia. Wonder how that's gonna work with plants whose seeds are carried by the wind? Hmm...
Daniel
Nets. (Score:4, Funny)
Skinner: "Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend."
Lisa: "But isn't that a bit shortsited? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?"
Skinner: "No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards."
Lisa: "But aren't the snakes even worse?"
Skinner: "Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat."
Lisa: "But then we're stuck with gorillas!"
Skinner: "No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death."
They mean "escape" as in "growing wild" (Score:2)
Re:How to control it... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm with you on this one. The environmentalists seem to be just spreading FUD. Although the article doesn't say how the grass was modified. It's one thing if it was spliced with polar-bear genes, it's another if it was spliced with genes from an already-resistant plant. Without details, this just sounds like hype.
Re:How to control it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Burn it, it grows back. Salt the earth, it grows back. Spray herbicide, it grows faster! The only way to get rid of it is to dig up and destroy every single root.
Well, one example: (Score:4, Informative)
Well, suddenly the bull frogs started turning up in wet areas FAR from where they were originally introduced. No one knew that they could cover such long distances without water. Then they started eating all of the local wildlife that was smaller than themsevles: tarantulas, birds, other species of frogs, fish, etc.
1. Just build fences and keep them out, right? Wrong, the bull frogs learned to climb over the fences.
2.Posion them? How, when the poison will kill everything else too?
3. Bioengineer a poison that only affects bull frogs? On whom's dime, the taxpayers?
4. Kill them all with spears, guns, knives, and arrows? Tried that, night after night by dozens of volunteers: virtually no effect, the population held strong as ever.
But back where the bullfrogs came from, in the bayous of Louisiana, the alligators and birds that evolved alongside the frogs have no problem keeping their population in check.
Do you get the logisitical issue(s) of introducing new species into new environments (manmade or otherwise)? It is never easy to control.
Re:How to control it... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the real reason to be sceptical to Monsanto inserting genes that resist 2,4-TD (RoundUp, aka Agent Orange) is that it has a habit of spreading to closely related plants. In tests in Italy (more than ten years ago now) this gene successfully transferred from Rape to Wild Turnip, which is a mother of a weed to get rid of. There are several grasses that we wouldn't want to aquire this gene. (Google e.g. "wild turnip gene resistance")
As a gene resisting herbicides is a very desirable gene to have (if you happen to be a weed), you can bet your sweet ass that's it's only a matter of time before you've created the mother of all weeds. And no, burning/barriers/diging won't fix the problem.
In this case an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
More FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Agent Orange is a mixture of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (reference [wikipedia.org]).
RoundUp is glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine (reference 1 [wikipedia.org], reference 2 [wikipedia.org]).
Re:More FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why bring them up? Or are you just trying to capitalize on the visceral emotional reaction that people have been conditioned to have when they hear the words "Agent Orange". Fnord.
RoundUp is similar in usage though
So what? That doesn't mean that it's harmful in the same way.
Re:More FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Do you perchance remember Seveso [junkscience.com], Italy and the dioxin scare there? It was just a big scare based on junk science. No one actually got hurt by all the dioxin.
Re:More FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, they only discovered that after a town in CA was razed to the ground because of a dioxin scare. Turned out that after years of living with massively high levels of dioxin in Italy, actual humans showed no signs of increased cancer levels.
Of course, in retrospect people remembered that for decades dioxin had been filling factories without the workers in them being hurt by it.
Re:How to control it... (Score:5, Informative)
Monsanto didn't insert a gene that resists glyphosate (RoundUp), because their plant is a loss-of-function mutant. They did it through insertional mutation, using either forward (sequence not known) or reverse (sequence known) genetics methods. They isolated a mutant that was resistant to glyphosate and clapped their hands and cheered.
RoundUp Ready beans have a mutation in the gene, making the resulting enzyme product non-active. In other words, they changed that part of the enzyme to be a NOP, halting the metabolism of glyphosate into something that is lethal to the plant.
Agent Orange has nothing to do with RoundUp, and others have addressed that.
Fine, I'll put it in computer geek terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but unlike SCO or MS FUD, this FUD has a basis in reality, or at least the Uncertainty and Doubt portions do: We are not certain what the environmental effects of this grass will be. We are not certain how other organisms will interact with it. We are not certain what large-scale effects on the ecosystem (ie, us) will have. Ecosystems are terribly, terribly complex and grass is a crucial part of them.
Because it's not that simple. They changed a gene that turns off sensitivity to a specific chemical in the weed killer. We don't know what else that gene change did. We don't know how it affects the grass's metabolism (or whatever you call the plant version of metabolism).
To put it in computer geek terms: it's like deciding to change a couple of variables and functions in your C library and recompiling, only imagine a C library that's about a trillion times more complex than libc. Could it work fine? Yes. Could it destroy your entire system? Doubtful, but conceivable. Could it have unforseen side effects? Almost certainly. Would you do it without large-scale, intensive testing? No. Would you do it without a damn good reason? Definitely not.
We haven't done the testing on this because we can't create a control ecosystem. And as much as I love golf, it doesn't count as a "damn good reason".
Re:Fine, I'll put it in computer geek terms (Score:5, Insightful)
It's as if a secretary or a mechanic said AI researchers should stop researching AI because they saw the matrix and were afraid of what it could lead to. Leave the science to the scientists and the biologists who've made it their life work to ensure its safe, viable, and benefits the world.
So lets just stop thinking about it and give up? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are always dangers to implementing a new technology, particularly one that may be difficult to purge if its consequences are undesirable. While I support the cautious use of genetically engineered plants, there is a real concern of loosing control of those plants if we are not careful.
The analogy to making changes to a C library are quite valid. When we make substantial changes to any system, we need to be careful to have a pretty good idea what the side effects might be. This is true of new code, of new medications, and of introducing new plants to an ecosystem. We shouldn't let fear of the unknown paralyse us, but neither should we dive headlong into unknown waters without first taking some precautions.
Re:Fine, I'll put it in computer geek terms (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, I believe this is a public policy issue. If it were talking about the theoretical possibility of creating this grass in a laboratory, then I would agree with you. Leave it to the scientists. But this is about releasing a new species (or variant, whatever) into the wild, and it's about letting golf courses being able to carpet-bomb the entire area with pesticide.
This fear is totally unfounded. (Score:3, Insightful)
We are talking about herbicide resistant grasses.
So here's the worst case scenario:
"AIIIIEEEE!! My Roundup isn't working! We're all doomed! Now I will have to weed by hand! (Runs away in fear)"
Call me when they make a lawnmower resistant grass. Then I'll panic.
Re:Fine, I'll put it in computer geek terms (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to missing an important point here. The scientists and biologists developing these new variants are being paid by corporate entities whose purpose is to reap as much profit as possible from this kind of research. In the absence of FDA-like regulations on GM plant life, it is not inconceivable that some non-scientist in a management position may decide that a
Re:In Re: Killer Bees (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't sound like you've paid much attention to the articles. There are already killer bees in California. I've paid a little attention to this because I'm allergic to bee stings, live in Texas, and go camping from time to time. They didn't come from Texas, they came from Brazil. Texas is just one area they've travelled to.
Calling them killer bees is a little misleading. It
Re:How to control it... (Score:3)
It's like one of those horror movies where they nuke a large city to ward off the invaders (and I warn you, in the movies it never, ever works.)
Re:How to control it... (Score:5, Informative)
We can also make plants that don't produce viable seed, and we do so because it is profitable.
However, we don't make plants that don't produce pollen. It's more profitable not to. If we did, companies couldn't sue people whose plants were accidently pollinated by GM plants for using GM technology without paying licensing fees.
It's sort of like people being sued for including source code from other projects without paying fees (or otherwise violating license agreements)...if bits of source code just randomly wandered about and inserted themselves into other programs without human help.
This is already happening with other crops, it's not a theoretical problem. I don't particularly see why this couldn't possibly happen with this grass, either.
Legislation could help this, but doesn't stop the environmental problems. The issue isn't killing these plants (in which case your ideas would work pretty well) but in killing these plants without killing all the other plants around them.
Re:How to control it... (Score:5, Funny)
how do you test grass? (Score:4, Funny)
The horror! (Score:5, Funny)
Please. I beg you. Dump some of this on my lawn.
Have we learned nothing from Star Trek?! (Score:5, Funny)
The human race will not end in a dark nuclear apocalyptic wasteland, but rather in a cheerfull, neatly-kept lawn, covering the entire land mass of the planet.
Re:Have we learned nothing from Star Trek?! (Score:5, Funny)
Cool (Score:4, Interesting)
--
Retail Retreat [retailretreat.com]
Re:Cool (Score:2, Insightful)
So Scott's can keep selling their ferilizer, and push their weed killer even harder "which has been tested and approved for Scott's mutant grass (tm)" to the average person.
Re:Cool (Score:3, Interesting)
If the cost was too prohibitive for the common man than there might be market to grow and sell the seeds in the third tier market. I wonder how long it would take for RIAA to beat down your door?
It doesn't have weed prevention. (Score:2)
It means that you can go off on a spraying spree and not have to worry about killing the grass. i.e. You buy and spray *more* weedkiller.
It's not copy-protected? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this stuff spreads off the golf course, does the maker come after you for a patent violation?
Re:It's not copy-protected? (Score:3, Funny)
They are copying SCO's business plan: give it away freely and then claim IP rights on it later.
It's happened (Score:4, Informative)
--RANT-- Monsanto makes SCO look like Boy Scouts. The sad thing is that lots of farmers support them and this makes them harder to fight. Let's put it this way; I wouldn't drink the milk in Florida because of the (Monsanto) drugs that get into it. Fining Monsanto has about the same effect as fining Microsoft.--/RANT--
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Terminator gene? (Score:2)
I'm uneducated in genetics, so I'll just assume that's a gene that gives something cybernetic killing capabilities. AWESOME.
It's not copy-protected? (Score:3, Informative)
Essentially, it sounds like Scotts is producing a "roundup ready" (rr) grass.
The scam works like this: Monsanto owns patents on the most widely used herbicide in the world (roundup). They also own patents on Roundup Ready crops (wheat, soybeans, canola...). They sell the seeds to farmers who can now safely spray their crops to keep the weeds down.
So lets say you own the farm next to a RR field and grow the same crop (but not a monsanto
In Summary... (Score:4, Funny)
Shouldn't this be in the games section?
Re:In Summary... (Score:3, Funny)
And it is perhaps missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you're missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And it is perhaps missing the point (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this seems to be the trend in genetically-modified plants right now--make them resistant to herbicides so that you can use more of them to kill off the unwanted plants.
What I'm not hearing much about are the genetically-modified plants that are resistant to insects, reducing or eliminating the need for pesticides.
Is the press just focusing on the more controversial modifications, or is that really what the industry is focusing on?
corporations need standards (Score:4, Insightful)
(of course, i think we'll get over this in the next couple decades)
Re:corporations need standards (Score:2)
Keep your fucking religion/idealism out of my government. I happen to think both of those things are great ideas. As long as you're not being impacted by it, fuck o
This is sick. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is sick. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, eggplants, too. And most roses. Pretty much all produce you buy at grocery stores.
Good luck!
Re:This is sick. (Score:3, Insightful)
In contrast, cutting and pasting large sequences of alien DNA into our food supply (or even into golf course lawns), might just be a bad idea. Not that I'm totally against it, but why are we in such a fucking hurry? Is the golfing industry about to collapse, and send thousands of starving green jackets into an already barren job market?
Is Iran developing weapons of grass destruction?
Seriously, l
Re:This is sick. (Score:2, Insightful)
No.. its not, Do you eat Corn? or Wheat? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is sick. (Score:2, Insightful)
How can we learn more about its effects if it is banned? We can't. At the very least restrict your ban to comercial purposes.
Besides, we've been doing this stuff for centuries (cross-breeding anyone?). Only we used to just introduce many new variaties all the time (as part of the development process). Now, we have reduced that to just a few. The end result of this technology
Re:This is sick. (Score:2)
Sick fucks.
No, they haven't (Score:3)
Re:This is sick. (Score:3, Insightful)
We're going to genetically modify many species now that we know how. Eventually, we're going to genetically modify ourselves to make "human beings" smarter, stronger, more fuel efficient, whatever.
Sure, we should take some care to avert disaster -- but if we're going to experiment, it might as well be with grass and other simple life forms that are unlikel
Didn't I see this in like 1986? (Score:2)
W
Great, what we all need is resistant grass. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great, what we all need is resistant grass. (Score:2)
What we need is a better system to punish those who act so irresponcible. What's a 1 million dollar fine if you make the tenfold by doing it?
Reminds me of... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only problem is that it escaped into marine life and is currently taking over many areas of the sea, killing all marine life in its path (cannot be eaten as it is poisonous to most). Because of its superior nature there isn't an easy way to stop its spread, and it continues to grow.
Sounds like a similar scenario anyways.
Re:Reminds me of... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, Caulerpa taxifolia is a natural variety which has spread out of its normal environment.
Caulerpa taxifolia [hawaii.edu]Two Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Modified grass spreads and become "Superweed".
2. Modified genes spread to other species, either by hybridization or vectors such as bacteria. (Agrobacterium tumefaciens as an example)
This is what opposers are afraid of.
Re:Two Problems (Score:2)
Not to say that it isn't a risk, just that it isn't as huge a risk as it is often portrayed as being.
Re:Two Problems (Score:3, Informative)
As far as the "modified genes spreading" theory, genetic flaws are not contagious -- how many people can claim to have gotten Lou Gehrig's disease as a resu
Useful genetic modifications... (Score:5, Funny)
(1) never needs mowing
(2) runs Linux
(3) fires warning lasers at door-to-door solicitors (may include the religious type)
(4) emits pheromones to attract gorgeous women
(5) each blade serves as an access point for a wireless network
(6) emulates all known video game consoles
(7) kills all insects upon contact
(8) blocks spy satellite scans
(9) makes julienne fries
Resitance is futile. (Score:2, Funny)
What really bothers me is... (Score:2)
This is simply unrealistic. Would you be able to hear message from a group that's 'dubbing itself'? No! Of course not, self dubbed messages are always scratchy and difficult to understand. Why can't these environmental groups get a clue and hire a recording engineer?
-Ad
Kind of funny ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a lefty environmentalist, and I oppose this, but not for the reasons you might think. I also work in biotech, and unlike many of my fellow environmentalists, I believe strongly in the potential of genetically-modified plants. There are an enormous number of applications that could be of significant benefit to humanity:
And instead they're concentrating on making golf courses greener? WTF? Golf courses will have weeds, and bare patches, and, you know, a little of bit of something that looks kind of natural. If you don't like it, fine, go play on Astroturf. I'm a lot more concerned about people being able to eat than I am about some rich guy's putting green.
Re:Kind of funny ... (Score:2)
Do you also oppose research on making softer toilet paper through the same line of reasoning?
Re:Kind of funny ... (Score:2, Funny)
Heh. No, for two reasons:
1. It's not diverting resources from other, more useful research -- the people doing research on toilet paper would probably not be doing research on any of the applications I mentioned if they weren't working on TP instead.
2. Most people don't play golf, but everybody has to wipe their ass.
Re:Kind of funny ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you implying that Scotts Co., who is in the grass business, would have otherwise done research on trying to solve world hunger? Or maybe that every genetic research scientist in the world should dedicate themselves to only important task regardless of their own ambitions?
Weed killer (Score:3, Insightful)
Genetic modification is a tool. There are many, many advancements to be made by exploiting this new resource. It's new technology, people will be scared of it. The same was true with electricity.
There once was a fear of AC as opposed to DC, Edision wanted everyone to believe that AC was much too dangerous to be used. Of course...he had an ulterior motive, as the major provider of DC power. There may be some lessons from this which might apply to some aspects of the current debate over genmod crops.
Re:Weed killer (Score:2)
So Edison promoted the use of Westinghouse's AC in the newly invented electric chair.
Army of Goatness (Score:2)
Burn Baby, Burn! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure fire will still lick it pretty good. Until they start adding some of those redwood genes, it'll burn just fine.
I can understand environmentalist's concern that it is one mowing away from spreading (what happens when a golf course goes bankrupt?) so why not also neuter said grass? If it can't reproduce, it won't be going anywhere. There are already many varieties of grass that can't seed, reproducing through runners. A variety like that would not be susceptible to transplantation by birds carrying away seeds...
Un-american? (Score:5, Interesting)
Say WHAT?
I was fairly indifferent to both sides of the argument until I read that little gem at the end of the article.
What in the world does being American have to do with any of this? What, in Mr. Harriman's opinion, is considered "American"? The goal of making money at any cost, without losing much sleep over considering consequences to the environment or to the society? That's what he seems to be implying... I'm not American, but if I were, I'd probably be outraged at a fellow American making a statement like that.
Re:Un-american? (Score:2)
Herd What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently, they have never seen a herd of sheep in action...
I heard this stuff was invented in 1980.... (Score:4, Funny)
Problems with Monsanto's Approach (Score:5, Insightful)
The result of this is that farmers and now greenskeepers can douse their fields and fairways with Roundup. The Roundup ready plants survives this chemical shower, and everything else dies.
The problems with this are:
(1) The environmental impact of all this (extra) Roundup being released.
(2) The fact that growers become dependent on Monsanto for Roundup. Monsanto is, in effect, genetically engineering conditions that will lead to a monopoly.
(3) The selective pressures that this will put on all the pests that Roundup is supposed to control. In the same way that staph bacteria have evolved reistance to antibiotics in hospitals, the increased use Roundup will probably lead to the evolution of Roundup resistant superpests.
Obviously Monsanto is more concerned with profiting than the long-term economic and environmental health of the country.
I'm not against genetic engineering per se, but this approach seems to be fraught with pitfalls.
Re:Problems with Monsanto's Approach (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if they started engineering grass because it's easier for their PR department to sue golf course superintendents then farmers. Monsanto sued a Saskatchewan Canadian farmer [percyschmeiser.com] and won, after his farm was contaminated with their Roundup-Ready canola seeds. He was fined $15/ac x 1030 ac, plus the value of his crop $105,000, plus $25,000 for punitive and exemplary damages.
creepgrass [ipaw.org] is considered a weed by a lot of people, this stuff is going to spread.
Yes, but is it resistant to... (Score:2)
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Smells like dead genetically modified creeping bentgrass.
Profit plan (Score:3, Funny)
1. Make genetically modified grass.
2. Wait until it is accidentally spread to rest of town's/city's lawns eg. wind.
3. Sue whole town/city for patent violation because there is no way their intellectual property aka the grass could have got into people's lawns without them stealing the seed. This is because mankind can control nature with pinpoint control. If we say the grass won't spread because we cut it short enough, then damn it, nature will fall in place whether it likes it or not.
4. Profit!
The sad part is given past court cases they would actually have a very good chance of winning their case in court...
The best hybrid grass is (of course) (Score:3, Funny)
Not open source genetics: locked hood genetics... (Score:5, Informative)
Their closed-source version is a variant of better dog food.com [betterdogfood.com] where they don't just sell you the dogfood. The dog can only eat BDF.com dogfood *and* you only lease the dog *plus* you only can get poodles (and they'll sue you if poodle puppies show up in your neighborhood). The problem that Montanto is trying to solve isn't "how can farmers improve crop yields and reduce weeds?" Monsanto's problem is "How can we lock farmers into using our weedkillers?"
Think of it like a bug patch. Imagine we find a major vulnerability, solved by upgrading some software. The open source method might be to make that software available for people to patch into whatever software they're currently running. The closed source version would be to 1. Sell new software that works with the patch 2. Sell the patch, 3. Insist that all old software is dangerous and outdated and should never be used in business. (4. and then later on when a new worm comes out, a huge percent of programs can be hit all at once due to the monoculture).
With Andean potato farmers this is exactly what happened. You have farmers who've developed hundreds of different potato varieties over the years: buttery tasting ones, meaty tasting ones, ones that grow in drought / shade / various altitudes... and these potatoes could be susceptible to a particular pest (quite likely one or more of their varieties already had resistance: another story). A major North American company came in saying "Hey, our potato + pesticide combination is resistant to the pest. Buy both from us, then you'll have no problems. By the way our potato is patented- don't think about crossbreeding it." At the same time they launched a major advertising (FUD) campaign in major potato buying markets saying "Hey, our potato is the best most modern potato. Don't buy anything else." So farmers couldn't just patch their own potatoes- they had to buy into the product / product cycle upgrade of the NA company. Sounds familiar?
Or look at "golden rice." Who can argue with preventing blindness from vitamin deficiencies? Do you want Blind Babies??? But is upping the vitamin A content of rice the best method to get vitamin A to people? What about veggies which already contain high quantities of beta-carotene (yams? carrots? Other richly-colored veggies and fruits?). The royalty payments for Golden Rice could instead pay for a variety of other seeds. And if you do want to up the A content of rice, should people get to choose which varieties get upgraded?
And sometimes they're breaking standards while they're at it, (think like what VeriSign did recently with their redirect). For example, BT is a bacteria /toxin used by organic farmers for decades to kill certain insect pests. At the previous rate of use- as a spray- there was a very, very low probability of insects developing resistance. Decades of use hadn't produced it. Now that BT has been spliced into crop plants, the widespread planting of monocultures of BT crops means BT resistance is increasingly likely. As this happens the non-organic farmers can move onto other pesticides. But the organic farmers whose old standard- BT sprays- will also become useless have no backup. There was no system set up to compensate these farmers from their soon to be broken standard. Nor was their any "royalty" paid to these farmers who'd discovered BT in the first place.
resistant escapes (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just because we can (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not an insightful comment in the slightest. By this reasoning, man would have never left the caves, developed agriculture, or gone into space. Apparently some slashdotters love cool computer technology, but hate other technology.
Re:Just because we can (Score:2, Funny)
Yep, it's safest to just sit on our hands and do nothing. Oh, and let's keep Microsoft around, what dangers lurk in the dark corners of Linux?
Ned Ludd
Re:Just because we can (Score:5, Insightful)
Man did those things because the possible gains outweighed the possible pitfalls we could do a lot of things that would be incredibly stupid like kill half the worlds population with nukes, do you think we should? Technology!=progress, with great power comes great responsibility(and an even greater temptation to misuse that power)
Re:Good For Them (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good For Them (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article again. The "problem" currently is that groundskeepers can't simply dump huge amounts of herbicide everywhere since the grass will die. This grass lets them dump huge amounts of herbicide everywhere to kill the normal weeds.
Yeah, I'm jumping for joy over this. I was just thinking the other day that there isn't enough herbicide being dumped on the ground right now.
Re:ready to go? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:lets face facts (Score:2, Funny)
On the right track... (Score:3, Funny)
If this grass gets out of control, I propose a squad of Australian gardeners be sent to tackle the problem. Best part of this plan is that most Australians will work for beer**.
*Only Antarctica has less free water than Australia.
**As long as it isn't Foster's L