Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

GM Crops Create Herbicide-resistant "Superweed" 446

Posted by CowboyNeal from the still-no-chronic dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to this article GM crops under test in the UK have cross pollinated to weeds, giving them the same resistance to herbicide as the GM crops. The article also mentions that this has been reported as occurring in Canada, which like the US is well past the test stage and allows widespread use of GM crops. What's worse, in Canada crop rotation has conferred multi-herbicide resistance to some of the weeds!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GM Crops Create Herbicide-resistant "Superweed" More

GM Crops Create Herbicide-resistant "Superweed"

Comments Filter:

  • Superweed? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dawhippersnapper ( 861941 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @10:43AM (#14370393) Homepage
    Sounds like something from Cheech and Chong!

    • Re:Superweed? (Score:5, Funny)

      by sexybomber ( 740588 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @01:42PM (#14371151)
      I was thinking the same thing, and it made me happy! But then I read TFA, and it made me angry. Then I smoked some superweed, and now I'm happy again!

      • Re:Superweed? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @02:38PM (#14371382) Homepage Journal
        Monsanto would probably make more from superweed than they do from wheat or corn. I doubt they'd have a problem with the ethics of the whole thing, so their management must simply not have realized that yet. Either that or they're really good at keeping secrets. I keep waiting for someone to hack the gene for THC production into an orange tree or something, too. That'll make life interesting for the DEA when someone does that...
  • From TFA: "Unlike the researchers I am not surprised by this. If you apply herbicide to plants which is lethal, eventually a resistant survivor will turn up."

    Evolution within a species occurs when a great crisis happens: the particular survivor with the resistant genetics to the herbicide will breed with those genes intact. I don't believe that there was any cross-pollination or contamination from the genetically modified foods -- all I see is rhetoric that makes that assumption.

    I'm really getting sick of

    • Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31, 2005 @10:54AM (#14370435)
      You really think these companies do it to feed the poor ? Actually, they do it to put some IP in their seeds, and then prevent farmers to reuse their seeds the next year. Do you think they do it to reduce the usage of chemicals ? Actually, they also produce the chemicals, that you cannot use without agreeing to use their seeds. Their tactics are disgusting, and moreover, these practice are a danger for the environmenet, because it is impossible to prevent dissemination of the resistance genes into other species.
      And yes I am a scientist (biologist), and no I am no "greenie" (I am in favour of nuclear power, but next to renewable energy sources). But it is because I am a scientist that I can grab these issues. This has nothing to do with socialism or idealism, there are very rational and scientific reasons to think there are real dangers.
      • You really think these companies do it to feed the poor ?

        Of course not -- I don't believe anyone ever does anything out of the kindness of their heart. I have yet to meet a person (even the diehard communists I know) who don't do everything out of self sufficiency and personal profit.

        Actually, they do it to put some IP in their seeds, and then prevent farmers to reuse their seeds the next year.

        That's their product. Farmers don't need to buy it.

        This has nothing to do with socialism or idealism, there are

        • Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:14AM (#14370535)
          That's their product. Farmers don't need to buy it.

          Except that Monsanto sues farmers that have been contaminated with the RoundUp Ready crops. This is documented in many media. Moreover, they put pressure on governments of third-world countries to get a monopoly on seeds used in these countries. Farmers don't need to buy it when they have something else to buy.

          Biologist or not, it doesn't mean you're a good one.

          Sure. The same way, what you write may be complete bullshit. May I ask you what is your expertise about biology and GMO ? And by the way, I wish to be the only scientist to say there is a danger in the attitude of Monsanto. But if you search a little, and look at all the links that have been posted here, you may learn a lot of things.
        • A good scientist understands that the progress of humanity came from self-reliance and cooperation for profit, not from doing what is good for man.

          You're talking to a biologist, not a sociologist. A "good scientist" is someone who applies scientific methods. Sociology is a science, it is not all science.

          I find it amazing that you believe there is little or no link between GM crops and this new superweed, but you believe there is a connection between the steady cost of food and GM crops. The latter is
        • I think you'd better listen to your other half...
          Women mostly treat their body as a temple.

          Further, the farmers that wont take the product loose any chance to get good seeds anyway, in Canada farmers next door to test fields were suid while they were the victim of cross polination, the claim was, since your product is similar to ours (does not matter that we were the ones that wrecked your product) you should pay our IP tax.

          I think you are a bit short sighted and close yourself from real problems that came

        • Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rocjoe71 ( 545053 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:28AM (#14370603) Homepage
          1) Actually, they do it to put some IP in their seeds, and then prevent farmers to reuse their seeds the next year.

          2)That's their product. Farmers don't need to buy it.

          I agree with you, however, Monsanto has been suing farmers who have not planted Monstano's Canola seeds yet the farmer's crops get cross-pollinated from a neighbouring Monsanto Canola field. Farmers call it 'Nature', Monstanto calls it 'Theft'.

          A good scientist understands that the progress of humanity came from self-reliance and cooperation for profit

          Again, I see your point, but given my point above, is it really a good thing to be pursuing our profits to the point where it harms others? Where's the cooperation in that?
          • I agree with you, however, Monsanto has been suing farmers who have not planted Monstano's Canola seeds yet the farmer's crops get cross-pollinated from a neighbouring Monsanto Canola field. Farmers call it 'Nature', Monstanto calls it 'Theft'.

            Link? Every time I've heard this alleged, it turns out it's just some cheat farmer trying to plant Monsanto product he didn't pay for, or seeds he illegally harvested and re-planted without paying for them.

            • Here is a link for you (Score:3, Informative)

              by DrJimbo ( 594231 ) *
              Here's your link [percyschmeiser.com].

              It was the first result that came up when I did a Google(monsanto farmer) [google.com]. If you haven't tried Google before, I highly recommend it.

              From the linked page:

              Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene, or whether or not he took advantage of the technolo

        • Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio (Score:5, Interesting)

          by radtea ( 464814 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:40AM (#14370662)
          Of course not -- I don't believe anyone ever does anything out of the kindness of their heart. I have yet to meet a person (even the diehard communists I know) who don't do everything out of self sufficiency and personal profit.

          You need to get out more. And open your eyes. You are living in poverty while surrounded by riches.

          That's their product. Farmers don't need to buy it.

          Companies selling GM seeds have a responsibility to ensure that their product does no harm to bystanders. The free market ends where my fields begin. Unless Monstanto et al can guarantee that the modified genes will not get loose and hybridize with wildtype plants in adjacent fields they are introducing harmful genes into the environment for their own benefit.

          The Monsanto Terminator gene is the perfect example of this: Terminator-infected plants will hybridize with wildtype plants in adjacent fields, resulting in progressive sterilization of surrouding farms. Monsanto will use this "marketing pportunity" in the "free market" to sell more Terminator-infected seeds to those farmers.

          This is evil: doing willful harm to others for personal gain.

      • Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cliffski ( 65094 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:17AM (#14370550) Homepage
        well said. It always amazes me when people cheerlead companies like monsanto (previous products include good old napalm!) on the basis that they are somehow the good guys. These companies want to make stockholders rich, period. I don't see anything inprinciple wrong with GM food, as long as

        1) I can 100% trust the motives of the people carrying out the research and field tests
        2) That it is not used as a way of locking poor farmers into a product supplied by a foreign owned mega-corp
        3) That some SERIOUS long-term testing is done in the lab so we can be 99.99% sure that releasing GM organisms into the food chain is not going to fuck up the food chain. (We only have 1 ecosystem remember).
        4) The industry goes along with public demand to label food as GM, leaving the ultimate deicision in the hands of the public.

        If governments came together to form a truly impartial and publicly funded research body to work on GM tech, that would be great, but as it is, its always the big biotech companies with their paid lobbyists and paid-off members of government that wave the flag for it. Would you trust Microsoft to re-engineer the potatoes you eat? Would you trust Sony to do it? Neither would I.
    • "Evolution within a species occurs when a great crisis happens: the particular survivor with the resistant genetics to the herbicide will breed with those genes intact."

      Your assumption requires a survivor. We're talking about tailor-made chemicals designed to kill things.

      If there were going to be a survivor, it'd be in the non-GM fields, where farmers would be less willing to use herbicides for fear of damaging the crop. The entire point of these GM food strains is to allow farmers to use herbicides much
      • Your assumption requires a survivor. We're talking about tailor-made chemicals designed to kill things.

        An assumption like yours is probably what caused the problem. Think of it, assuming the chemical will kill all of something? Killing 100% or at least enough such that the remaining survivors doesn't reproduce? There aren't many times that absolute assumptions work like that.

        • Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:34AM (#14370627)
          "An assumption like yours is probably what caused the problem. Think of it, assuming the chemical will kill all of something? Killing 100% or at least enough such that the remaining survivors doesn't reproduce? There aren't many times that absolute assumptions work like that."

          Between the before-market testing the herbicides were put through to make sure the chemical would be competitive and the after-market continual use over the course of decades eliminates any need for me to assume anything; it was designed to kill things, it was tested to ensure it killed things, and it is still used today because it kills things. If it were not extremely effective, it would likely not be used and this entire fiasco would be a non-issue.

          And as for potential survivors, we're talking about "herbicide resistant" rather than "herbicide immune" (if you use enough herbicide, even the GM crops would be killed). If an herbicide resistant strain of a weed is going to develop independent of cross-pollenization, it is going to develop in fields where the dosages of herbicide used are survivable for the weed, and perhaps strengthened over time to be strong enough to survive in GM fields where higher dosages are used.

          If a herbicide-resistant weed is going to "just happen" to pop up in a GM field, it must also "just happen" to pop up in non-GM fields and we should have seen this weed years ago (especially because of the lower dosages used). Either this is a remarkable coincidence on the verge of being miraculous, or it comes from cross-pollenization.
      • "Your assumption requires a survivor. We're talking about tailor-made chemicals designed to kill things."

        We're talking about natural selection, a process which has allowed living things to copy themselves for 3 billion years on planet Earth.

        So humans dreamed up a few chemicals designed to kill certain types of plants. Big deal. Plants have been ruthlessly trying to kill each other through chemical warfare for millions of years.
        • "So humans dreamed up a few chemicals designed to kill certain types of plants. Big deal. Plants have been ruthlessly trying to kill each other through chemical warfare for millions of years."

          Perhaps, but I think the Twentieth Century alone shows that we are far more efficient at killing things than any natural impetus or process of natural selection. It doesn't take "millions of years" for us to develop more efficient tools of destruction because we don't rely on random encounters.

          Humans can fly faster, h
    • Evolution within a species occurs when a great crisis happens: the particular survivor with the resistant genetics to the herbicide will breed with those genes intact.

      Not true. A "great crisis" is not necessary for evolution at all. It also happens when hot chicks hang out with guys like me and avoid the likes of you.

    • Re:This has nothing to do with genetic modificatio (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jdbartlett ( 941012 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:09AM (#14370514)
      It's not just "greenies", Europeans are wary of GM foods (especially in England, where there have already been too many food and meat scares in the last few decades). GM foods are closely regulared by the EU.

      Farmers in China who grow GM crops were shown to use fewer insecticides and are living healthier lives for it, but I'm not sure where you're getting the bit about starving people from, I haven't heard of that happening. As you said, those people aren't starving for lack of food in the world (and I've never heard the "greenie" argument that there is not enough food, only that food distribution is poor -- this is called a humanitarian issue, not an environmentalist one).

      It's pretty hard to find non-GM foods here in the US. I haven't noticed any difference for the better in their shelf life, either. In England, I bought all-organic for the same reason as your better half, but it's far too expensive to do that out here (in the States). When I bought the cheaper GM foods, I was surprised at how quickly they rotted, even in the fridge.

      You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't: truly organic food (insecticide free) is too expensive and time consuming for us, insecticides make my wife sick (she grew up in a farming community and was thus exposed to too many nasty chemicals), and GM foods are just plain rotten.

      Stick to Soylent Greenies.
    • Evolution within a species occurs when a great crisis happens
      Says who? Evolution's effects may appear more pronounced in the event of catastrophic change, but it's an incremental and ongoing process. (Giraffes didn't instantly acquire long necks because trees suddenly started growing taller.)

      My other half prefers organic food, and it definitely hits her pocket book (about 400% more expensive).
      You mean in the same way that you get charged more for a tin of peas to which salt has NOT been added, right?

      So are you a tool of Monsanto, or are you simply a tool?
      • You mean in the same way that you get charged more for a tin of peas to which salt has NOT been added, right?

        I can see it, a tin of food without salt isn't likely to last as long because salt is a natural preservative, and the sales volume of that kind of food doesn't take as good advantage of mass production.

        The idea of organic foods is interesting because sometimes it is the trace chemicals that matter. Trace chemicals like PCBs and others stay in our bodies and slowly build up over time. Unacceptable l
    • Actually, the very fact that there was no effect when the herbicide was applied tells me straightaway that it very probably was cross contamination.

      Whilst herbicides do put pressure on plants/weeds to evolve resistance to herbicides, in practice a total protection against the herbicide is very rare- it's much more common for the plant to evolve so as to be somewhat damaged by the herbicide, but survive; resistance rather than being immune to the herbicide. That's because natural evolution is reasonably slo

    • Also from the fine article:

      Modified genes from crops in a GM crop trial have transferred into local wild plants, creating a form of herbicide-resistant "superweed", the Guardian can reveal.

      The cross-fertilisation between GM oilseed rape, a brassica, and a distantly related plant, charlock, had been discounted as virtually impossible by scientists with the environment department. It was found during a follow up to the government's three-year trials of GM crops which ended two years ago.

      A lengthy expla

    • Evolution within a species occurs when a great crisis happens: the particular survivor with the resistant genetics to the herbicide will breed with those genes intact. I don't believe that there was any cross-pollination or contamination from the genetically modified foods -- all I see is rhetoric that makes that assumption.

      Really, there are 2 believable hypothesies here. 1. The resistance came directly from cross pollination with GM crops. If true, this is a VERY serious problem. Nearly all arguments f

    • When I frist read what Dr. Johnson said, that was my first thought also.

      dada21 is not quoting The Article. dada21 is quoting a person quoted within the article (Dr. Jonhson), and should attribute accordingly to avoid confusion. Furthermore, the person dada21 is quoting is clearly not saying what dada21 seems to think he is saying; if you read on, the *same interviewee*, Dr. Jonhson, says:
      "There is every reason to suppose that the GM trait could be in the plant's pollen and thus be carried to other
    • Trust no science story from either the Guardian or the Independent. Both always run alarmist screeds, unsupported by the facts. Heck! The headline and lead aren't even supported by the article! Get past the first three paragraphs and it all turns to might/could/possibly.

    • Greenies versus Neocons... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:39AM (#14370659)
      Evolution within a species occurs when a great crisis happens: the particular survivor with the resistant genetics to the herbicide will breed with those genes intact. I don't believe that there was any cross-pollination or contamination from the genetically modified foods -- all I see is rhetoric that makes that assumption.

      That still does not mean GM crops are harmless. GM crops can and will cross pollenate with non-GM crops of the same species or even other related wild subspecies. They can also cause great harm indirectly. Take for example honey production. A bee does not care whether it is gathering nectar from a GM plant or an non-GM plant. Humans however do care and as a consequence US and Canadian honey producers have great trouble exporting their goods to the EU where they are classified as GM products even though the GM pollution of their honey was inderect and not something the manufacturer wanted. And before you start harping on about the fact that nobody cares about honey exports to the EU keep in mind that it is a larger market than the USA and Canada combined which makes it hard to ignore for any businessman with a modicum of sense. This sort of thing has happened to more people than just a few honey farmers and that includes farmers within the EU it self. There is a number of examples of some idiot planting GM crops on his land with the result that the crops of neighboring farmers failed to qualify for 'Organic' status due GM pollution (aka. cross pollenation with GM crops) which, in the EU, at least radically reduces the value of the crop since organic foods are increasingly sought after by consumers and GM crops avoided.

      I'm really getting sick of the greenie environmentalists

      While I deeply dislike the really radical greenies I am getting just as sick of you whining neocons and quite frankly I don't know which faction is worse. According to the right wing we are supposed to believe that pollution and global warming (assuming the day will ever arrive when you people are prepared to admit it can even happen) is not affecting the earth in any way shape or form, that strip mining and oil drilling in nature reserves does no harm to the environment, that due to the unchanging nature of god's devine creation extinction cannot happen and that those WMD's really are there in Iraq... somewhere.... They just haven't been found yet... I mean if the GWB says so they must be there... Right?

      My other half prefers organic food, and it definitely hits her pocket book (about 400% more expensive)

      While crafting a good and sneaky troll it should be kept in mind that the easiest way to screw it up is hugely exaggerating the obvious. I regularly purchase organic food and while I will admint that it is more expensive than the factory made crud, is certainly not 400% more expensive.

      • While crafting a good and sneaky troll it should be kept in mind that the easiest way to screw it up is hugely exaggerating the obvious. I regularly purchase organic food and while I will admint that it is more expensive than the factory made crud, is certainly not 400% more expensive.

        One thing that is never discussed and should be is the environmental impact and quality of organically grown food. This stuff has much lower yeild per acre meaning you have to put a lot more land in cultivation (ie cut down fo

  • we told you so! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aurisor ( 932566 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @10:45AM (#14370407) Homepage
    The modern scientific community's attitude is a lot like my 8 year old brother at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Guard: If you touch that sarcophagus, I will throw you and your mother out of the museum. Brother: *eyes sarcophagus* Guard: Just step back from the sarcophagus. Don't touch it. I will throw you out. Mother: DONT DO IT. He's serious. Brother: *raises hand* *looks guard in the eye* Brother: *touches sarcophagus* Guard: *escorts my brother and mother out of the museum* True story.

  • Science : The More Intelligent Designer (Score:5, Funny)

    by provoix ( 730200 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @10:53AM (#14370432)

    I feel a little like Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, but for God's sake (literally) let's let evolution/intelligent\ design/or\ whatever do what it has for the past whatever years.

    Next we're going to have Herbicide-resistant children...and then how are we going to control population???

  • Is it gene transfer? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @10:54AM (#14370437) Homepage
    What's not immediately clear from the story is how this happened. They say they found the resistant plant in a field where GM crops were grown. They say they treated the weed with herbicide and it suffered no ill effects. But does that mean the weed got the herbicide-resistant gene from the crops or did it evolve the gene on its own, the same way that bacteria that are exposed to low doses of antibiotics can develop resistance?

    I've mostly read about GM crops that are resistant to RoundUp. It seems pretty unlikely that a plant would independently evolve resistance to that herbicide. But what about the glufosinate-ammonium herbicide this plant was immune to? Is it possible that plants could evolve resistance?

    • It is and it isn't.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by purduephotog ( 218304 ) <hirsch AT inorbit DOT com> on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:06AM (#14370500) Homepage Journal
      I can't believe this is 'new news' but... OK.

      While attending Purdue we had our favorite Monsanto rep out lecturing how he invented/patented certain processes using copper on platinum. Very fascinating from a chemistry and engineering point of view.

      While their, several of my fellows ripped into him in regards to some reports that ragweed had crossed with soy to produce an herbicide resistant ragweed. Cross pollination was the cause.

      The rep pointed out that all 'leftover' crops are considered weeds, and to just use another herbicide to prevent the spread. Good points.
      • "The rep pointed out that all 'leftover' crops are considered weeds, and to just use another herbicide to prevent the spread."

        That sounds nice and simple. Reality is rarely as simple.
        FTFA:"Farmers in Canada soon found that these volunteers were resistant to at least one herbicide, and became impossible to kill with two or three applications of different weedkillers after a succession of various GM crops were grown.

        The new plants were dubbed superweeds because they proved resistant to three herbicide
    • IMHO it is most likely just survival of a resistant weed. Personally I am a little more concerned about the wide spread use of anti-bacterial cleaners in homes and hospitals. Use of such products will eventually create a resistant strain of bacteria which can not be killed using any thing currently available. This has already been reported on some strains of bacteria in hospitals where the antibiotic of last resort is not even working in some cases. The more this stuff is used the quicker such strains w

    • looks like it. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:31AM (#14370615) Homepage Journal
      But does that mean the weed got the herbicide-resistant gene from the crops or did it evolve the gene on its own, the same way that bacteria that are exposed to low doses of antibiotics can develop resistance?

      If people have been using this weed killer for years, it would be a strange co-incidence for the resistance gene to just show up three years after GM but not one or two. Transfer by cross fertilization looks like the most likely method, especially if the find the very same patented genes. Transfer to other people's crops has already happened, much to the dislike of those who wanted nothing to do with GM and considered it polution.

  • Genes as IP - is Monsanto now responsible? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bstarrfield ( 761726 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @10:55AM (#14370440)

    This was predicted years ago. When Monsanto and other firms first started applying for patents for "terminator" genes (plants that will not generate viable seeds for the next years crop) and for plants specifically resistant to the use of "Roundup" many biologists warned of the danger of cross-polinization. Monsanto, et. al., and their political backers scoffed at the suggestion.

    It gets far worse. Let's say a GM crop was planted next to your farm. Due to wind, bees, eh, nature the GM plants spread to your field, and soon you're growing GM plants. And then you're sued for stealing the GM crop. For the basics of wacky Monsanto GM chaos see Organic Consumers [organicconsumers.org].

    So, if Monsanto, et. al. want to own and control the GM crops - and the GM crops now spread to destructive speices, what do you think the odds are that the firms responsible for creating this mess will have any liability?

    • Hey, the "GM crops + Herbicide" people are just taking a cue from the big pharmaceutical companies. The patents are expiring on all of the old herbicides ....

      Hmmmm ... "How do we make the farmer buy new, freshly patented chemicals from us?"

    • Re:Genes as IP - is Monsanto now responsible? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by joshv ( 13017 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @12:54PM (#14370959)
      Clean up what exactly? There is no need to 'clean up' weeds that have resistance to a particular pesticide. The problems is entirely one for the manufacturer of the pesticide, as the chemical will no longer be as effective in the areas where the 'super weed' is prevalent.

      You see, it's not as if these genetic modifications make the weed species invasive. It just gives the weed the same chemical resistance as the crop. These weeds were around previous to the use of the chemical. Now with the resistance gene they can continue to be around, even when the chemical is used. Again. Nothing to clean up.

      Well, perhaps you are just worried in the abstract about some artificial genes sticking around in free-growing weeds. I'm not. Once the pesticides are no longer used, the genes will no longer confer any selective advantage. They'll then be subject to random mutations and errors and become quickly non-functional.
    • It gets far worse. Let's say a GM crop was planted next to your farm. Due to wind, bees, eh, nature the GM plants spread to your field, and soon you're growing GM plants. And then you're sued for stealing the GM crop.

      Naw, that's just uncreativity on the part of the farmer... He should have charged rent, say $150,000 per day per plant, for hosting other people's seedlings. Put a sign up stating this, and if you wish to participate, just allow your seeds to blow into the area.

  • No Problem! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They'll just whip up a genetically modified herbicide to kill the new superweed. Genetic engineering: is there any problem it cannot solve?

  • Coca, too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cally ( 10873 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @10:58AM (#14370455) Homepage
    Here's another sort of weed that's acquired herbicide resistance [bbc.co.uk]. How long before the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan get herbicide resistant opium poppies? They're American allies, after all, gotta make sure they get the benefit of American "intellectual property", to say thanks and make sure they can maintain their grip on power. OLh, wait, that was the wrong link! That's just about GM coca that's four times bigger than the normal plants, this is the RoundUp Ready[tm] coca plant [wired.com] story. My bad!

    Returning to the topic - IIRC GM crops were eventually rejected in the EU a few years ago after a lot of hoo-haa when Monsanto et al tried to railroad them through. However as others have pointed out, wind-borne pollen doesn't tend to respect national boundaries... :(

  • I for one welcome our herbicide-resistant overlords

  • Mother Nature is Quick (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Covant ( 103882 )
    Weeds developing herbacide resistance has been going on as long as evolution, and that's a long time. I'm so sick of these "omgtheskyisfalling" environmentalists, their headline-grabbing falsehoods are taking away from legitamite science. grrr.

  • Cross polination is a myth (Score:5, Informative)

    by jurt1235 ( 834677 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:05AM (#14370493) Homepage
    Two different species are geneticaly incompatible to produce a viable offspring. In a rare case two closely related species are capable to creating offspring which is usually not able to reproduce.
    Just resistance because of stupid use of herbicides and pesticides is more likely. When using herbicides and pesticides, it is important to keep a healthy population to overgrow the by herbicides affected population. The change is pretty large that the new survivor is maybe strong against the poison, but weak compared to the original plants. This has been studied, and it is shown that by spraying 90% wiht pesticides or herbicides, and leave 10% of the original population untouched, the poison tends to be effective for a longer period (up to 10 years longer on the same pest). The only issue is, is that 10% of the harvest needs to be sacrificed to the pest.
    In the end, every pest gets immune.
    • Back before my wife was a stay-at-home mom, she helped publish an article [botany2001.org] demonstrating that two "species" of a certain flower were actually one of the same. Gene flow between the populations was reduced, as their flowering times didn't overlap much, but it was still possible.

      There's also "jumping genes" [palomar.edu], bacteria passing genes around, and forms of horizontal gene transfer [okstate.edu].
    • the transfer does not come from pollen but it can happen, viruses are capable of picking up genes in one species and moving them to another.
    • I don't believe you can use bacteria or viruses to modify a living organism and produce viable offspring either. It goes against the divine wisdom of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and is all double plus bad for the bottom line. Please piss off with your absurd notions that genes can be modified outside the magic of white lab coats and big dumb company research. Where do people get such ideas?

    • Re:Cross polination is a myth (Score:5, Informative)

      by grikdog ( 697841 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:39AM (#14370655) Homepage
      Actually, the cross was between oilseed rape and charlock, previously presumed to be too distantly related to allow cross-pollinaton. As a general rule, plant sex is way more complicated than human kindergarten-variety sex (it has diploid and tetraploid genes, alternation of generations, and other bizarre complications including susceptibility to mosaic viruses), so the ordinary sex paradigms and assumptions are suspect. Scientists regard this cross to be more than interesting for the right reasons, in other words.

    • Re:Cross polination is a myth (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BCGlorfindel ( 256775 ) <klassenk AT brandonu DOT ca> on Saturday December 31, 2005 @02:24PM (#14371329) Journal
      This has been studied, and it is shown that by spraying 90% wiht pesticides or herbicides, and leave 10% of the original population untouched, the poison tends to be effective for a longer period (up to 10 years longer on the same pest). The only issue is, is that 10% of the harvest needs to be sacrificed to the pest.
      And this is why farmers widely hate "advice" from scientists and researchers. If you leave 10% of a grasshopper or army worm infestation untouched you lose not 10% but 100%. Growing up on a farm I've seen it plenty to know leaving part of a field unsprayed with pesticides can be as futile as not spraying at all. For that matter I've seen the need to spray the same crop more than once to stop a pest that was widespread in an area. Herbicides are another matter.

    • Re:Cross polination is a myth (Score:5, Informative)

      by X-rated Ouroboros ( 526150 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @02:40PM (#14371388) Homepage

      Two different species are geneticaly incompatible to produce a viable offspring.
      I think you mean fertile, not viable. Plants are dirty whores. They'll have sex with just about anything and, a surprisingly large number of times, viable seeds will result. The plants that grow from these seeds are generally infertile (not unlike a mule), but not always.

      As for the "only kill 90% of 'em" comment. It comes out of antibiotic research... and while I'd be wildly suspicious of anyone trying to draw a direct analogy between bacteria on a petri dish and multicellular eukarya in the wild... you don't even have the regiment right. Basically it was the comparison of the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacterial populations where a plate was allowed to be recolonized by suriviors v. a plate that was reseeded with the wild population. The analogy to farming would be to purposefully plant non-resistant strains of undesirable plants so they could compete with any resistant varieties... not "don't kill all of 'em".

  • Neat Details (Score:5, Interesting)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:08AM (#14370510) Homepage Journal
    FTA:

    "Farmers in Canada and Argentina growing GM soya beans have large problems with herbicide-resistant weeds, though these have arisen through natural selection and not gene flow through hybridisation. Experiments in Germany have shown sugar beets genetically modified to resist one herbicide accidentally acquired the genes to resist another - so called "gene stacking", which has also been observed in oilseed rape grown in Canada."

    That's really something: even if there isn't gene transfer from related species to confer pesticide resistance, good ole evolution will take care of it.

    The article includes neat things too, like superweeds causing trouble on farms (they require dirty, now heavily regulated herbicides to kill) and wildflowers (AKA "pretty weeds") picking up resistance.
  • A Singing Plant. A Daring Hero. A Sweet Girl. A Demented Dentist. A nerdish florist finds romance with the help of a giant man-eating plant who demands to be fed.

    See? Even nerdish florists get a shot at cross pollination. There is hope yet for us all.

  • This is old news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:10AM (#14370521) Journal
    Perhaps the dateline would have given the submitter a clue: "Monday July 25, 2005".

  • Reminds me of herbicide-resistant cocaine (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PIPBoy3000 ( 619296 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:19AM (#14370557)
    There was a Wired article [wired.com] awhile back, talking about herbicide resistance in the coca plant. The point is, evolution happens all the time. If resistance in an organism can occur, either naturally or by getting genes from another species, it will eventually happen.

    Pesticides have revolutionized agriculture, but like antibiotics, must be used with caution. Eventually it won't be as amazing as it once was. Older, more primitive techniques, may eventually come back into favor.
  • welcomes our new green, hyper-allergenic overlords with open fronds.
  • Like with anything, chemical pest control has its limits. I am currently reading a book about permaculture [wikipedia.org]. Basically permaculture is a way of life, a way of life that premotes working with and/or in harmony with nature to create a sustainable life style that does not damage the planet or its inhabbitants. One of the things it suggests is that crop growers incorporate echosystems into thier cultivation scemes so for example plant root vegetables with flowers and fungi and then plant fruit tree in between. D

  • Hysterical Junk Science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shannon Love ( 705240 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:31AM (#14370610) Homepage
    This article is so bad it almost defies description. One almost doesn't know where to start:

    (1) There is nothing "super" about the weeds, they have merely acquired resistance to herbicides. They don't grow faster or crowd out crops more aggressively than their non-resistant cousins. It just as stupid as calling anti-biotic resistant microbes "super" germs. "Super" is a term meant to imply something new and unusually powerful and deadly. Every weed growing in every crop area in the developed world is largely immune to pesticides that entered widespread use over 30 years years ago. Are they "super" weeds as well?

    (2) The article presents no evidence that the acquired resistance is in fact the result of cross-pollination and not natural evolution. In fact the artical says that:

    "The new plants were dubbed superweeds because they proved resistant to three herbicides while the crops they were growing among had been genetically engineered to be resistant to only one."

    This strongly suggest that the resistance is naturally acquired. It also doesn't seem that anyone took the elemental step of sequencing the pest-plants to see if they are actually using the same genes as the engineered crop plants. Unless someone can show that weeds contain engineered genes this article is nothing but hysterical supposition.

    (3) We have been breeding herbicide resistant crop plants using radiation and mutagenic chemicals for over a century. Where is the evidence that gene transfer has occurred using the older technology? After all, nature doesn't care where the genes came from only whether they benefit the species they jump to. If acquiring herbicide resistance from crop plants was a major problem we would have seen it long ago.

    (4) The supposition that crop plants will spread quickly through the wild is garbage gainsaid by centuries if not millennia or practical experience. We force crop plants to divert resources from their own survival in order to produce the plant products we need. As a result, they cannot survive in competition with natural plants that do not have the artificial overhead. If not protected from natural competition they are quickly wiped out.

    Opponents of GM crops also neglect to mention that if genes jump across species as fast as they claim then the problem will be economically self-limiting. The GM crops are only used because allow the easy killing of associate pest-plants. If the pest plants acquire resistance rapidly then the GM plants lose all their economic advantage. No one will use them because they will offer no benefits for their increased cost.

    • I was impressed enough with your comment to read some of what you wrote in the website you reference: http://www.chicagoboyz.net/ [chicagoboyz.net]

      A lot of what you wrote is well thought out. However I have to agree with others that some of your conclusions are not logically correct. I would classify one of your errors in logic as "It does not follow" (il non sequitur).

      For example.

      While it is true that some "super weeds" have aquired immunity to herbicides it does not follow that people have not been breding in robustness
  • Faster than a senior citizen.
    More powerful than a trip with Jerry Garcia.
    Able to beat Grand Turismo in a single round.

    Look! Sitting on my couch!
    It's an herb. It's mary jane. It's Superweed!

    Yes, it's Superweed - strange strain from another DNA who came to my living room with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal plants. Superweed - who can change the course of mighty lives, make people eat Taco Bell with their bare hands, and who, disguised as Purple Haze, a mild flavored hash from 1967's hippie's

  • More U.S. gov. corruption: No discussion of GM. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:38AM (#14370647) Homepage
    There was no serious public discussion of GM in the United States. I presume someone paid the politicians, as has happened in so many other areas.

    Support campaign finance reform [publicampaign.org]!

    McCain has the right idea [campaignfinancesite.org].

  • Mmm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dep01 ( 730107 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:43AM (#14370671) Homepage
    Mmmmmmmmmmmmm... superweeeeed.......

  • Monsanto seeds in Canada (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Easy2RememberNick ( 179395 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @11:51AM (#14370708)
    I'm no bongo playing, bandana wearing hippy with dreadlocks but Genetically Modified (GM) seeds have caused at least one incredibly unjustified lawsuits here in Canada.

        A farmer's field had some Monsanto seed mixed in with the farmer's regular seed (probably from a nearby field, seed in manure fertilizer...whatever). He was sued by Monsanto (I think they have a new name), and they won. I forget the details but I think it was similar to copyright infringement or pirating, because they owned the organism that someohow got into his field.

      How they could tell which plants were their's among the millions of others, is creepy.
    • I heard about that and was horrified with the ruling. Monsanto has similar cases here in the U.S.

      I think allowing plant patents has really caused the small indie farmers a lot of undue stress. Realize, though, I'm not against companies getting their fair share from their products, but in nature you cannot have a perfectly closed and useful system, unless you're a planet.
    • from Wikipedia:

      Essentially, a part of Schmeiser's canola crop, grown from seed he had bred over many decades, was accidentally contaminated with Monsanto's GE canola, likely by seed escaping from passing trucks. Schmeiser discovered the crossbreeding, collected the seed, planted it the next year, and harvested that crop. Both the case, and Monsanto's ultimate victory, were widely misunderstood. In fact, the infringement finding solely concerned the fact that he had knowingly replanted the crossbred seed he

  • His Noodliness has spoken! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @12:10PM (#14370785) Journal
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster has made his presense known unto us! He has touched this weed and conferred upon it this immunity to the unbeliving farmers' poisons so as to punish those who refuse to admit his existance!

    All praise the flying spaghetti monster, who though this weed, has touched us all with his Noodly Appendage!

  • Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Walter Wart ( 181556 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @01:20PM (#14371061) Homepage
    Hee-freakin'-haw. Every biologist who doesn't actually work for Monsanto or Cargill saw this one coming decades ago. Families like the brassicas are more promiscuous than a San Francisco bathouse. They cross breed all the time with their wild relatives.

    It doesn't even take sexual reproduction to do it. Plant viruses transfer genetic material from one plant to another sometimes completely unrelated one. All it takes is one or two out of billions to start the evolutionary ball rolling.

    The whole point of the exercise was to sell more herbicides. By making the crops herbicide resistant you encourage farmers to change the way they farm to buy tons of the stuff. There are other methods that produce more nutrition per acre - and even per dollar - but they don't sell the product that the agrichem industry is pushing.

    • Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
      A couple years ago I planted petunias. They looked like normal petunias in normal colours, albeit in more variety than I remembered seeing as a kid. In the normal course of events they bloomed copiously and produced plenty of seeds; second and third generation volunteers are now all over my garden. These offspring produce flowers in all sorts of weird colours I'd never seen before (including blotched and spotted), and some of the flowers are *wrinkled*, like crumpled newspaper. Not only that, but some speci

  • These are patented genes (Score:3, Funny)

    by dheltzel ( 558802 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @03:04PM (#14371489)
    that the weeds are stealing. We need to sic the corporate lawyers on them. As a crucial part of the discovery process, the lawyers and paralegals will be out collecting all the weeds with this resistance and storing them as evidence. They will (obviously) be quite dead by the time the trial is over, so the problem will be solved.

    This is the only time when I think having a lot of lawyers might be a good idea!

  • Is this really suprising to anyone ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TractorBarry ( 788340 ) on Saturday December 31, 2005 @07:20PM (#14372464) Homepage
    Personally I was not in the slightest bit suprised to read the headline (n.b. this is Slashdot so I haven't actually read the article or anything radical like that !)

    The moral of the story is that Nature will always adapt no matter what us Humans do. Life will always find a way round the problems facing it. That's not to say we shouldn't try stuff out (we are questioning beings after all) but if we change conditions (via the introduction of weedkillers etc.) then eventually some sort of "stuff" will adapt to the new environment. You only need to look at how many bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics to see how things work out.

    The only way we could stop life on Earth evolving to thrive in whatever conditions we create would be to blow the entire planet into little pieces. And even then I bet gravitational pull would eventually assemble some of those pieces back into a small "plantoid" which, if there were an observer to see it, would be seen to have some sort of life on it (evolved from some micro organism that was on one of the little fragments of Earth)

    Natures bigger, badder, smarter, more cunning and tougher than all of the Humans that ever lived put together. We should see ourselves for what we are. A small temporary blip on the graph of "dominant species who lived on Earth".

    So whilst I think the Monsantos of this world are a bunch of evil bastards who are trying to corner the world market for seed crops I'm not worried that they ever will. All that'll happen is that they fuck things up real bad for us humans. But nature won't care 'cause there's plenty more species waiting to take our place.

    Or as an insect once said to me "Behold I am the mighty cockroach, give me 100 generations alone with them, and I can eat your poisons for lunch".

Slashdot Top Deals

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

Close