Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Earth

Genetically Modified Rice Makes More Food, Less Greenhouse Gas 295

Applehu Akbar writes: A team of researchers at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences has engineered a barley gene into rice, producing a variety that yields 50% more grain while producing 90% less of the powerful greenhouse gas methane. The new rice pulls off this trick by putting more of its energy into top growth. In countries which depend on rice as a staple, this would add up to a really large amount of increased rice and foregone methane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Genetically Modified Rice Makes More Food, Less Greenhouse Gas

Comments Filter:
  • Well, sure, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @05:38PM (#50209555)
    ... what's it taste like?
    • by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @05:40PM (#50209587)

      ... what's it taste like?

      chicken, of course.

      • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        That'd go perfectly with GM chicken that tastes like rice.

    • by slashmydots ( 2189826 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @05:42PM (#50209621)
      Growth allocation gene modifications typically don't change any proteins actually inside of the plant so it should taste exactly the same. It just grows more of the same thing, not alters it to use an easier to produce molecule so there naturally is more but then it's chemically different (in most cases).
      • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @05:53PM (#50209725)

        But you forgot the first rule of the food religion: If it's not natural, then it tastes like chemicals causes cancer.

        Definition of natural meaning it was grown on cow shit and never pasteurized.

        • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @05:57PM (#50209769)
          I agree, most GMO foods are harmless, and there is no scientific evidence that they are any worse than the original. However, I also believe people have a right to their own paranoid delusions, therefore they have a right to know whether or not the food they buy contains GMO ingredients, and the federal government has a duty to endure that foods and other products are properly labeled, which in this case, would be a large, conspicuous "GMO" on the front label.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            They do have the right to know - all they have to do is convince their non-GMO suppliers to choose to label their products as non-GMO.
            • They do have the right to know - all they have to do is convince their non-GMO suppliers to choose to label their products as non-GMO.

              If you've ever done any grocery shopping, you'll know this is already somewhat common.

              Just like how many dairies sell their milk in containers prominently labeled "These cows were not given bST".

          • Do charlatans have a right to stir up fear to enrich themselves via books and useless substitutes, with no evidence of a problem whatsoever and tons of evidence in safety?

            Pardon me, I have to go buy gluten-free cheeseburger buns. It must be a valid concern, right? Also, I am getting a vaccine without thimerosol or adjuvants, whew!

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              The whole GMO issue has nothing to do with feeding the poor. GMO grains cost more so the starving proles can't afford to buy the seeds, they just save their current seeds for next year. First world farmers like GMO because they get a higher profit margin, but only if they can sell it at full price. If you mark the GMO foods then people will demand a discount (because many people think it's "bad"), and that wipes out the higher profit margins and that's why they work so hard to prevent labeling.
              • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

                The whole GMO issue has nothing to do with feeding the poor. GMO grains cost more so the starving proles can't afford to buy the seeds, they just save their current seeds for next year.

                Just three corporations control one quarter of the world's seed market (Monsanto, Syngenta and DuPont) and biodiversity is not high on their agenda. National seed lists in many countries make it illegal to buy and sell unusual varieties and it is prohibitively expensive to keep seeds on the list. Agribusinesses require farmers buying seed to sign contracts that prevent them saving and replanting seeds at a later date. As this is difficult to enforce, seeds are now being genetically modified to be sterile af

          • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @06:07PM (#50209873)

            Being the libertarian that I am, normally I would be on board with that, except for one major problem: There's only so much room on the food labels, and there's so much other important information that could be put there instead, but isn't.

            Take me for example: I have IgA nephropathy and am in stage 4 CKD. I have to be extra careful about how much potassium and phosphorus I consume. Yet most labels don't show potassium, and hardly any show phosphorus (at best you get a %DV count, which gives you a very poor idea of its actual contents.) The manufacturers don't have a problem giving you these figures if you ask, but they don't put them on the labels because the package is only so large.

            A complete nutrition information chart given to the manufacturers from a food lab is very lengthy, and no food label on just about anything would be able to accomodate it all, so they typically only put on their labels what the FDA says they must.

            That said, I'd be pissed as hell if the FDA started requiring immaterial facts such as a GMO label that affects nobody one way or another, but ignored electrolytes that can kill people like me.

            • by Idou ( 572394 )
              Label space does not seem like it should matter anymore. . .

              If there is an app for me to compare brick & mortar items with online items in real time, it seems we are living in a time where it should be trivial and cheap to quickly access all the information you would ever want to know about an item before you purchase it.
            • by sbaker ( 47485 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @06:35PM (#50210087) Homepage

              There is plenty of room on the label for a tinyurl.

              If you were to accept that you needed a smartphone in order to read food labels (a big "IF") - then the entire label could be replaced by a QRCode which links to a page with *ALL* of the information. The actual label could then be simplified to a really simple "UNHEALTHY/HEALTH" number going from 1..10 as proposed previously to simplify things for the 95% of people who aren't going to read anything more detailed than that anyway.

              For people like you - I'd imagine that using a phone to get vitally important data that would never fit on a label is less of an imposition. Furthermore, it would be easy to have software provided for you that would allow you to scan the product and get a personalized "OK TO EAT"/"DO NOT EAT!" indicator as set by your doctor.

              Come to think of it - you wouldn't even need any extra printing at all...pretty much all labelled food already has a bar-code on it - it would be simple enough to prepend a standard URL onto that number to turn it into something that a special app could use to pull all of the necessary information. Legislation to make product vendors add this information would then be simple enough.

          • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @06:42PM (#50210159)

            However, I also believe people have a right to their own paranoid delusions

            That depends heavily on exactly how harmful the delusion is. Some are harmless, others not so much. But public policy should be based on actual facts and real evidence.

            therefore they have a right to know whether or not the food they buy contains GMO ingredients

            Why do they have a "right to know"? Is there any actual evidence that they are harmful even a little bit? If the answer is yes then maybe you have an argument. But since the answer so far is an unequivocal no, despite large amounts of research into the question, then I cannot agree with you. I prefer my public policy decisions to be made on scientific facts and not made on ill informed paranoia.

            If there is a market for people who want to know if a food is GMO-free then you will see labeling to that effect on some products and that is fine. Although if they are truly paranoid I'm not sure how they could ever be sure the label was actually true.

            • 1-The only people making an in depth examination of the issue are those who make a lot of money if the answer comes back "safe". 2-Is it ok to put pork in sausages shipped to the middle east and not lebel it? After all, religious dietary restrictions are not valid health and safety issues.
              • by abies ( 607076 )

                What about labeling food with 'black people were involved in production of this food (not in Soylent Green meaning)' to give informed choice to KKK people to not buy such products? But at same time we are fine to have notifications of 'rabbi was involved in production of this food', to given informed choice to some other people to not buy other food.

                It is has nothing to do with religion or common sense. It is just that some groups/religions had enough power to make their arbitrary requirements ok, while oth

          • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @07:08PM (#50210369) Journal

            therefore they have a right to know whether or not the food they buy contains GMO ingredients

            Then they should only buy food labeled as "GMO Free," which is manufactured specifically for people with those kinds of concerns.

            the federal government has a duty to endure that foods and other products are properly labeled, which in this case, would be a large, conspicuous "GMO" on the front label.

            Large, conspicuous, and the front of the label? You aren't interested in people being able to inform themselves. If that were the case, you would be satisfied with a line in the ingredients. Your goal is to make GMO scary to people, with a large scary label on the front.

            • Not really (Score:4, Interesting)

              by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @08:17PM (#50210829)
              companies use all sorts of tricks to hide stuff like that. Soup companies use yeast to put MSG in Soup without reporting it (it's a by product of the yeast, which serves no other purpose). Cookie and Donut companies have for years claimed "Zero Grams Trans Fat" on products that are literally made of trans-fat by putting a token amount of wheat in there and adjusting portion sizes. You've got to make these 'warnings' really, really blunt or they just work around it.

              As for labels, that's all well and good for the top 10%. What about the other 90%? You know how we found out sodium nitrate causes cancer? It wasn't the FDA. It was a farmer feeding old herring to cows and noticing they kept dying of liver cancer. The food industry doesn't exactly have the best track record....
              • I couldn't get past the first couple sentences.

                You realize, I hope, that the MSG scare was a scam. Studies have been done. MSG isn't some scary, dangerous chemical.

              • Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)

                by AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @09:32PM (#50211219)

                companies use all sorts of tricks to hide stuff like that. Soup companies use yeast to put MSG in Soup without reporting it (it's a by product of the yeast, which serves no other purpose).

                And recently there has been the phenomenon where companies try to hide things by using confusing nomenclature. E.g., "evaporated cane juice" in products with "no added sugar." [foodnavigator-usa.com] Yeah -- "cane juice" -- it must be good for you, since they call it "juice"! Well, it's just another form of sugar... processed slightly differently, but still basically sucrose.

                Basically, it's just a game... try to make things sound "natural" and "wholesome" when they're basically the same old crap. Same thing goes for "brown rice syrup" used as a sweetener in many things... basically sugar. But it's "brown rice"!! (Of course, brown rice also often has elevated levels of arsenic [go.com] and other things... but hey, it's "natural" and "brown," so it must be good!)

                You know how we found out sodium nitrate causes cancer?

                Funny that you bring nitrates up, because that's one of my favorite examples of nonsense labeling. First, we get most of our nitrates from vegetables, so worrying about the small amounts in bacon and cured meats is probably not as big a deal as people make of it. (Yes, yes... cooking does other things to the nitrates and can make them bad, but proper curing also deactivates most of them too... we could argue this all day.)

                But regardless of that, my favorite misleading labeling is all the "uncured" meats you see these days: "uncured bacon," "uncured salami," etc. Yeah, except these almost always contain huge amounts of "concentrated celery juice" (or sometimes another agent) which contains more nitrates [seriouseats.com] than the standard salts used traditionally to cure meat. (And no -- to those natural foods wackos -- there's no evidence to support the idea that somehow those nitrates are better for you in the concentrated celery juice... basically because "natural" celery juice has unpredictable amounts of nitrates, they need to add more of them than they would for tradition curing salts.)

                People just want stuff called "natural" with "juice" and "brown X" and "natural flavors" in it. It's almost all bogus nonsense, and often you end up paying a huge premium for something that could very well be worse for you.

                Moral of the story: Labels frequently don't work to tell people what's actually better. Not saying we shouldn't try to use them, but companies will weasel their way around anything to appeal to customers.

                (By the way, I'm all in favor of cooking for yourself with whole ingredients, using less "processed" foods, etc. But bogus "natural foods" nonsense is bogus nonsense.)

                • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                  by cas2000 ( 148703 )

                  > And no -- to those natural foods wackos

                  typical fucking american.

                  when there's a corporation that's lying to and conning consumers, you blame the victim ("those natural foods wackos") rather than the perpetrators.

                  you yanks need to learn that "caveat emptor" is supposed to be a warning, not a fucking business model.

                  and quit admiring con-men. they're scumbags. they deserve gaol, not praise.

                  > Moral of the story: Labels frequently don't work to tell people
                  > what's actually better.

                  this is not the fault

              • literally made of trans-fat by putting a token amount of wheat in there and adjusting portion sizes.

                Can you give specific examples?

                Yes, I know there are cases of being able to round down from .4999999 grams/serving to 0..

                But "literally made of trans-fat" plus "token amount" does not equate to rounding down a small amount.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

            I agree, most GMO foods are harmless

            Based on faith not proof, we won't know if each GMO is safe until it's been tested on humans for a couple of decades or more. You accuse people of having ' paranoid delusions' but treat GM science like a religion assuming it can do no wrong.

          • The same argument could be used to require labelling to include all pesticides used in the process, the names of any other chemicals were applied, and even what mechanical processes were applied to the food.

            In fact, I think part of the objection GMO manufacturers have with labelling requirements is that they're cherry picking the GMO label but not requiring all the others. If we gave full labels for every food product, with GMO being little more than a bullet point, the amount of text would be so huge that
            • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

              Well, the pink slime scandal was all about chemicals used in processing that weren't disclosed despite the fact that they remained in the end product in sufficient quantities to make them smell rank.

              There are other additives that are in American foods and are unlabeled while being banned in other countries. Some of these are also relevant to some portion of the population that are sensitive to them.

              Some people can even smell the farm chemicals on produce if you concentrate them through juicing.

          • there is no scientific evidence that they are any worse than the original

            If there is no scientific evidence of that, why waste time/money FORCING companies to put labels, which would act as *warnings*, about them?

            I want all of my food labelled to show it has no cooties in it. Will you support that too?

        • I have no problem with GM food. I do have a big problem with closed source, trademarked, copyrighted and patented food.
          I also have concerns about forced sterialisation, cross pollination and reduced diversity mono-cultures.
          • OK... but then your problem is with patents, not with genetic modification. Patents eventually run out, at which point a GMO label on food does nothing to tell you if it's from patented seeds.

    • ... what's it taste like?

      With all these miraculous properties, you'd think companies would want to let people know that their food is GMO. You know, like on the label.

      • That's cute. You think that actual benefits of GMOs mean anything to the people listening to all the FUD that gets spread about them.

        • That's cute. You think that actual benefits of GMOs mean anything to the people listening to all the FUD that gets spread about them.

          And you think that hiding the foods' provenance is the way to make people stop believing the FUD? That's very interesting.

          Because when someone tells me I'm not allowed to know something about a product I'm buying, it immediately endears me to the company hiding the information.

          • Just because you want to know something that is not worth including on a label doesn't mean they are hiding anything.

        • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

          > That's cute. You think that actual benefits of GMOs mean anything to the people listening to all the FUD that gets spread about them.

          My main objection to GMOs is that they transfer rights from individuals to large corporations.

          The "science" aspect is entirely a side show to distract from that.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    And it will probably be just as attacked as golden rice by the Anti-GMO blowhards.

    • I look forward to seeing how much extra carbon is pumped into the atmosphere by anti-GMO people burning any crops planted using this.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Unfortunately you're very likely right, and it is a true crime against humanity - dooming millions to nutritionally preventable diseases and defects. Second gen of Golden Rice is amazing stuff!

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @05:52PM (#50209713)

    All the seeds that just any jerk can buy are all these heirloom seeds. Which sounds nice until you realize they're basically the most vulnerable seeds possible. The original breeds that mostly didn't make great food plants were able to take care of themselves.

    The seeds you get in the packets are nice only they are modified just enough that they suck at protecting themselves... which means you have to be some sort of garden wizard or blanket the field with pesticide doom just to keep your plants alive.

    I'd prefer a GMO plant that had the best of both worlds. Ideally something hearty that could deal with a very wide set of climate conditions, high pest resistance, and good production when the conditions permit.

    Basically I want a plant that first looks to its own survival. And once that's handled... I want it to output as well as anything. And while we're at it... why not make the produce super nutritious.

    That's a thing people don't get with GMO is that it can be made to be better for you than the original. More vitamins etc.

    Take wheat for example... We could have a different breed of wheat that has one extra vitamin in it. And do that with every vitamin giving us a dozen or so types of wheat that collectively have all the vitamins and minerals a person needs.

    Then when you mill the flour you can blend them together in the ideal ratio to give you a super flour that really does have everything a person needs to survive in it.

    The whole anti GMO thing is obnoxious... Its the 21st century, dopes... Get over it.

    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      It sounds like you want to give crop plants some of the attributes of invasive species. At what point would doing so start to become a bad thing?

      • Crops already are invasive species. The majority of them were originally native to the Middle East and we have modified them through manual selection to grow in other regions just as successfully. We count on them to outcompete native plants (if corn (which was actually from Central America I believe) can't outproduce native prairie grasses in Iowa and Nebraska then we won't have any corn).
        The point at which it could become a bad thing has already past.
        • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          Are you saying that because the problem already exists, it's okay to make it worse? Or are you saying that making crops resistant to pests won't make them more invasive?

          • I'm saying we've been trying to make this problem worse for literally thousands of years. Our current crops are much more resistant to pests than their natural ancestors. We will continue to try to make them even more resistant by multiple methods. Now that we have a pretty respectable understanding of genetics, we even better at doing it by cross-breeding individuals to get traits than we were for the last 10 thousand years. Actually splicing genes together manually is just another step more efficient. The
            • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

              I see. You're saying it's okay to do it because it has been our goal all along. That logic is circular.

            • We've also been trying to wipe out lions, tigers, bears, and most other predators (oh, my!) for thousands of years, so that must make it ok to drive those animals into extinction by killing every last one of them now, right? Just because we've been doing something misguided for a long time, doesn't make it ok, especially now that we're much more efficient at it. That being said, many GMO modifications aren't substantially different than those achieved by hybridization and selective breed, which has itself
        • We count on them to outcompete native plants (if corn (which was actually from Central America I believe) can't outproduce native prairie grasses in Iowa and Nebraska then we won't have any corn).

          I definitely see your larger point, but I think you are confusing "outcompete" with "outproduce".

          With regards to invasive species, "outcompete" usually means that the invasive species is able to displace native species from their natural habitats. Kudzu [wikipedia.org] and tamarisk [wikipedia.org] are good examples of invasive species that can outcompete native species. We certainly don't count on our crop plants to be able to do that, and most of them can't. For example, you generally don't see corn or wheat displacing native vegetati

        • by erice ( 13380 )

          Crops already are invasive species. The majority of them were originally native to the Middle East and we have modified them through manual selection to grow in other regions just as successfully. We count on them to outcompete native plants (if corn (which was actually from Central America I believe) can't outproduce native prairie grasses in Iowa and Nebraska then we won't have any corn).

          .
          The point at which it could become a bad thing has already past

          Crops are not invasive species. They are non-native species but that is not the same thing. An invasive species has a survival advantage over native species. Typically, this is an adaption to a threat not present outside its native environment. Crops are not like that. They are modified to produce more/better food for us. That puts them at a disadvantage against native plants (aka "weeds"). They need help to survive. That is exactly the opposite of invasive.

          Direct genetic modification makes it easie

      • "Mother fucking blueberries... every week end it is the same thing... they grow up like weeds everywhere!" ... I really don't see the problem.

        • Himalayan blackberries were intentionally introduced to Oregon as a food. They are quite tasty, but they are virtually impossible to wipe out, and you may think that they are free, but you pay for them in blood -- they have the worst thorns I've ever seen. The canes are tough enough to destroy the string used by weed-wackers, and I'm pretty sure they scratch the paint on cars as you drive buy. In other words, just because they taste good doesn't make them really obnoxious. Blueberries, on the other hand, q
          • I've dealt with those blackberry bushes and they are annoying to cut back. If you're actually managing your property at all they're hardly going to grow faster than you can go out there and show them what for.

            My uncle has quite a bit of property next to a national park which is to say there is a great deal of invasive vegetation that encroaches on his property. He has a backhoe that he uses to police the boundaries of this property.

            Anyway, I like the blackberries... Their thorns don't scare me...
            https://www [youtube.com]

    • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @06:15PM (#50209949)

      All the seeds that just any jerk can buy are all these heirloom seeds.

      Given that the vast majority of seeds I see in catalogs are F1 hybrids, it's unlikely that your statement is even remotely true. Most of what is sold to home gardeners is the same varieties being sold to commercial growers. Most home garden catalog vendors are in turn purchasing their seed from the big boys that supply farmers - Northup King, Stokes, and so on.

      There are a few - Territorial Seed and Johnny's Selected Seeds come to mind - that to some degree also actively work on developing their own seed stocks; but even with them, most of the seed is being purchased from a handful of huge companies.

      The only places I see heirlooms dominating a company's listings is in catalogs from companies specializing in open-pollinated vegetables - Seeds of Change, Abundant Life, etc.

  • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @05:52PM (#50209717) Homepage

    Let's face it, it's a GMO which we all know is *bad*. Sometimes you have to let folks starve in order to save them from something evil.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by preaction ( 1526109 )

      *takes a bite of cheeseburger* You said it! *sips soda* We have to save these people from the evil corporations! *dips french fry in ketchup and crams in mouth* GMOs will destroy our planet! *drives away in gas-guzzling SUV*

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Or sell them Organic(tm) food at insane markups.
      ?
      Profit!

    • There is no shortage of food on Earth. Every country consistently grows more food than is required. Even Ethiopia and other "Famine" countries make excess foods. Distribution is a bit of an issue though, especially in civil war areas.
  • by l2718 ( 514756 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @06:04PM (#50209841)

    I'm always amused by the way science is suborned to political expediency.

    Some people strongly tout the consensus regarding global warming/climate change. They commonly disparage and dismiss those who don't fully subscribe as politically-motivated ignoramuses who are anti-science. The doubters view themselves simply as more cautious, unwilling to risk large costs when it is not clear that science can clearly predict there will be benefits.

    Other people strongly tout the consensus regarding the safety of GM foods. The opposition claims to be simply cautious, unwilling to risk any unknown dangers of these foods despite the enormous benefits they could provide.

    Interestingly enough, very often it's the same people who support massive reductions in CO2 emissions based on a scientific consensus and despite the economic costs and the uncertain climate benefits, and yet would prefer to avoid the benefits of GM foods due to fear of unknown bad results, despite the scientific consensus.

    • by bledri ( 1283728 )

      I'm always amused by the way science is suborned to political expediency.

      Some people strongly tout the consensus regarding global warming/climate change. They commonly disparage and dismiss those who don't fully subscribe as politically-motivated ignoramuses who are anti-science. The doubters view themselves simply as more cautious, unwilling to risk large costs when it is not clear that science can clearly predict there will be benefits.

      Other people strongly tout the consensus regarding the safety of GM foods. The opposition claims to be simply cautious, unwilling to risk any unknown dangers of these foods despite the enormous benefits they could provide.

      Interestingly enough, very often it's the same people who support massive reductions in CO2 emissions based on a scientific consensus and despite the economic costs and the uncertain climate benefits, and yet would prefer to avoid the benefits of GM foods due to fear of unknown bad results, despite the scientific consensus.

      News Flash: People are more often rationalizers than rational. What does the FUD of corporations, consumers or anyone else have to do with putting scientific consensus in scare quotes?

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      It could, of course, be that they reviewed the benefits and risks and drew their own conclusions which sometimes match the consensus and sometimes don't.

      • by l2718 ( 514756 )

        It could, of course, be that they reviewed the benefits and risks and drew their own conclusions which sometimes match the consensus and sometimes don't.

        That's exactly what they're doing. But this shows that they don't really believe that scientific consensus is by itself a reason to select a course of action.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @06:21PM (#50209987)

    Barley is a glutinous grain, so - is the resulting rice still gluten-free? I have no trouble with gluten (thank goodness - I absolutely love bread), but I know several people that are have problems with it.

  • We're collectively producing more rice than we eat. Japan is stockpiling unused rice every year, and the world markets are flooded with cheap rice. Food insufficiency (starvation, malnutrition) is currently a problem of resource allocation, not production.

    At the same time, the consumers in the big rice consuming countries aren't eating just "rice". You can typically find many dozens of very specific breeds of rice with differences in flavour, texture, firmness, size and so on. And that's within a single typ

  • The new rice pulls off this trick by putting more of its energy into top growth.

    How long before rumors start about eating this rice creating larger breasts!

  • Of course the nut jobs will be against it.

  • GMO? Bring them on. With reasonable safety testing. Because guess what: I like citrus fruits. However, citrus fruits are going extinct thanks to citrus greening.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    It's spreading worldwide, affecting Asia, Israel, and Florida (29% reduced production), and other places. There is no good way to cure citrus greening (you can give a tree antibiotics, but that only works for a while and costs a lot. I'm not a fan of abusing antibiotics in this way, either!)

    However, there's a

  • by Xtifr ( 1323 ) on Thursday July 30, 2015 @02:50AM (#50212287) Homepage

    So, it's a GMO, which means the science-deniers on the left will hate it, and it reduces greenhouse gases, so the science-deniers on the right will hate it.

    Basically, this is what we need, and it hasn't got a chance of success.

1000 beers served at a Twins game = 1 Killibrew

Working...