New GMO-Approved Grass may Infiltrate a Lawn Near You
Glyphosate-Resistant Grass Approved Without Any Review
Latest News
Apparently, Scotts Miracle-Gro company and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) thinks GMO grass, targeted for sale to golf courses and other turf-like arenas – is brilliant. The government agency just approved the new GM, glyphosate-resistant grass without a single environmental review.
GM tall fescue grass, developed by Scotts, is cleared for cultivation. You can expect to find it not only at your local golf course, but possibly even on your neighbor’s lawn – ripe and green, and ready to infiltrate your non-GMO lawn with a simple breeze to scatter its seeds. Or with a singular weed that reaches through a fence post to plant roots on your turf.
It is being marketed to golf courses especially since it was developed to grow “shorter, thicker and darker green.”
The GM turf grass was developed by Scotts with ‘a variety of genes’ through a process called “biolistics,” in which a “gene gun” essentially shoots DNA-coated metal particles into the plant cell. There is no guarantee that this ‘new’ biotech trick is safe.
Furthermore, the USDA doesn’t even have the authority to approve the GM grass, since the method does not involve the use of a plant pest for gene transfer. Other “Roundup Ready” plants, like alfalfa and sugar beets, were made with a soil pathogen, which required USDA approval before going to market.
This is, in essence, a very conniving way for Scotts to get around regulatory approval, likely motivated after a regulated variety of genetically engineered creeping bentgrass escaped a field trial in Central Oregon in 2003, which eventually resulted in a $500,000 civil penalty from USDA. Since their original petition for approval of the GM bentgrass variety, it has been stuck in limbo, and has not been approved for commercial growth.
In the past four years, Scotts has persuaded the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that several biotech varieties of Kentucky bluegrass and St. Augustinegrass did not come under its regulatory jurisdiction.
Carol Mallory-Smith, a weed science professor at Oregon State University says:
“They’re able to get around APHIS’ authority with their new techniques.”
If this grass responds the way other “glyphosate resistant” crops have, turf-keepers are in for some serious weeding. Northwest hazelnut growers and Midwestern ryegrass cover-crop growers have already had serious problems due to repeated glyphosate spraying.
“There is concern about resistance in general in grass seed production,” Ostlund said.
Furthermore, Kentucky bluegrass, another recently approved GM grass which largely produces seeds asexually, is less of a cross-pollinating threat as tall fescue, which is much more likely to cross-pollinate with other grasses of its variety due to how it regenerates.
One breeder has commented about how tall fescue infiltrates other grasses:
“If it’s anywhere near any other tall fescue, it will outcross. It’s also a perennial crop. It’s not goin g to die out.”
It doesn’t matter what kind of biotechnology was used to create the GM grass, it is still genetically altered, it is still transgenic, and we have no idea what it will do to other plants and grasses once it is wide-spread.
The last time I checked, we didn’t need bio-technological assistance to grow grass. It grows in sidewalk cracks, ditches, and much more. It was even once planted inside a massive church cathedral in England. So why in the heck do we need genetically modified grass?
 | Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga. |
“There is no guarantee that this ‘new’ biotech trick is safe”
>>Actually there is. There is over two decades of use that has not produced any evidence that it causes any harm either. But don’t expect intellectually honesty from Christina Sarich. Lies are her currency.
“If this grass responds the way other “glyphosate resistant” crops have, turf-keepers are in for some serious weeding.”
>>Ah the ever duplicitous Christina Sarich. Glyphosate has already been used for more than 20 years to control weeds on golf courses. There has even been the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds, all in the absence of GM grass.
Golf course weeds are developing resistance to the herbicide glyphosate
Science Daily January 31, 2012
Now if Christina had even a shred of intellectually honest, she would have explained this. But the reality doesn’t fit her “GMOs are evil” narrative, so she spins a fictional idea that GM grass is going to create a problem (that already exists).
That’s it. I’m not reading any more. I’m starting to feel ill. Too much Sarich-stupid for today.
Making your trollish rounds on the Internet, I see. I guess you got bored over at Truthout…
Does it make you feel like a man to insult this author so much? I see you can’t actually answer the most salient question she asked. Why do we need GM-grass when grass grows *just fine* on its own?
“Why do we need GM-grass when grass grows *just fine* on its own?”
>>Need is rarely the basis for the development of new products. Do we need high definition TVs? Do we need cars that can travel 200 mph? Do we need diamond encrusted jewelry? Do we need glyphosate resistant grass? I’d wager the answer is a ‘no’ to all of those questions. But what we need and what consumers want are often not the same thing. And I’m not going to automatically argue against something just because there isn’t a demonstrable need for it. But I’d be happy to argue against it if there is a rational reason.
The funny thing is, I’m not sure glyphosate resistant grass is a good idea. In fact, I actually think it’s a bad idea. Drought tolerant grass would be much more useful. But that doesn’t mean I am willing to entertain bad and downright false criticisms of GM grass. There is a very legitimate criticism of glyphosate resistant grass, and that’s the increased use of glyphosate, both in frequency and geography, which will almost certainly have the effect of driving the evolution of glyphosate tolerance in weed plants. If Sarich had stuck with science I’d be in full agreement with her. But if Sarich stuck only to the science, she’d be forced to admit that there are demonstrable benefits to GM technology and that there isn’t any evidence that GMOs are inherently dangerous.
I’m not sure glyphosate resistant grass is a good idea.
I kind of agree as well (which is strange because I am the #1 GMO promoter on the internet, IMHO), but not for the reasons that you list. i am more worried about invasive turf grass control. Turfgrass is already resistant to 2-4-d and many other herbicides, why add glyphosate to the mix? Are we going to have to kill invasive turfgrass with Paraquat? Having a lawn free of other grasses is really not that important, suck it up Golfers.
I guess in a way that’s actually the same point since a ‘weed’ is simply any plant growing where you don’t want it to. GM grass can easily be a weed depending on the context.
It’s seems a frivolous use GM technology in this case. But then I guess one can argue that it’s frivolous to use the most powerful communication technology ever invented to share pictures of cats. Like need, what’s frivolous can be subjective.
But then again there is not many cat videos growing in the everglades. Oh, Crap, now I sound like a Anti-GMOer
I think I’m going to faint….Lol.
Turfgrass is resistant to 2,4-D because pretty much ALL grass is resistant to 2,4-D, as it always has been. 2,4-D is a broadleaf weed killer. But I agree with your overall point.
That was my point,, do golfers and turf farmers need grass free of other grasses? I think not.
OMG, I shot a 98 because there was too much creeping red fescue in the Bermuda grass ….Suck it up golfers
“But what we need and what consumers want are often not the same thing.”
You really think people with lawns were clamoring for RU-ready grass? LOL!! I highly doubt it. It’s just another one of those products that was produced because a company saw a monetary benefit from it and they will try to effectively market it to the consumers. I sure as heck didn’t contact Scott’s and ask them for GM-grass.
“But if Sarich stuck only to the science, she’d be forced to admit that
there are demonstrable benefits to GM technology and that there isn’t
any evidence that GMOs are inherently dangerous.”
Wrong on both accounts. GM-technology has only caused problems in the long-run. It was “good” for a while. We now have increasingly epic problems with super-bugs and super-weeds. There might not be evidence that the GM-process itself is inherently dangerous, but considering the fact that the majority of GMOs are HR, we are now laying down more poison than we ever did and the poisons are what could be causing the harm found in studies. In other words, it’s hard to separate harm caused from the GM-process versus harm from the pesticides that they’re bred to resist. And now because of failure in RU-crops, they’ve had to create crops resistant to even more harmful chemicals. None of that even speaks to the effects of these chemicals on the environment.
In cases of Bt-crops, they can’t prove that this won’t cause long-term harm. Organic agriculture uses Bt *externally* on the plant and it degrades in the environment or is washed off before the plant is consumed. It’s not permanently part of the plant and thus it doesn’t enter into our bloodstream in the way that Bt-crops do. Both Roundup and Bt are being linked to causing gut problems because they’re killing off good bacteria. We *need* that good bacteria to stay healthy. GMOs may or may not cause acute harm but that doesn’t mean they aren’t causing long-term harm. There haven’t been any long-term post-market studies on human health since the introduction of GMOs, so there’s absolutely NO way biotech can say that they’re perfectly benign. They do try, though…
As always, my main problem isn’t necessarily with GMOs themselves; it’s with conventional mono-crop agriculture, in general. I really don’t think that type of farming is good for us or the environment. Because the vast majority of GMOs are HR, I can’t really say that the process itself is harmful or not because the testing is done with GM-food which has been sprayed with the synthetic chemicals. In all likelihood, though, the GM process is doing things to plants that aren’t beneficial and could have negative consequences for the people and animals eating that food. The process seems anything but precise, especially when they use gene guns to “insert” the foreign DNA. There are things happening on down the line that aren’t intended and could be harmful.
“You really think people with lawns were clamoring for RU-ready grass? LOL! I highly doubt it”
>>So do I. I didn’t say people wanted glyphosate-tolerant grass. I’m not sure why you still seem to be arguing against glyphosate-tolerant grass as though I were defending it. I just said that I don’t think it’s necessary. Companies often make products without an obvious market demand. Sometimes those products flop. Sometimes they don’t. Necessity isn’t always a factor in the success or failure of a product. You’re creating a strawman here.
“GM-technology has only caused problems in the long-run”
>>Another strawman. First, you seem to be painting all GM technology with the same brush despite the fact that you go on to discuss very specific GM traits. Second, the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds and insecticide resistant insect pests does happen with or without GM technology (I just gave you an example above of exactly this phenomenon). I agree that the widespread adoption of Bt GM crops and RoundUp-Ready crops has accelerated the evolutionary process due to increased frequency of exposure of the selection pressure (e.g. glyphosate or Bt toxin) to the respective organisms.
As for the “poisons” you so fondly refer to, may I introduce you to something known as the EIQ, or the Environmental Impact Quotient, a measure of the toxicity of a compound based on the degree of negative impact on the environment. The EIQ of glyphosate is actually lower (less harmful) than that of compounds used in organic farming. Glyphosate scores 15.3 while organic products like insecticidal soap (19), horticultural oil (27.5), pyrethrin (39) and Bordeaux mix (67.67) all score higher. Were you aware organic farmers were similarly dousing their fields with even more toxic “poisons”? Your hyperbolic language betrays the shallowness of your comprehension of this subject. Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think glyphosate is safe to consume. Steps should be taken to limit exposure wherever possible. But let’s try and get a little context before getting all worked up and irate.
“In cases of Bt-crops, they can’t prove that this won’t cause long-term harm.”
>>Of course that can’t be proven. It’s effectively impossible to prove a negative. I can’t prove I’m never going to commit a crime. But that doesn’t make me a dangerous person. Understand?
“Organic agriculture uses Bt *externally* on the plant and it degrades in the environment or is washed off before the plant is consumed.”
>>Incorrect. See the study below. If anything, the form of Bt toxin (i.e. Bacillus thuringiensis) used in organic farming poses a greater risk than the GM form (Cry proteins) as organic farmers use the whole bacterium which includes thousands of other microbial proteins. Granted, I still think it’s safe given it’s history of use, but when you get down to the specifics, the organic form actually contains a great number of unknown components that have not been tested for safety.
Occurrence of natural Bacillus thuringiensis contaminants and residues of Bacillus thuringiensis-based insecticides on fresh fruits and vegetables.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 May;72(5):3435-40.
“Both Roundup and Bt are being linked to causing gut problems ”
>>Prove it! Show me peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that Bt is linked to negative human health outcomes. Unless you can produce empirical data to back this claim, it’s nothing but BS.
“GMOs may or may not cause acute harm but that doesn’t mean they aren’t causing long-term harm. ”
>>Again with the proving a negative thing. No offense, but you really don’t seem to have a handle on basic logical reasoning.
“There haven’t been any long-term post-market studies on human health since the introduction of GMOs, so there’s absolutely NO way biotech can say that they’re perfectly benign.”
>>Human health studies are exceptionally difficult and expensive to conduct. There have been numerous long-term and multigenerational studies in animals, which have shown no credible evidence harm associated with GMOs (see review below). So in the absence of any evidence of harm, why do you expect anyone to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a human safety study?
Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review
Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 50, Issues 3–4, March–April 2012, Pages 1134–1148
“my main problem isn’t necessarily with GMOs themselves; it’s with conventional mono-crop agriculture, in general”
>>Mono-crop agriculture is nothing new. But this is an entirely DIFFERENT debate. I’m not interested in having this one right now as I don’t feel I have spent enough time evaluating the evidence to develop an informed opinion.
“Because the vast majority of GMOs are HR, I can’t really say that the process itself is harmful or not because the testing is done with GM-food which has been sprayed with the synthetic chemicals”
>>That’s an inaccurate statement. You should read the materials and methods sections of research studies looking at GMO safety to better understand the controls involved. But in cases where there is no evidence of harm found the point becomes moot anyway.
“In all likelihood, though, the GM process is doing things to plants that aren’t beneficial and could have negative consequences for the people and animals eating that food.The process seems anything but precise, especially when they use gene guns to “insert” the foreign DNA.”
>>BASED ON WHAT??? You ‘feelings’? Cut the BS and face the facts. You are prejudiced. You don’t understand the technology and so you just assume it must be dangerous. Genetic engineering is no less precise than directed breeding when it comes to alterations to the genome of an organism. You have no scientific basis for your beliefs, but yet you are too closed minded to even consider the possibility that you’re wrong. So you just assume that somehow you must still be right. I have absolutely no respect for such an attitude.
Now, I’ve taken a fair bit of time to carefully address your questions and points. I’ve also raised a number of questions myself. I would appreciate your responses to these questions. If you choose to respond but ignore all the questions I have asked you or corrections I have pointed out to you, I will simply ignore your response. I will be happy to continue a dialogue, but I will only do so if the communication is two-way.
“Necessity isn’t always a factor in the success or failure of a product. You’re creating a strawman here.”
Um, no I’m not. I was responding to your statement that “what we need and what consumers want are often not the same thing.” Focus, will you?
“I agree that the widespread adoption of Bt GM crops and RoundUp-Ready
crops has accelerated the evolutionary process due to increased
frequency of exposure of the selection pressure (e.g. glyphosate or Bt
toxin) to the respective organisms.”
So how can what I said be a strawman argument if it’s true? Lol. It hasn’t just accelerated the problem; it has *greatly* accelerated the problem. And this problem isn’t even a problem in most organic growing practices. I guess that’s what I compare conventional agriculture to…
“Your hyperbolic language betrays the shallowness of your comprehension
of this subject. Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think glyphosate is
safe to consume. Steps should be taken to limit exposure wherever
possible. But let’s try and get a little context before getting all
worked up and irate.”
First of all, I’m not irate. Second of all, I’d rather eat soap and the small residual amount of Bt on organic crops than Roundup. You conveniently forget that farmers aren’t using glyphosate alone and that the combination of all the other ingredients is likely the biggest problem. Glyphosate is actually the only thing you can claim is so “safe”, and it’s the thing that is tested for all this “safety”. You can’t say the same for everything else in the cocktail mix.
“Prove it! Show me peer-reviewed studies demonstrating that Bt is linked
to negative human health outcomes. Unless you can produce empirical data
to back this claim, it’s nothing but BS.”
You might think it’s BS, but I’d rather be safe than sorry. Roundup is an antibiotic, first and foremost. And because Bt is useful for killing bugs, I’d rather not have a lot of it in my system.
Mesnage R, Clair E, Gress S, Then C, Szekacs A, Seralini GE.
Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins
alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide. J Appl Toxicol. 2013;33 (7):695-699.
Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune
response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56 (23):11533-11539.
“Again with the proving a negative thing. No offense, but you really don’t seem to have a handle on basic logical reasoning.”
And you don’t seem to grasp the idea of the precautionary principle…
“Human health studies are exceptionally difficult and expensive to
conduct. There have been numerous long-term and multigenerational
studies in animals, which have shown no credible evidence harm
associated with GMOs (see review below). So in the absence of any
evidence of harm, why do you expect anyone to invest hundreds of
millions of dollars in a human safety study?”
LOL!! Oh, well that’s a poor excuse for not being able to prove “no harm”. Why do you people constantly ignore the studies that HAVE shown harm?
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/havuz/biy-1406-61.pdf
http://gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Full-Paper.pdf
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24959949
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/tests-rats-suggest-genetically-modified-foods-pose-health-hazards
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201?np=y
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2176082/deformities_sickness_and_livestock_deaths_the_real_cost_of_gm_animal_feed.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412014002669
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/
http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-in-malformed-piglets-2161-0525.1000230.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668914001227
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12012-014-9299-2
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/825180/
http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/02/19/roundup-linked-global-boom-celiac-disease-gluten-intolerance/#.UxSPhIXl5oC
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224412
http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15506-cancer-deaths-double-where-gm-crops-and-agro-chemicals-used
http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/dangers-to-the-environment/reference-plant-effects-of-glyphosate
http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/roundup-weed-killer-zmaz09djzraw.aspx
Oh, and this is what I think of the industry’s “safety” studies:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15529-the-farce-of-gmo-industry-safety-studies
“Mono-crop agriculture is nothing new. But this is an entirely DIFFERENT debate. ”
No, it’s NOT a different debate because the majority of GMOs are HR mono-crops and fall under the umbrella of conventional agriculture. I’m not counting the papaya and zucchini because they make up a VERY small portion of the GMOs being produced.
“That’s an inaccurate statement. You should read the materials and
methods sections of research studies looking at GMO safety to better
understand the controls involved. But in cases where there is no
evidence of harm found the point becomes moot anyway.”
Ah, but not all studies show “no harm”, so the point isn’t moot. But you all just love to ignore *those* studies, don’t you?
“BASED ON WHAT??? You ‘feelings’? Cut the BS and face the facts. You are
prejudiced. You don’t understand the technology and so you just assume
it must be dangerous. Genetic engineering is no less precise than
directed breeding when it comes to alterations to the genome of an
organism. You have no scientific basis for your beliefs, but yet you are
too closed minded to even consider the possibility that you’re wrong.
So you just assume that somehow you must still be right. I have
absolutely no respect for such an attitude.”
You mean to tell me that shooting genes into a plant isn’t causing anything to happen to the organism as a whole? ROFLMAO. And why do you think I’m prejudiced? *I’m* not the troll here, little guy. In fact, I don’t work at all. I’m just a person who wants to make sure my food is safe and that the environment isn’t being harmed.
http://natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/nontarget.php
http://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-risks/
http://www.countdowntofitness.com/fitnessblog/2010/11/09/genetically-modified-foods-unintended-dangerous-unpredictable-consequences/
I have no doubt in my mind that you will dismiss all the information in those links, seeing how you’re a troll for the biotech industry. But I’m sure you know I don’t care what you think of the sites themselves…
“Now, I’ve taken a fair bit of time to carefully address your questions
and points. I’ve also raised a number of questions myself. I would
appreciate your responses to these questions. If you choose to respond
but ignore all the questions I have asked you or corrections I have
pointed out to you, I will simply ignore your response. I will be happy
to continue a dialogue, but I will only do so if the communication is
two-way.”
No worries; I don’t back down. I look forward to the standard responses I get from all trolls…
I spent quite a long time replying to this comment and it’s not here. That’s disappointing, considering it took so long and had a ton of valid links to research done on GMOs and Roundup. I’m guessing the links are why the mods didn’t let the comment through? 🙁
I’m not very good at forums so I don’t know if my response is being properly presented but this Canadian_Skeptic has proved 100% of his own accord that he is a scam artist but he’s got everyone wrapped around his unethical debate tactics. He kept trying to take bites out of me until I finally laid it all on the line and asked him for his point of objection, he has not responded. Or “it” has not responded, we don’t have any confirmation that this is really a human, we have bots this advanced today. Have you seen Chappie? He could be Chappie. The point is, he’s designed to keep the debate from growing and ending, and I am doing a whole expose on him and all forums. This is bologna. Get off here and let his robot chasis spin out.
This isn’t actually a “forum”; rather it’s just a site that posts articles and has Disqus as its comment section. I ran into this particular person over at Truthout where he was peddling GMOs in their comment section (also using Disqus). We’ve had some lengthy “conversations” over there, too, wherein he/she did the same thing as here. I run into so many GM-trolls that I’m really very used to their presence. I may not enjoy it, but I’m used to it.
Disqus has to be much more than a comment host for a site, because otherwise I wouldn’t find myself on twenty new sites that I never visited. Disqus is carrying me around to all these sites and they’re connecting me to the troll over and over again. This is a definitive Disqus action. I have never been to, wait, where are we now, naturalsociety.com? I have never been here. How am I getting moved around from site to site, this is some modern scam I’m gonna figure out. They let the troll divert and connect all communications.