Image: State of Idaho
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?
Why do testicles hang the way they do? Is there an adaptive function to the female orgasm? What does it feel like to want to kill yourself? Does “free will”...
Read More »
Outside a grocery store in Langdon, N.D., two ecologists spotted a yellow canola plant growing on the margins of a parking lot this summer. They plucked it, ground it up and, using a chemical stick similar to those in home pregnancy kits, identified proteins that were made by artificially introduced genes. The plant was GM—genetically modified.
That's not too surprising, given that North Dakota grows tens of thousands of hectares of conventional and genetically modified canola—a weedy plant, known scientifically as Brassica napus var oleifera, bred by Canadians to yield vegetable oil from its thousands of tiny seeds. What was more surprising was that nearly everywhere the two ecologists and their colleagues stopped during a trip across the state, they found GM canola growing in the wild. "We found transgenic plants growing in the middle of nowhere, far from fields," says ecologist Cindy Sagers of the University of Arkansas (U.A.) in Fayetteville, who presented the findings August 6 at the Ecological Society of America meeting in Pittsburgh. Most intriguingly, two of the 288 tested plants showed man-made genes for resistance to multiple pesticides—so-called "stacked traits," and a type of seed that biotechnology companies like Monsanto have long sought to develop and market. As it seems, Mother Nature beat biotech to it. "One of the ones with multiple traits was [in the middle of] nowhere, and believe me, there's a lot of nowhere in North Dakota—nowhere near a canola field," she adds.
That likely means that transgenic canola plants are cross-pollinating in the wild—and swapping introduced genes. Although GM canola in the wild has been identified everywhere from Canada to Japan in previous research, this marks the first time such plants have been shown to be evolving in this way. "They had novel combinations of transgenic traits," Sagers says. "The most parsimonious explanation is these traits are stable outside of cultivation and they are evolving."
Escaped populations of such transgenic plants have generally died out quickly without continual replenishment from stray farm seeds in places such as Canada, but canola is capable of hybridizing with at least two—and possibly as many as eight—wild weed species in North America, including field mustard (Brassica rapa), which is a known agricultural pest. "Not only is it going to jump out of cultivation; there are sexually compatible weeds all over North America," Sagers says. Adds ecologist-in-training Meredith Schafer of U.A., who led the research, "It becomes a weed [farmers] can't control."
There has been no evidence to show that the herbicide resistance genes will either increase or decrease fitness to date. The finding provides, however, a warning for future genetic modifications that might increase fitness in all kinds of plants; it will be difficult to keep those traits on the farm and out of the wild. "The big concern is traits that would increase invasiveness or weediness, traits such as drought tolerance, salt tolerance, heat or cold tolerance" says weed scientist Carol Mallory-Smith of Oregon State University—all the traits that Monsanto and others are currently developing to help crops adapt to climate change. "These traits would have the possibility of expanding a species' range." In the case of canola, consider it done—at least in North Dakota.
This is not the first transgenic crop to escape into the wild in the U.S.; herbicide-resistant turf grass being tested in Oregon spread as well in 2006. And GM canola is not a regulated plant, "therefore no protocols are required by the regulatory agencies to reduce or prevent escape," notes ecologist Allison Snow of The Ohio State University. "The next question is: 'So what?' What difference does it make if the feral canola or any species that hybridize with it have two transgenes for herbicide resistance?"
Canola modified to resist either the herbicide glufosinate (brand name Liberty) or glyphosate (brand name Roundup) has been available in the U.S. since 1989—and unregulated since 1998 and 1999, respectively for the two herbicides. "These results are not new for Canadian researchers and to be expected if two types of transgenic herbicide-resistant canola are commercially grown," says Suzanne Warwick of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, a government agency.
A common source for GM canola in the wild is seed that has scattered during harvest or fallen off a truck during transport. "Because about 90 percent of the U.S. and Canadian canola crop is biotech, it is reasonable to expect a survey of roadside canola to show similar levels of biotech plants," said Tom Nickson, environmental policy lead at Monsanto, in a prepared statement.
Nor does Monsanto claim ownership of the escaped plants, even those with multiple transgenes, according to company spokesman John Combest. "It has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented traits are present in fields as a result of inadvertent means," although researchers would have to obtain a license from the company to work with the GM plant.
It remains to be seen how much sexual mingling such transgenic plants do; U.A.'s Sagers plans to do greenhouse trials starting in a few weeks. But it does provide a compelling example of how genes might move through a given population. "This is a good model for the influence of agriculture on the evolution of native plants," she says. "We can imagine gene flow to native species. If we can imagine it happening, it probably happens."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add Comment"It has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented traits are present in fields as a result of inadvertent means"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat, is an absolute, unqualified, a bald faced lie. Monsanto has systematically driven farmers out of business who did not plant their seed, and harvested their own seed, by showing that there was some GM crop in their field. There is no question about this. It absolutely is and always has been, Monsanto policy to exercise it's patent rights where its patented genes show up in fields - period.
The fact checkers at Scientific American failed their function on this one. Fix the article.
I agree with John_Toradze, many farmers have been sued, here is but one example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.percyschmeiser.com/
On a side note, monsanto makes herbicide-resistant plants like turf grass and canola, and this naturally often leads to more herbicide use, hence more herbicide contamination of food and the environment.
"Monsanto set loose a cadre of rent-a-cops into the farm belt in the late 1990s, in search of farmers who dared defy its patent claims."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.grist.org/article/dominant-traits/
And now, they want to patent "their" pig.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2240
When you create GM plants that can hybridize with 2 to 8 known species of natives, it is a given that genotypic mixing will occur. Also, seed distribution from cultivated fields to distant locales should also include native animals. Wow, what a shocker.....next?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you create GM plants that can hybridize with 2 to 8 known species of natives, it is a given that genotypic mixing will occur. Also, seed distribution from cultivated fields to distant locales should also include native animals. Wow, what a shocker.....next?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you create GM plants that can hybridize with 2 to 8 known species of natives, it is a given that genotypic mixing will occur. Also, seed distribution from cultivated fields to distant locales should also include native animals. Wow, what a shocker.....next?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is something that people have been warning about long before GM crops made it to market. People like to cry panic at the thought of genetically modifying diseases or human cells. What they should fear is the science Monsanto and others like them do behind closed doors. They aren't just working to increase yields, they are working to create dependance on them and their products. There is very little oversight and none of their science is peer reviewed. They hide their dirty work under patent protection. Monsanto is as great a threat to food security as radical Islam is to energy security.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUS: What you need to know about the #Monsanto #GMO canola safety testing: http://tl.gd/2vaq57
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUS: I have the Monsanto material that was put forward for regulatory approval of their GM canola as a food in Australia. I think you should read this basic information about the "safety testing" of the crop: http://tl.gd/2vaq57
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the beginning, one of the principle concerns of environmentalists has been that the genetic alterations will mix with the rest of the biota in unpredictable ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is self evident that this would be a problem even though Corporate Scientists assured the world it would not be so.
Now we see that those corporate scientists were either incompetent or were simply being dishonest.
When in doubt. Side with the environmentalists. It is generally the best policy.
From the beginning, one of the principle concerns of environmentalists has been that the genetic alterations will mix with the rest of the biota in unpredictable ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is self evident that this would be a problem even though Corporate Scientists assured the world it would not be so.
Now we see that those corporate scientists were either incompetent or were simply being dishonest.
When in doubt. Side with the environmentalists. It is generally the best policy.
I can understand Monsanto wanting to increase food harvest on plants that would benefit a world population, but canola should not be used as a food because at a certain temperature it can become poisonous and dangerous to our health. I smell a greedy rat pocking its head out from Monsanto with canola being converted to a fuel for vehicles and Monsanto will take the production of canola away from the farmers and keep the profit for themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMonsanto should only be allowed to test on food plants like blackberries or hickory nuts and never on a non-food invasive plant like canola.
This will become Monsanto's Gulf Oil Spill. Farmers everywhere will be able to test for Monsanto's Round-Up gene, either in their regular crops, or in the weeds they suddenly can't kill, and sue them for damages for having THEIR genes contaminating their fields. Monsanto is imfamous in sueing farmers for having "their" gene in their crops, now the tables will be turned. I would insist, in a class-action lawsuit, that Monsanto "clean up" every instance of "their" gene in the wild... an obviously impossible task, which will bring to the legal forefront the dangers of GM controllability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a hard time believing the GMO plants magically appear in the middle of nowhere. I can, however believe that these plants were planted intentionally to create cross pollination / contamination. You have to be kidding me if you don't think hat there aren't Monsanto techs sitting in a lab, going "Humm, the next Non-GMO field is too far away to cross pollinate. How can we change that? OH, plant magically appearing GMO plants in the middle of a field, close enough to contaminate the Non-GMOs"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissafety rermainsto be seen, but nothing in narute is "safe" as we are all in a food chain. Mostly microbes eat humans, but still its the relative dangers we expect vs. unexpected new issies we woory about. Clearly, GMO is not and never will be contrained in the long sense of evolution. The immediate legal and practice contraints are market matters that are irrelevant to the organism or to nature. Herbicides and antibiotics have a short half life by evolutionary terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the interesting question is: how will techno-sapiens adapt to/through the next ice age?
"What was more surprising was that nearly everywhere the two ecologists and their colleagues stopped during a trip across the state, they found GM canola growing in the wild. "We found transgenic plants growing in the middle of nowhere, far from fields..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was NOT at all surprising to me nor to many other people. Many GM plants and animals are "escaping" to the wild - with unpredictable and unintended consequences.
We should THINK every time some person insists something "cannot happen" or when "everything is under control."
With a solidly pro-corporation supreme court, the dangers of GMO are highly unlikely to be solved legally. That they may be aired legally would at least draw attention to the unsavory side of agricultural manipulation, but Monsanto, ADM, and the rest will still go on their merry ways, continuing the large scale destruction/dependence that they are creating. Food security will be a late 21st century cause [as if we need more causes] for war, and soldiers will be protecting Monsanto then like they are protecting Haliburton now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for that great post. I was thinking the exact same thing as I read that. Kudos!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have had this article sent to me with another person claiming to be the author, Not being critical I have always found Scientific American to be unquestionably reliable and very well sourced. I track Monsanto issues on a site that publishes under the creative commons copyright guidelines and we are a non profit information resource. I was thinking you should be aware of this particular situation. I have personally been plagiarized and find it extremely offensive. The link to the article i was sent disturbed me because it came from a Discovery News site. The link is http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-plant-canola-wild.html We would like to repost this article and endeavor to always properly source things. Great article by the way, Peace and Light, Michael
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully, the European Comission will be able to read this before the new negotiation that will lift the ban on GMOs in the EU. Of course, England will still be the good lap dog it has been and protect its American overlords, but the rest of the member-states should see this for the real danger it is and block any changes to the current strict policy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile there is no doubt that Monsanto has made money by extorting farmers (Create GM seeds, let them naturally spread and infest, and then go back and sue) They need to tow this line in this instance for two reasons
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Give appearance of some form moderation / create a convention for defining what is "natural" and what is not
2) seperate themselves from potential responsibility of the hybridized weeds in a few years.
The point of this article however doesn't appear to be an expose on Monsanto practices; so I don't blame them for quoting.
Bonzers Dude! What a great line!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can hear about Percy Schmeiser vs Monsanto @ Kooteney Coop Radios weekly podcast "Deconstructing Dinner" which contradicts Monsanto assertions and exposes them for what they are:greedy liars!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy english is very poor . i want to learn .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would sincerely hope this administration will take a long hard look at the practices of Monsanto. Many of the comments above highlight various examples with links. If the Monsanto story were a film script it would be called to far fetched!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would appear that the on-going battle between Creationists and Evolutionists is taking a new turn!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is from the same people who brought you Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone. Expect the same treatment for their GM plants, and the total inability of their stooges in Congress and the Senate to do anything about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistit for tat...mos should be sued....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy the hell couldn't they have let something lose that everyone needs...i don't know what...maybe a tomato that contains all the nutrients needed to survive....
It has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented traits are present in fields as a result of inadvertent means," although Monsanto sayes this, they take farmers to court over contamination of their gm traits into the farmers fields.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented traits are present in fields as a result of inadvertent means," although They state this here, Monsanto takes farmers to court if their fields are contaminated by their gm plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn article in McCatchy Newspapers spoke today of a project by the Univ of North Carolina....an extension of freewaystofuel.org. that started in Utah and extending eastward to plant Canola alongside roadways to be harvested for biofuels. Seems SA should investigate whether they are using GM Canola for this, and frankly speaking if GM Canola has invaded the roadways of the Dakotas; how much longer will it take to travel across the country as a WEED impervious to pesticides.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo surprise here. Doesn't North Dakota border with Canada? Controlling this is a joke; doesn't the wind or birds transport seeds?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Allison Snow was quoted, so what? Before there was transgenic canola that was resistant to herbicides there were non-transgenic varieties resistant to chemicals such as atrazine (I used to work at the EPA and can tell you it's very nasty) and imidazolidone. Many of these varieties were created using mutagenesis breeding, essentially soaking seeds in chemicals that cause DNA damage to try and induce random changes in the plants to allow them to survive exposure to the herbicides, so it's hard to claim that they were more natural than GM canola.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this article describes native plants containing the two GM traits, there have also been instances of wild rapeseed containing multiple herbicide tolerance traits from non-transgenic varieties. What makes the wild plants containing the GM traits more threatening than the plants containing the non-GM traits? While people may complain there's not enough regulatory review of GM crops, developers spend years producing the data necessary to get approval from USDA to commercially release GM canola, compared to essentially none for the non-GM herbicide resistant canola. (for example here's a petition from Monsanto on roundup ready canola www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/01_32401p.pdf).
I won't defend Monsanto's business practices, since I work for a small biotech company (about 0.01% Monsanto's size, though realize that still makes me a corporate puppet to many) that struggles against the IP thicket, but don't understand exactly why people feel threatened by GM crops.
Beware the Triffids...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenetic Alteration is interfering with Mother Nature's natural process, and anyone knows that it's not wise to fool with Mother Nature. The far-reaching potential ramifications here could be endless and unpredictable. In a nutshell: Yikes! I'm scared of that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething else: I encountered a book called The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture this past year at the library. It contains the story about genetic engineering and the like. I know that I noticed some years back that all of the mass-produced produce I bought at the local food chain markets gradually became tasteless. When I purchase produce from locally-grown farmers, it is full of taste. Industrial agriculture has gradually eliminated nutrients and taste from our produce, and in the process, has inundated the produce with pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. And what it's done to the run-off that flows to local communities? I could go on. Read the book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany years ago I went to a meeting when we were trying to stop GM crops being planted where I lived in Wales. The GM company representatives basically stated that we were being hysterical and that it was absolutely not possible for cross-pollination to take place. Nobody believed them then, and it would seem we were right to distrust them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't forget it was Monsanto back in the 1990s who got BGH (bovine growth hormone) rubber stamp approved by the FDA to "help" farmers increase the yield of their dairy cows KNOWING and having the evidence that this hormone caused uterine cancer (among many things) in the animals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGMO's are totally wrong and extremely harmful to the people. There is no good reason to let a company run away with our future health. STOP NOW! Kathy Siuda, KS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! This thing is really out of control! Opponents of the outrageous GMO game knew this was going to happen. Why have we been crying "stop"? This is why! The Monsanto idiots are playing GOD; and our government is part of it as they permit them. When this thing destroys the environment and health as we know it, will we look up and blame God? What fools we be! Judy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou people should actually visit the real world. Take a field trip outside Washington DC. A farmer will be destroyed if Monsanto finds a single gene in your field. Come try and make a living in my world. Your federally funded and tenured academic world is quite attractive to us dust busters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen you enter our <a href="http://www.mbtstore.org/" target="_blank"><strong>MBT</strong></a> website, you will because of the variety and I do not know how to choose. A simple alternative beauty <a href="http://www.mbtstore.org/mbt-kisumu-c-43.html" target="_blank"><strong>MBT kisumu</strong></a> shoes, there are generous mature <a href="http://www.mbtstore.org/mbt-kimondo-c-49.html" target="_blank"><strong>MBT Kimondo</strong></a> shoes and glamorous <a href="http://www.mbtstore.org/mbt-baridi-c-34.html" target="_blank"><strong>MBT Baridi</strong></a> shoes. Just like to let people be able to have a pair belong to the <a href="http://www.mbtstore.org/" target="_blank"><strong>MBT shoes</strong></a>, <a href="http://www.mbtstore.org/" target="_blank"></a> we provide <a href="http://www.mbtstore.org/" target="_blank"><strong>MBT shoes clearance</strong></a> which it is a very even Great discounts.<br>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you wander to another part of our style <a href="http://www.discount-monclerjacket.com/" target="_blank"><strong>moncler</strong></a> another site, because it is monotonous color and alternative style, you can quickly find their favorite <a href="http://www.discount-monclerjacket.com/" target="_blank"><strong>moncler jackets</strong></a>, of course, make you look more intellectual maturity the <a href="http://www.discount-monclerjacket.com/" target="_blank"><strong>moncler jacket</strong></a>, or a vibrant <a href="http://www.discount-monclerjacket.com/" target="_blank"><strong>moncler coats</strong></a>, can give you a different style.
yeah, the "fact checkers" at "scientific" american seem to check and make sure they're know-towing to whatever big money/power/influence interest of the day wants to snow US with. Thats what We the People should expect from the likes of that yellow journalism rag.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeace, in spite of the liars who would have it otherwise.
I think Monsanto is a crime against humanity,and I feel they should be stopped and should be forced out of business as soon as possible by a court order of the highest court in the land. Altering our food that God has given to us, is an outrage to say the very least. END MONSANTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMonsanto is poisoning our food, Monsanto along with the American government is poisoning the people of this country with gmo's and chemical additives, and further poisoning it's people by prescribing drugs with more chemicals to further add insult to injury, Somebody has to do something before it's too late, we don't have a lot of time, anybody who is interested in actually doing something, please respond and let's talk about a plan. Let's all mesh together, because together we stand and divided we will fall, I'm ready to do what we need to do to try to make a difference, I need help and guidance to get rolling to make a change in what's happening to our food supply. It's gotten way out of control, WE THE PEOPLE , WE MUST DO SOMETHING
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with ya'll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo many years ago, I saw the gm crops blowing in the wind, and still wonder how people could be so blind.
Further, any theft of seed by corporations is an overarching crime on all its fronts.
And remember the honeybees?