GMO Bluegrass
July 7, 2011 at 10:29 am
(This post was last modified: July 7, 2011 at 11:15 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Found an interesting article that I think might be able to stimulate a pretty interesting discussion round these parts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/busine...grass.html
Now, being that I was born in Kentucky..I'm not completely against a world covered in bluegrass, its gorgeous. My position on GMO's notwithstanding, it does seem that Scotts may indeed be attempting to circumvent regulation here. What they seem to be claiming, is that this strain of bluegrass is a "hybrid shortcut" in that they have only used the genetic material of other plants. Personally I would have to ask, were that the case, why didn't they just go through the process of hybrid selection to arrive at this strain? I have reservations about roundup-ready GMO, and this does seem to me to be a blatant attempt to create a test case for weakening the hold of legislation on bio-engineering projects. I don't think that those of us in the GMO camp would be doing ourselves any favors if we allow this sort of legal posturing to occur, doesn't exactly build trust in the eyes of the John Q Public. Opinions?
Something else that came to me after posting. Scotts maintains that their product does not fall under purvey of said legislation by definition, since they only used material from other plants. No mention is given as to what plants they got the material from. The obvious answer being those which were, in fact, under the umbrella of the very same legislation they hope to avoid. It seems to be a case of leveraging the products of past genetic engineering to circumvent laws which amount to a significant barrier to the profitability of further genetic engineering. I'm still trying to determine exactly where this material came from, but as of yet it seems that Scotts has decided to go the route of "trade secret" in this regard. If anyone has a more complete assessment, I'd love the link.
All I've been able to find thusfar
http://www.ag.iastate.edu/farms/05report...uation.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/busine...grass.html
Now, being that I was born in Kentucky..I'm not completely against a world covered in bluegrass, its gorgeous. My position on GMO's notwithstanding, it does seem that Scotts may indeed be attempting to circumvent regulation here. What they seem to be claiming, is that this strain of bluegrass is a "hybrid shortcut" in that they have only used the genetic material of other plants. Personally I would have to ask, were that the case, why didn't they just go through the process of hybrid selection to arrive at this strain? I have reservations about roundup-ready GMO, and this does seem to me to be a blatant attempt to create a test case for weakening the hold of legislation on bio-engineering projects. I don't think that those of us in the GMO camp would be doing ourselves any favors if we allow this sort of legal posturing to occur, doesn't exactly build trust in the eyes of the John Q Public. Opinions?
Something else that came to me after posting. Scotts maintains that their product does not fall under purvey of said legislation by definition, since they only used material from other plants. No mention is given as to what plants they got the material from. The obvious answer being those which were, in fact, under the umbrella of the very same legislation they hope to avoid. It seems to be a case of leveraging the products of past genetic engineering to circumvent laws which amount to a significant barrier to the profitability of further genetic engineering. I'm still trying to determine exactly where this material came from, but as of yet it seems that Scotts has decided to go the route of "trade secret" in this regard. If anyone has a more complete assessment, I'd love the link.
All I've been able to find thusfar
http://www.ag.iastate.edu/farms/05report...uation.pdf
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
![[Image: lips.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=rationalia.com%2Fz%2Flips.gif)
