Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Transgenic Mustard Cleans Up Soils

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the and-mustard-greens-are-tasty dept.

Biotech 66

Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers have genetically modified a common plant, the Indian mustard, to absorb more selenium, a toxic heavy metal found in soils polluted by irrigation wastewater. The transgenic plants were four times more efficient at swallowing selenium than natural ones in a contaminated area of California's Central Valley, according to articles from Nature and Wired News. These field tests are only experiments, but the researchers also want to add genes to other plants to remove different toxic materials from soils, such as mercury. What would happen if such transgenic plants filled with dangerous chemicals start to crossbreed with natural ones? Or if an insect eats these plants before being eaten itself in the natural food chain, leading to some selenium in our food? Read more and tell me what you think."

cancel ×

66 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sounds like a good thing to me... (2, Interesting)

wasted (94866) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684652)

The plant takes selenium (which is bad for other plants,) out of the soil, and the plant can be used for feed, since animals need selenium in their diets.

Since this is a mustard plant, will we have Selenium-fortified mustard on our grocery shelves soon?

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me... (3, Informative)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685064)

The plant takes selenium (which is bad for other plants,) out of the soil, and the plant can be used for feed, since animals need selenium in their diets.

Selenium is only good in small amounts. It's already very common in plant foods from most regions (depending on the selenium content of the soil), so added Selenium isn't usually needed.

If too much Selenium makes it into your food, via "Selenium-fortified mustard" or via the food chain, you'll get sick.

I'm curious if the Mustard plant takes in additional amounts of minerals other then Selenium, and if those levels are safe.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11689291)

Hi,

Could you *please* take the time to learn the difference between THEN and THAN?

Thank you.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me... (1)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#11689334)

Can you PLEASE learn that typos happen from time to time.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11690502)

The A and E keys are seperated by more thAn a few keys. That is not a typo. Unless you have fingers the size of sausages. In which case, get a bigger keyboard, preferably one where the ? key works.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11692916)

LOL!!! :)

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11695136)

A typo doesn't necessarily involve hitting the wrong key close to your intended key, fucktard.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me... (1)

sydres (656690) | more than 9 years ago | (#11688589)

wrong type of mustard thes are probably more like the mustard "greens" which are closer to a spinach than the mustard seed bearing plant that we mix with vinager to get mustard sauce

cross breeding (4, Insightful)

Suburbanpride (755823) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684695)

What would happen if such transgenic plants filled with dangerous chemicals start to crossbreed with natural ones?

Um a plant filled with dangerous chemicals crossbreeding isn't the problem, but a plant with the GENES that make it more likely to suck up chemicals is a problem. You can also engineer the genes so that they can't breed, and that solves the problem, although it makes it more expensive to replunish the plants.

I'm personaly a bit nervous about GMO in the food supply, but I think this kind of thing, if properly controled, good do great things for the enviroment

Re:cross breeding (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684754)

The problem is that there is simply not enough GMO in the food supply. We're never going to progress as a species if we continue to grow food in fields like ancient Egyptians.

Re:cross breeding (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686039)

Yeah damn it.

I'm not going to rest until we can grow corn in our navels for a mid-afternoon snack.

Re:cross breeding (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686053)

Steak in a vat in your own home (with solar panels on the roof to power it) was more what I had in mind.

Re:cross breeding (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686135)

But you can't argue with the sheer convinience of navel corn.

Re:cross breeding (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686178)

That sounds like a vegetarian argument. Why not just genetically engineer yourself to absorb sunlight or connect your ass to a wall socket?

Re:cross breeding (1)

bibliophage (779642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686504)

Why not just genetically engineer yourself to absorb sunlight? That would also solve the skin cancer problem, for sure! There's also a species of sea creature that is capable of stripping the chloroplasts from the plants it eats and migrating them to the skin in order to produce energy. Anyone remember what it's called?

Re:cross breeding (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686553)

If you photosynthesize its hard to switch to a low carb diet.

Besides the point of the navel corn is to be delicious as well as nutrious.

Re:cross breeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11686111)

So if there are GMOs in the food supply, we will no longer grow food in fields? Where (and how) will it be grown?

Re:cross breeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11689316)

What? WE are already so good at growing food, that farmers are going out of business. Get your head out of your ass, the only reason we don't feed the world is because we don't WANT to. Our biggest religion, mercantilism, says it must be so. Not our agricultural technology, of which you know nothing.

oh no, selenium! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11684696)

Or if an insect eats these plants before being eaten itself in the natural food chain, leading to some selenium in our food?

Considering that it's an important nutrient, I don't exactly see this as a bad thing. Most people don't get enough of it in their diet.

Crossbreeding dangerous (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684703)

Come on. If you were a self-respecting geek, you'd be embarassed to have wondered if a selenium-laden plant would be a danger if it bred.

The answer is NO. And I will add 'duh' to that, because you deserve it.

Re:Crossbreeding dangerous (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684799)

In fact, inserting these genes into wheat (not that it's even plausable to do so, but hey) would result in a nice high-selenium flour variation. Seeing as the dietry requirements for selenium are not met by what most people eat, that would be cool!

Not an expert, got that right (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684722)

For 1, Selenium isn't a metal. For 2, it's a necessary part of the diet of all known forms of life (it's a micronutrient). Seeing as you're not an expert on the subject, how about you STFU?

Re:Not an expert, got that right (2, Interesting)

3waygeek (58990) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684817)

Selenium is actually a p-type semiconductor [reade.com] , and is also useful in photovoltaic and photoconductive applications. I'm no materials scientist, but if one could cheaply extract the selenium from the plants (say, by burning them & processing the ash) after they've detoxed the soil, it might prove to be a boon to various high-technology businesses.

Re:Not an expert, got that right (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684878)

I know "4 times as much!" sounds like a lot but what we're talking about here is nothing compared to the amount of selenium you can get directly from rocks.

Re:Not an expert, got that right (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685901)

" Selenium is actually a p-type semiconductor..."

All by itself? Without doping?

Re:Not an expert, got that right (3, Informative)

spRed (28066) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684820)

For 1, Selenium isn't a metal. For 2, it's a necessary part of the diet of all known forms of life (it's a micronutrient). Seeing as you're not an expert on the subject, how about you STFU?

I'll see your STFU and raise you an RTFA (to the original poster), from the Wired article, "He genetically enhanced the plant's ability to convert selenium into a nontoxic form"

Sooo... (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684792)

Sooo... Geneticly altered plant are good? Bad? No comment on Roland...

Question for Timothy... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11684814)

Hey Timmy Boi, Roland gives good head? Or does he pay YOU to do the deed?

"Read more and tell me what you think." (3, Interesting)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684841)


Read more and tell me what you think.

I think this article/posting is filled with anti-GMO FUD.

I think that's kind of sad for a site like /., which (at least in theory) should be a haven for people who take a positive aproach to life, instead of chicken-little ludites.

And I think that if you really didn't want to know what I think, you shouldn't have asked.

--MarkusQ

Re:"Read more and tell me what you think." (3, Informative)

nyteroot (311287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684897)

The article is certainly filled with anti-GMO FUD. The most telling is the following facetious summarization of the science:
Let me summarize this. First, you add genes to a plant which will then easily absorb dangerous and toxic chemicals. Then you use these plants to feed cows. But why on earth a cow would need to ingest more selenium? And are you sure that you want this selenium in your plate?

Check this: Livestock require selenium as a cofactor for the antioxidant enzyme glutathione peroxidase. Supplementation of feeds with selenium has greatly reduced the incidence of deficiencies [1]. Furthermore, as other posters have pointed out, we _ourselves_ need it in our diets and clearly don't get enough. Mod the article -1 Troll.
-------------------
[1] http://www.engormix.com/e_articles.asp?AREA=GDL&NR O=66

Re:"Read more and tell me what you think." (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686353)

Mod the article -1 Troll

I think that was already covered by "Roland Piquepaille writes..."

Re:"Read more and tell me what you think." (1)

slittle (4150) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686714)

I think that's kind of sad for a site like /., which (at least in theory) should be a haven for people who take a positive aproach to life, instead of chicken-little ludites.
It's also a haven for tin-foil-hat types. It's not that we're against GMO as such, we're just against the amoral, unethical, moneygrubbing, politician buying, fascist, arsehole corporations that do it.

Well, when you put it that way... (1)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11696321)


we're just against the amoral, unethical, moneygrubbing, politician buying, fascist, arsehole corporations that do it.
Point taken. I wouldn't trust some of them to count their own toes...which I'm sure they'll claim they have, being "persons" now and everything.

--MarkusQ

what do I think? (1)

museumpeace (735109) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684855)

I didn't bother submitting this story when my Nature alert came in the other day...slashdotters don't do botany.
Since I PAY GNC to put selenium in my antioxidant cocktail, I want to know where I can get some seeds for this mustart to plant in my herb garden. Seriously? amounts, numbers, micrograms per KG of cooked leaves... some precise data is needed to determine whether we are talking about a poison or a nutritional supplement.

Re:what do I think? (1)

astroboscope (543876) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685809)

That would most likely depend on how much selenium is in your soil.

Evolution (2, Funny)

Zepalesque (468881) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684895)

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (no less)

"It is discovered that selenium, an ingredient in some Head & Shoulders shampoos, is as poisonous to the alien life-forms as arsenic is to humans."

Just wanted to clear that up :)

"I don't think there's any time for lubrication"

"THERE'S ALWAYS TIME FOR LUBRICATION!"

Re:Evolution (1)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685407)

So... I guess that means it's safe for them, as arsnic (in small quantities) is actually essential for humans. (It's not dangerous until you start talking serious quantities. No tea drinker has ever died of arsnic poisoning. It doesn't even make their hair shiny.)

Removing sludge from the environment (3, Funny)

caseih (160668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684955)

Hmm. Maybe better to develop a plant to remove Roland Piquepaille blog advertisements from slashdot...

Re:Removing sludge from the environment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11685357)

It didn't bug me for a while, but this write up is so stupid. Why don't they give him his own catagory so we can turn him off. This "Read more and tell me what you think," is wrong and shouldn't be tollerated. It's like, "Big changes in the weather!" stuff you hear on crappy local news. I'm embarrased I clicked. It wasn't worth the physical effort. I guess he got his fraction of a penny out of me. His blog sucks and just because he finds good articles and send them to Slashdot isn't a reason to select them. Enough already!

That does it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11684961)

I am starting a web commenting service so people can see that the whole summary of some of these articles are false.

Can you say... (1)

SoCalEd (842421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11684979)

"Food of the Gods"? [stomptokyo.com]

Selenium in the human diet (2, Informative)

HMarieY (316249) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685030)

Generally speaking I am against GMO's especially as they do tend to cross-breed with non-GMO's and if they are a strong enough breed will take over like GMO corn has done ( http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0153.html [osu.edu] ).

I can see how this could be useful and why, especially in dealing with areas of high-selenium concentrations. And am sure that if it comes into use it will some company , vitamin or otherwise, will find a use for it.

FYI Selenium is a " micromineral needed in the diet on a daily basis, but only in very small amounts (50 milligrams or less). The other microminerals that all humans must get from food are arsenic, boron, cobalt, copper, chromium, fluorine, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium, and zinc.

In the case of selenium, the amount needed from food is actually measured in micrograms, and ranges from 20-70 micrograms. (A microgram is one thousandth of a milligram, and in one ounce, there are about 30 million micrograms.)

While the nutritional value of all plant food depends on the soil in which it was grown, the selenium content of plants seems particularly sensitive to soil concentrations. For this reason, most of the early research on selenium focused on diseases in sheep, cattle, turkeys, and pigs which involved low soil concentrations of selenium and insufficient amounts of selenium in the forage plants eaten by these animals."

~As stated on the Worlds Best Foods website:
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient& dbid=95 [whfoods.com]

Re:Selenium in the human diet (4, Insightful)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685933)

Generally speaking I am against GMO's especially as they do tend to cross-breed with non-GMO's and if they are a strong enough breed will take over like GMO corn has done

All organisms are genetically modified in one fashion or another. Humans have been selectively breeding crops for growth rate, productivity and so on for thousands of years. So should we only eat wild plants? Before that, the plants were bred by the environment. Plus, natural hybridization is responsible for gene exchange in wild plants, while gene uptake from other organisms such as viruses is responsible for foreign DNA getting into plants. That's been going on for hundreds of millions of years. To an evolutionary biologist, the idea of keeping the genes pure is nonsense. Think about it. You have the nucleic acid sequence

actgtagccgat

in a plant. So it's automatically safe and OK and doesn't need testing if it got inserted naturally from a virus or mutation, but it's automatically dangerous and not-OK if humans put it there? That's the assumption a lot of anti-GMO people make. I'm not saying there aren't risks, but there are also risks with organic organisms. Rattlesnake venom, the HIV virus and cocaine are all organic, that doesn't make them good for you. It's all a question of carefully weighing the risks against the rewards.

Re:Selenium in the human diet (1)

Red Rocket (473003) | more than 9 years ago | (#11690661)


All organisms are genetically modified in one fashion or another. Humans have been selectively breeding crops for growth rate, productivity and so on for thousands of years. So should we only eat wild plants?

Sorry, that's a conflation. You're conflating human-bred plants with wild plants. They are not the same.

Plus, natural hybridization is responsible for gene exchange in wild plants, while gene uptake from other organisms such as viruses is responsible for foreign DNA getting into plants. That's been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

You're talking about natural processes that have been vetted by nature for natural viability. Inserting humans in place of the forces of nature is a much different proposal.

To an evolutionary biologist, the idea of keeping the genes pure is nonsense.

No one is talking about keeping genes "pure" (whatever that means) -- just keeping the ones that interact with the environment safe. And by "safe", I mean vetted by nature's breeding methods.

You have the nucleic acid sequence actgtagccgat in a plant. So it's automatically safe and OK and doesn't need testing if it got inserted naturally from a virus or mutation, but it's automatically dangerous and not-OK if humans put it there?

No. It's automatically suspect if humans put it there by bypassing natural breeding methods.

It's all a question of carefully weighing the risks against the rewards.

Agreed. But where is the careful weighing of the risks? I don't see any of that happening. We have to be aware that we're treading on new ground here and not just wave our hands and claim that gene splicing is functionally equivalent to natural and human-induced breeding. It's not. Directly tinkering with the genetic sequence of self-replicating organisms and then releasing these organisms into the natural environment we depend on for our survival without knowledge of how they'll affect it is beyond reckless. We pulled the trigger again by releasing this one. How many times can we pull the trigger before we hear the bang?

We seem to have a kind of blind hubris going on where we think our knowledge has reached some kind of pinnacle where we can just do as we will because we know we can't go wrong. This is just arrogance. History is littered with the corpses of dead societies who's knowledge and hubris outstripped their wisdom. We're sitting in the waiting room with our numbered ticket in our collective hand waiting for "Next" to be called.

Re:Selenium in the human diet (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 9 years ago | (#11693052)

All organisms are genetically modified in one fashion or another. Humans have been selectively breeding crops for growth rate, productivity and so on for thousands of years.

Breeding does not MODIFY the genes. It just mixes them into new combinations. GMO on the other hand have NEW genes that never existed before. Take some basic genetics.

But that's beside the point I'm about to make. Imagine the following scenario:

Monsanto patents some new GMO, say, tomatoes. These tomatoes interbreed with "natural" tomatoes. Soon, the patented gene has spread to all tomatoes thoughout the world. Now, Monsanto has a stranglehold on tomatoes, since they have a patent on every tomato on earth. Monsanto can now demand ridiculous sums of money, or they'll start suing every farmer on earth into bankruptcy. Either that, or simply revoke the permission to grow tomatoes, starving millions.

GMO must not exist so long as there are patents on GMO.

Re:Selenium in the human diet (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11694275)

So it's automatically safe and OK and doesn't need testing if it got inserted naturally from a virus or mutation, but it's automatically dangerous and not-OK if humans put it there?

If it was a virus or mutation then God Did It.

-

Precious Metals? (2, Funny)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685181)

How long until they can get plants that will suck up gold/platinum/silver or other precious metals?

Re:Precious Metals? (2, Funny)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685225)

Fuck that, how long until they engineer a tree that grows CASH MONEY?

Re:Precious Metals? (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686836)

how long until they engineer a tree that grows CASH MONEY?

Been there, done that [cannabis-pics.com]

blah blah blah (1)

St. Arbirix (218306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685271)

What would happen if such transgenic plants filled with dangerous chemicals start to crossbreed with natural ones?

As if that happening would cause problems. The plants are genetically disposed toward absorbing the substance, not producing it.

It's not like I can feed my girlfriend a diet high in gold and expect our kids to take glittery craps.

What If ... (3, Interesting)

Salis (52373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685351)

What if I ate 2 tons of the selenium plant and died?

What if I ate 2 tons of beas who ate the selenium plant and died?

What if I got stung by a bea who ate the selenium
plant and died from an acute allergy to beas?

What if I got hit by a car whose driver was a lab tech whose company developed the plant which absorbs selenium?

What if I ate two tons of dirt which contained so much selenium, that would otherwise be absorbed by genetically engineered planted, that I died?

What if I ate two tons of dirt? Eeww.

Ok, enough. There are so many irrelevant "what if" questions. The main questions are: What are the benefits of this plant and how do they compare to the risks of this plant _relative_ to the risk of exististing on this planet (including us, other organisms, and the planet itself). Most genetically engineered (and commercially viable) plants have so much benefit that their risks are wildly outweighed. Even with the "what if"'s.

My two cents.

Re:What If ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11685583)

What if you learned how to spell "Bees"?

Re:What If ... (1)

Salis (52373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11696406)

The world would implode.

Re:What If ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11707652)

Hey, I once had an aunt Bea, maybe he was talking about her. Or was that an 'ant' Bea? (ba-dum-bump-ching!) Thanks folks, I'm here all week! Try the veal!

Bea might be overweight (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11689712)

But she [wktj.com] doesn't quite weigh two tons.

Obvious answer.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11685375)

What would happen if such transgenic plants filled with dangerous chemicals start to crossbreed with natural ones?

Well of course we'd sue the natural plants for infringing the patents on this gene. Duh! Do we biotech IP lawyers have to explain everything to you guys?

Selenium (Se) is hardly a "toxic heavy metal" (4, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685446)

It can't exactly be called heavy, at an atomic mass of 34. Nor is it toxic (except in high doses, at which point it rots the brain and can cause birth defects). In fact, in low to moderate doses, it is considered an essential element. Elemental Selenium is connected with many processes, including some cellular defenses against carcinogens.


HOWEVER, that only applies to the elemental form. Certain compounds containing Selenium are highly toxic, and it is my guess that this is what the genetic engineers were interested in.


To quote from WebElements [webelements.com] :



Selenium can be prepared with either an amorphous or crystalline structure. Crystalline monoclinic selenium is deep red; crystalline hexagonal selenium, the most stable variety, is a metallic grey (see picture above). Elemental selenium is relatively nontoxic and is considered to be an essential trace element. However, hydrogen selenide (H2Se) and other selenium compounds are extremely toxic, and resemble arsenic in their physiological reactions. Hydrogen selenide in a concentration of 1.5 ppm is intolerable to man. Selenium occurs in some soils in amounts sufficient to produce serious effects on animals feeding on plants such as locoweed (an American plant) grown in such soils.

Shouldn't use mustard (1, Interesting)

PsiPsiStar (95676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685690)

They should have used some other plant which;

1. Doesn't have wild type relatives.
2. Is not a food crop.

After all, they're not trying to grow food, so it makes sense not to create plants which could interbreed with food crops if there's any chance that this modification could bring unsafe levels of selenium into people's diet. (yes, I know it's a micronutrient, but even more important nutrients, say Iron, are toxic if you get enough)

Then the bar for genetic modification would be much lower. True, genes can jump species barriers, but they're less likely to.

I've heard some other posters talk about Monsanto's so called 'terminator gene' and how it can prevent plants from breeding. I've always wondered if it was 100% effective, since the original purpose was to prevent farmers from reusing GM seeds next year.

It would only have to be 99% effective for that. But it'd have to be 100% effective to prevent a gene from spreading into the wild.

GM genes...do they leak? (1)

mpesce (146930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685744)

One of the persistent worries about GM croops that have been introduced to the wild is whether or not they can "leak" their GM-ness. There wasn't much worry on this point when GM crops were introduced in North America but there is growing evidence that pollens produced by GM plants can fertilize non-GM crops and thus transfer their GM genes. Thus, whether we like it or not, releasing a plant with GM genes means that we are _always_ taking _some_ risk that the entire species will become "contaminated" by these GM genes. If all mustards were suddenly selenium sinks, we might find that table mustard had become too selenium rich for safe human consumption.

Then what would we put on our pretzels?

Triffids? (1)

checkyoulater (246565) | more than 9 years ago | (#11685870)

What would happen if such transgenic plants filled with dangerous chemicals start to crossbreed with natural ones?

I can't believe nobody mentioned the Day of the Triffids yet. I thought all Slashdotters were Sci-Fi geeks? I realise we're missing the strange meteor shower, but maybe these plants are the first step? The article doesn't mention anything about the roots, though...

Toxic Chemicals and Mustard. Hmmm (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#11686651)

Having read the article I would say it's a gas.....

Do you want mustard with that.. (1)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#11687190)

Considering rotten GREEN putrid meat has been packed and even placed on sale in supermarkets, and GM grain is mixed with non gm grain in our foods (and US don't care) I will not be lookin favourably on mustard anymore.

Sorry Kramer, no Dijon

what I think (1)

briancnorton (586947) | more than 9 years ago | (#11687663)

Read more and tell me what you think
I'm not an expert in this field, but these experiments look quite dangerous to me in the long term, especially if they become widespread.

I think you're an alarmist that has no concept of how science, agriculture, or genetics works. Go protest something hippy!

You insensitive swines (1)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 9 years ago | (#11687689)

I bought a new jar of mustard this week, I was looking forward to roast beef sandwiches, now I've got to go check it for heavy metals and radioactivity....

What's next? (1)

Pegasus (13291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11689658)

As seen in Nausicaa [nausicaa.net] ...
Now we just need these engineered in a way to release excess poison as miasma. Oh, and dont forget to add giant mutant insects :)

better choose plant breeds that aren't edible (1)

TheRealMadScientist (850473) | more than 9 years ago | (#11690461)

I'm not sure concentrating the poison in something that might be processed as food is a good idea. Isn't this the reason that noone who knows better eats lobsters from around Boston?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>