Second of all, super-weeds is a very loaded term, and is a bit mixed up here. What happened is that the gene construct seems to have jumped from Brassica to charlock in a single plant, which wasn't able to produce seed. Contrary to what the article claims charlock is a relatively close relative, being in the same family Brassicaceae. You can even get that from the name - all mustards are Brassicas, and charlock is also called field mustard. The current Latin name for charlock is Sinapis arvensis, but it used to be Brassica arvensis!
What the article mixes up with using the term "superweeds" is that (practically identical with antibiotics in humans) you create new selection pressures for other plants by using herbicides. When you seed GM-plants you can use new herbicides (or use these more indiscriminately) which slowly creates weeds that are resistant, just like we made antibiotics-resistant bacteria in humans. These are now commonly called "superweeds" (again, a very unlucky term). You could leave GM out of the picture and say that these weeds have been created by herbicide (mis-)use.
Since 2005, many more cases of gene flow between GM plants and wild plants have been observed. Are these "bad"? In this case herbicide resistance is not very beneficial to the host plants outside of fields, so these plants are outperformed by others without the modification, as they're wasting resources. Is this bad for the species? Cross-species gene flow happens, and it depends on the case whether it's "good" or "bad".
"When you seed GM-plants you can use new herbicides or use these more indiscriminately" - Hasn't the indiscriminate use of herbicides been linked to causing birth defects in animals and humans [1]?
So if the selection pressure is herbicide resistance, those added newborns with birth defects mean that those without defects are probably also modified.
There is no link between commonly used herbicides (in the West, I should say) and birth defects.
Your link doesn't where where it was published - but I'd suggest that injecting embryos with herbicide and then claiming any link to reality is ridiculous. You wouldn't even drink herbicides!
There are many links, but no conclusive proof: The long-term effects are unknown, research without commercial funding is slow, and you can not test on humans directly.
Herbicide residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet.
Atrazine is used in Hawaii to test effect. It is the most commonly used herbicide in the US after glyphosate. It is banned in Europe.
"In 2007, the U.S. EPA said, "studies thus far suggest that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor". The implications for children’s health are related to effects during pregnancy and during sexual development, though few studies are available. In people, risks for preterm delivery and intrauterine growth retardation have been associated with exposure. Atrazine exposure has been shown to result in delays or changes in pubertal development in female rats"
Then there is paraquat dichloride. "Paraquat causes fetal losses in high-dose reproductive studies of animals. In studies of Mallard embryos, it causes birth defects."
How do you suggest we remove or strengthen links with research? If injecting embryos with herbicide is not a valid study for birth defects, then what is? Farmers telling us they see lots of disease when switching to herbicides? Simulations? AFAIK, we came to know these herbicides act as endocrine disruptors from embryo research, so is that conclusion ridiculous too?
'What happened is that the gene construct seems to have jumped from Brassica to charlock in a single plant, which wasn't able to produce seed.'
"The new form of charlock was growing among many others in a field which had been used to grow GM rape. When scientists treated it with lethal herbicide it showed no ill-effects."
Brian Johnson isn't mentioned in the linked to article ..
Second of all, super-weeds is a very loaded term, and is a bit mixed up here. What happened is that the gene construct seems to have jumped from Brassica to charlock in a single plant, which wasn't able to produce seed. Contrary to what the article claims charlock is a relatively close relative, being in the same family Brassicaceae. You can even get that from the name - all mustards are Brassicas, and charlock is also called field mustard. The current Latin name for charlock is Sinapis arvensis, but it used to be Brassica arvensis!
What the article mixes up with using the term "superweeds" is that (practically identical with antibiotics in humans) you create new selection pressures for other plants by using herbicides. When you seed GM-plants you can use new herbicides (or use these more indiscriminately) which slowly creates weeds that are resistant, just like we made antibiotics-resistant bacteria in humans. These are now commonly called "superweeds" (again, a very unlucky term). You could leave GM out of the picture and say that these weeds have been created by herbicide (mis-)use.
Since 2005, many more cases of gene flow between GM plants and wild plants have been observed. Are these "bad"? In this case herbicide resistance is not very beneficial to the host plants outside of fields, so these plants are outperformed by others without the modification, as they're wasting resources. Is this bad for the species? Cross-species gene flow happens, and it depends on the case whether it's "good" or "bad".
Actual paper: http://cms.daegu.ac.kr/sgpark/plant%20biotechnology/GMHT%20t...