Frankenlawns on the Horizon

The Columbus Dispatch
February 3, 2002

Genetically modified seed;
SCOTTS SEEKS BETTER LAWN, BUT CRITICS SEE DISASTER

BY Michael Hawthorne, Dispatch Environment Reporter

In a laboratory outside Marysville, scientists at the Scotts Co. are
coaxing thumbnail-size seedlings to become the suburban lawns of
tomorrow -- genetically altered grass that grows slowly and withstands
repeated doses of weed killers.

Scotts, the nation's largest producer of lawn and garden products, is
convinced that homeowners and golf course operators are eager to pay for
carpets of grass that require less maintenance. The company also is
developing genetically modified petunias and other flowers that bloom
longer.

"We are excited about it because our customers are excited about it,"
Mark Schwartz, senior vice president for strategic planning at Scotts,
said of the company's emerging line of products. "Instead of spending
two hours every Saturday mowing your lawn, you could be out playing golf
or spending time with your kids." Scientists have crossbred plants for
years to create desirable traits, such as greater crop yields, drought
tolerance or insect resistance.

Some critics, however, are alarmed by the newest form of biological
tinkering. As Scotts prepares to ask the federal government this spring
for permission to sell its first batch of genetically modified plants,
company officials are trying to dispel concerns raised by foes of
biotechnology, including a vocal minority of shareholders.

Environmental activists and some ethicists contend the products have no
redeeming social value but could fundamentally alter nature. They fear
the pollen could contaminate other plants and create herbicide-resistant
weeds. Or stunt the growth of grasses that livestock and wildlife depend
upon for food.

"There hasn't been enough long-term testing of the potential effects
these plants could have on the environment," said John Harrington, a
Napa, Calif., money manager who wants Scotts to delay its bid to sell
genetically modified grass.

At the Scotts annual shareholders meeting last month, Harrington pushed
unsuccessfully for a resolution demanding more study of potential
environmental and financial risks posed by the new products. He has made
similar pleas to executives at Coca-Cola, General Mills, McDonald's,
PepsiCo., Procter & Gamble and Sara Lee.

The American Society of Landscape Architects, meanwhile, has petitioned
the U.S. Department of Agriculture for independent research into the new
grasses that Scotts and rival companies are testing. Companies involved
in biotechnology must ask the department for permission to plant,
transport or sell their experimental plants.

"We think the public would benefit from oversight by people who don't
have a financial stake in this," said Len Hopper, chief landscape
architect for the New York City Housing Authority and the society's past
president. "We're talking about grass here, not something they're trying
to develop to feed starving people."

Scotts officials counter that their new grasses will benefit the
environment by reducing the need for chemical treatments and curbing air
pollution from lawn mowers.

Scotts formed a partnership with Monsanto in 1998 to develop the new
grass and flower varieties. In addition to the "low mow" and herbicide-
resistant plants, the companies are researching grasses that require
less water and boast built-in bug killers.

Researchers also are developing flowers that bloom in unusual colors and
resist pests. The bioengineered plants are a potentially lucrative
addition to a product lineup that already includes leading brands such
as Turf Builder lawn fertilizers, Ortho pesticides and Miracle-Gro plant
foods.

"When our customers are asked if they want a grass they can water less
or mow less, the answer is a resounding 'yes,' " Bob Harriman, vice
president for biotechnology at Scotts, said recently while holding up
small pots of the experimental plants in the company's greenhouse.

The first variety Scotts wants to sell is a creeping bentgrass for golf
courses. The grass, altered by a gene already added to corn, cotton and
soybeans, can survive being sprayed with Roundup, the popular weed
killer manufactured by Monsanto and marketed to consumers by Scotts.

Planted on putting greens throughout the world, creeping bentgrass is
prone to weed infestations and doesn't hold up well when sprayed with
herbicides. It requires frequent, and expensive, maintenance.

"Except for that new gene, the plants are the same as what's already on
the market," Harriman said of the company's Roundup-Ready grass.

Asked about the potential for the new grass to spread its herbicide-
resistant gene to its wild cousins or to weeds, Harriman noted that
grass on putting greens is kept short and not allowed to flower.

Even if the pollen did spread, Schwartz said, the rogue plants could be
killed with other herbicides. "I don't remember weeds taking over the
world before Roundup was invented," he said.

Some activists aren't convinced. Nor are they satisfied with vocal
protests at business meetings or petitions to government regulators.

In June 2000, a group calling itself the Anarchist Golfing Association
caused more than $300,000 in damage to an Oregon research center owned
by Pure Seed Testing, which was testing genetically altered grass for
golf courses.

Vandals also have struck research labs in Michigan and Minnesota,
prompting Monsanto and other biotech companies to lobby state
legislatures to create new crimes against ecoterrorism.

The legislation promises jail time for anyone caught damaging
agricultural equipment or crops. It already has been approved in Oregon
and a handful of other states; the Ohio House is considering a similar
bill approved last fall by state senators.

Officials at Pure Seed Testing are continuing their research, but they
also are sounding a word of caution about the leap into genetically
altered grasses.

In a paper published last May, company scientists reported that genes
from altered grass spread routinely to other varieties of bentgrass. And
pollen containing the genes spread farther than the researchers had
predicted.

Company officials are concerned the developments could cripple business
with European customers, who want seed companies to guarantee the
products they sell aren't contaminated with genetically modified
organisms, or GMOs.

"It's not a question of if GMOs get into our grass, it's a matter of
when," said Crystal Fricker, president of Pure Seed Testing. "There's no
way you can control the migration of pollen, so we aren't going to sell
anything until we find a way to make the seeds sterile."

Philip Bereano, a professor at the University of Washington who writes
frequently about the ethics of biotechnology, said Scotts and other
companies involved in similar research haven't provided enough proof
that their experimental products won't alter the environment.

"They're asking the public to assume risks so a relative few can benefit
financially," Bereano said.

Scotts executives say their own research shows the genetically modified
grasses are safe. They're confident that government regulators will
agree.

"The bottom line is these products will add value to our customers
without creating issues for the environment," Schwartz said. "We are not
about to endanger the trust we have with the American consumer."

To Post a message, send it to: geactivists@yahoogroups.com