First of all: (2005)<p>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&#x27;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!<p>What the article mixes up with using the term &quot;superweeds&quot; 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 &quot;superweeds&quot; (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.<p>Since 2005, many more cases of gene flow between GM plants and wild plants have been observed. Are these &quot;bad&quot;? 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&#x27;re wasting resources. Is this bad for the species? Cross-species gene flow happens, and it depends on the case whether it&#x27;s &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;.<p>Actual paper: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cms.daegu.ac.kr&#x2F;sgpark&#x2F;plant%20biotechnology&#x2F;GMHT%20transfer.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cms.daegu.ac.kr&#x2F;sgpark&#x2F;plant%20biotechnology&#x2F;GMHT%20t...</a>