This Content Is Only For Subscribers
Beneath the pristine fairways and manicured greens of thousands of golf courses across the United States lies an environmental debate that’s gaining traction. In recent years, some turf managers have turned to herbicide-resistant genetically modified grasses to reduce chemical use and increase maintenance efficiency. But as this biotechnology spreads, so do concerns from environmental groups about its long-term ecological effects.
In 2024, several large course management companies began trialing genetically modified creeping bentgrass that resists glyphosate, a common herbicide. The appeal is clear: reduced use of multiple chemicals, fewer mowing cycles, and greater resistance to disease and drought. For golf course superintendents managing hundreds of acres, it’s a potential game-changer in both cost and sustainability.
However, organizations like the Sierra Club and Beyond Pesticides have raised red flags. Their concern centers on the potential for gene flow—when genetically modified traits spread into wild or native plant populations. In particular, if herbicide-resistant genes escape into nearby grasses or weeds, it could lead to the growth of so-called “superweeds” that are difficult to control, further increasing chemical dependence over time.
This issue isn’t just theoretical. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published findings from Oregon, where genetically modified bentgrass planted near seed production areas was found growing far outside its intended locations. Though not classified as invasive, its presence raised questions about how well these grasses can be contained and monitored once introduced.
In response to rising public and scientific scrutiny, the USDA in late 2024 revised guidance under the Plant Protection Act to include more rigorous site-specific risk assessments for genetically engineered turfgrass. New provisions require applicants to submit containment plans, ongoing genetic drift monitoring, and detailed pesticide application records. Violations of containment rules could result in fines or suspension of permits.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also become involved. In early 2025, it proposed new limits on glyphosate applications for genetically modified turf in recreational areas, including golf courses, parks, and sports fields. While not yet finalized, the proposed rules would require a buffer zone of untreated land around natural ecosystems and water sources.
Despite these changes, support for genetically engineered turf remains strong among certain industry groups. The Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA), for example, argues that biotechnology, when managed responsibly, can play a role in reducing the environmental footprint of golf. “It’s about finding the right balance between innovation and ecological responsibility,” one GCSAA spokesperson said in a March 2025 interview.
The debate is far from settled. Golf continues to evolve in the face of climate stress, water restrictions, and public environmental awareness. As biotechnology creeps into the landscape, course managers, regulators, and environmental advocates will have to work together to ensure that the beauty of the green doesn’t come at the expense of the ecosystems just beyond it.
