Mice fed the GE corn diet had fewer litters, fewer total offspring, and more females with no offspring, than mice fed the conventional corn. The effects were particularly pronounced in the third and fourth litters, after the mice had consumed the GE corn for a longer period of time. The authors attributed the reduced fertility to the GE corn feed, and said it might be related to unintended effects of the genetic modification process.

Greenpeace, in typical fashion, is breathless:

Mice! Forget about birth control — try GE maize instead!

The study, conducted by a team led by Dr. Jurgen Zentek, professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Vienna, and sponsored by the Austrian Ministry of Health, Families, and Youth, is a serious effort, and Monsanto isn’t ignoring it. A release posted to Monsanto’s home page on Tuesday notes that Zentek’s study has not been peer-reviewed, and maintains that Greenpeace’s press release “is inconsistent with over a decade of reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific studies, including multi-generational studies, which demonstrate and confirm the safety of GM crops.” Nonetheless, Monsanto promises to “examine” the report “fully.”

How the World Works does not consider either Monsanto or Greenpeace to be reliable narrators. Neither side has demonstrated any ability to approach the topic of genetically modified organisms with what I personally would consider to be an open scientific mind. While it is more than a little bit disturbing to learn that, according to Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, no U.S. “regulatory agencies require any long-term animal feeding trials before allowing genetically engineered crops on the market,” it is also quite true that this is just one, un-peer-reviewed study. The leader of the research group, Dr. Zentek, was appropriately cautious in interpreting his own data.

The trial indicates that dietary interactions with the host organism have to be further evaluated. Regarding the sensitivity of the topic, studies are needed to extend the database using standardized feeding trials with clear endpoints such as reproductive performance and a backup by genomic, proteomic and metabolomic traits.

More study is required! Now there’s a conclusion How the World Works can fully support, before agreeing with Greenpeace’s declaration that Zentek’s study is “a good enough reason to close down the whole biotech industry.”

From South Carolina’s Times & Democrat

Palmer amaranth crowds out cotton plants, starving them of sunlight, nutrients and water, and is a very productive weed. Each female produces as many as 500,000 seedlings, meaning just one plant can birth an entire field.

Unlike other pests, pigweed can continue to grow an inch a day even without water, making it particularly adept during the drought gripping the region. It also thrives in hot weather, continuing to grow when temperatures top 90 degrees and other plants shut down.

The weed can even damage cotton pickers, the huge machines that pluck natural fiber from the cotton bolls.

From the Delta Farm Press:

The rapid spread of the resistance has “absolutely shocked” [University of Tennessee weed specialist] Larry Steckel. “It’s hard to believe how quickly and strong the resistance has become and spread.”

Having been an Arkansas Extension weed specialist for years, Ken Smith thought he’d “quit being surprised at what weeds are capable of. But, let me tell you, these resistant pigweeds are so much worse than we thought they’d be.”

How did this happen? Simple — over-reliance on a single herbicide — Roundup — used in conjunction with genetically modified cotton that included built-in resistance to Roundup. Both products, incidentally, brought to you by Monsanto. At first, it seemed like a great deal for farmers. Plant the cotton, douse the field with Roundup, and watch everything besides the cotton seedlings die. But just as many scientists have long predicted, monocrop agriculture in combination with reliance on just one herbicide turned out to be the most effective way to develop super-weeds that would spit in Roundup’s face that farmers could have devised.

There are a host of other deadly chemicals that can be applied, and experts are hard at work across the South devising strategies to contain pigweed devastation. They’ll probably come up with something — either that, or cotton’s tenure in the South might be over. But if one of the main reasons why farmers were paying extra for Roundup-ready cotton was because of Roundup’s efficiency at killing off everything else, you have to wonder if those same farmers still think the premium grade seeds are worth their high price. And you also have to wonder if anyone is listening to the bottom-line message: that relying on a single solution — one strain of seed, or one brand of herbicide — is inherently risky.

To paraphrase Deng Xiaoping: “It doesn’t matter whether the cat is genetically modified or not, as long as it catches mice.”

From The Guardian:

The cabinet last week approved a long-term grain output blueprint, which aims to increase grain production to more than 540 million tonnes annually by 2020 so it can be 95 percent self-sufficient in feeding the country’s growing population of more than 1.3 billion people. But analysts say that because China’s arable land is shrinking every year due to industrialization, the country has no option but to turn to genetic modification technology to increase yields. “GMO technology is the only solution right now for the country to raise yield and reduce use of pesticide, which is harmful for the environment,” said Huang Dafang.

But it’s not just about feeding 1.3 billion people. China also appears ready to take Monsanto and Syngenta on at their own game.

From Xinhua:

The State Council agreed at an executive meeting that the program is of strategic importance in strengthening the country’s capacity for agricultural technological innovation, increasing farmers’ income and enhance the agriculture sector’s global competitiveness.

The program aims to gain genes of great commercial value whose intellectual property rights belong to China, and develop high-quality, high-yield and pest-resistant genetically-modified new species, according to the meeting presided over by Premier Wen Jiabao.

If I was the chairman of Monsanto, I’d be a little nervous.

Monsanto invented glyphosate in the 1970s, but the world’s number one weed killer went off patent in 2000, and Chinese producers quickly jumped into the business. Today, Monsanto still manufactures 60 percent of the world’s supply of glyphosate, with China accounting for the rest.

The influx of generic glyphosate first sent prices spiraling down earlier this century, but in the past year, the pattern has flipped. The reasons are familiar:

From the Memphis Commercial Appeal

Monsanto and others say the run-up is the result of quickly a changing world standard of living. As people in developing nations increase the amount of protein in their diets, and the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce it, the price of fertilizer and many other agricultural inputs will rise.

In some world markets, including Brazil and Argentina, Roundup is selling for more than it does in the U.S., creating a lucrative market for Monsanto and its 30-some other competitors, which are mostly in China.

“China is going after the highest revenue price they can get on the product,” said Kevin Eblen, resident of Monsanto’s Delta and Pine Land division.

But demand, whether propelled by biofuels, changing diets, isn’t the only reason for the price rise. So is scarcity of a key ingredient: phosphorus.

Perhaps you, like How the World Works, were more familiar with phosphorus’ role as one of founding pillars, along with potassium and nitrogen, of the holy triumvirate of synthetic fertilizer. But in a bizarre twist of chemical fate, phosphorus is also a critical ingredient in glyphosate. Imagine that: The same chemical necessary to make some plants grow is also required to kill off other plants. Chemistry is cool that way.

What’s not cool is that rock phosphate, the source of nearly all industrially-used phosphorus, is a non-renewable resource, and some scientists think reserves will run out within the next 40 to 50 years. The implications for so-called RoundUp Monsanto-style agriculture, in which crops genetically modified to be immune to the weed killer require massive inputs of synthetic fertilizer and applications of glyphosate to properly prosper, are troubling. If we depend on the increased yields from GM crops to feed the upwardly mobile tastes of the world’s burgeoning population, but those crops become more and more expensive to produce, we’re going to be in serious trouble somewhere down the line. And don’t even get us started on the emergence of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed.

It doesn’t end there — another reason for the current glyphosate shortage is that transforming rock phosphate into the “elemental phosphorus” that in turn is processed into the phosphorus trichloride required for glyphosate production is highly energy-and-pollution intensive. China has lately embarked on a campaign to close glyphosate factories for environmental reasons — it’s exactly the kind of a business an upwardly mobile country wants to get out of, not into.

According to testimony by a Monsanto employee at a government hearing a few years ago in Soda Springs, Idaho, where Monsanto was seeking a cap on electricity costs in order, so the company claimed, to preserve the commercial viability of one of its two glyphosate production plants in the U.S. — electricity costs make up 30-45 percent of production costs.

To recap: synthetic fertilizer and industrial herbicide prices are rising because of growing demand, resource scarcity, and energy costs. That backyard organic garden, presumably recycling every nutrient possible, is sounding less and less like an elite affectation, every single day.

Pagesse cited two reasons for the decision. In early February the French Parliament, heeding the virulently anti-GM sentiments of French citizens, formally requested that the European Union allow it to ban the commercial use of MON 810, a genetically modified strain of corn made by Monsanto. Additionally, “the expatriation of the GM tests to the United States,” reports Reuters, “was also prompted by the repetitive attacks carried out by anti-GM activists on Biogemma’s test fields.”

MON 810 is better known in the United States as YieldGard, long one of Monsanto’s flagship corn seed varieties, designed with a built-in pesticide that targets the dreaded European corn borer. In the U.S. the climate for YieldGard and even fancier triple stacked hybrids is a bit friendlier than in France. U.S. farmers are even eligible for crop insurance discounts, approved by the U.S. government, if they can prove they’ve planted enough biotech corn.

For Monsanto, the French attempt to squash MON 810 is no doubt annoying, but hardly threatening. The U.S. corn boom is contributing to strong profits, and in the global GM market, you’re going to win some and you’re going to lose some.

France says goodbye to MON 810? Brazil says hello.