Judge Revokes USDA Approval Of Monsanto's Genetically Modified Sugar Beets, Orders Review

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge has revoked the government's approval of genetically altered sugar beets until regulators complete a more thorough review of how the scientifically engineered crops affect other food.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White Friday means sugar beet growers won't be able to use the modified seeds after harvesting the biotechnology beets already planted on more than 1 million acres spanning 10 states from Michigan to Oregon. All the seed comes from Oregon's Willamette Valley.

Additional planting won't be allowed until the U.S. Department of Agriculture submits an environmental impact statement. That sort of extensive examination can take two or three years.

White declined a request to issue an injunction that would have imposed a permanent ban on the biotech beets, which Monsanto Co. developed to resist its popular weed killer, Roundup. Farmers have embraced the technology as a way to lower their costs on labor, fuel and equipment.

The Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance and Sierra Club have been trying to uproot the biotech beets since filing a 2008 lawsuit.

Andrew Kimbrell, the Center for Food Safety's executive director, hailed Friday's decision as a major victory in the fight against genetically engineered crops and chided the Agriculture Department for approving the genetically engineered seeds without a full environmental review.

"Hopefully, the agency will learn that their mandate is to protect farmers, consumers and the environment and not the bottom line of corporations such as Monsanto," Kimbrell said in a statement.

Attempts to reach the Agriculture Department for comment Saturday were unsuccessful. Monsanto, based in St. Louis, referred requests for comment to the America Sugarbeet Growers Association, which pointed to a Saturday statement from the Sugar Industry Biotech Council.

In the statement, the sugar beet council said it intends to help the Agriculture Department come up with "interim measures" that would allow continued production of the genetically altered seeds while regulators conduct their environmental review.

If a temporary solution isn't found, the planting restrictions are likely to cause major headaches for sugar beet growers and food processors.

The genetically altered sugar beets provide about one-half of the U.S. sugar supply and some farmers have warned there aren't enough conventional seeds and herbicide to fill the void. The scientific seeds account for about 95 percent of the current sugar beet crop in the U.S.

"The value of sugar beet crops is critically important to rural communities and their economies," the Sugar Industry Biotech Council said Saturday.

White expressed little sympathy for any disruption his decision might cause. He noted in his 10-page ruling that regulators had time to prepare for the disruption because he had already overturned the deregulation of the genetically altered beets in a decision issued last September.

The Agriculture Department "has already had more than sufficient time to take interim measures, but failed to act expediently," White wrote.

Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups contend genetically altered crops such as the sugar beets could share their genes with conventionally grown food, such as chard and table beets.

Those arguments helped persuade another federal judge in San Francisco to stop the planting of genetically altered alfalfa seeds in 2007 pending a full environmental review that still hasn't been completed.

Monsanto took that case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June overturned an injunction against the company's sale of the modified seeds.

Comments

[HazelPethigFan]

03:10 PM on 08/25/2010

So I see you HP censors have been hard at work censoring any proGM comments, such as those made by actual farmers (as opposed to the usual urbanites with no ag experience). what are you afraid of?

[Mark Harker]

11:44 PM on 08/21/2010

"That sort of extensive revies can take two or three years." well i hope your happy. You just eliminated 90% of the US beet market.

I see nothing about how beets are a biennial crop and take two years to grow. Even if approved this will dispupt the beet market for year to come. This ruling has already caused a spike in sugar prices in the US.

this ruling is a joke.

[benwha]

07:31 AM on 08/22/2010

But it's a victory for well fed city folk everywhere!

[HazelPethigFan]

10:33 PM on 08/24/2010

Just wait till next spring when the popular press interviews beet farmers who say they can't get enough nonGM seed to plant. Sugar prices will spike even higher (perhaps even a super spike?). There is already a prediction of a nonGM beet seed shortage if nothing changes. Very high sugar prices will then be a big story in 2011.

Everything else will go up as well as well, like high corn prices because of increased corn syrup demand. wait a minute...I don't farm beets. I'll have corn to sell in 2011. high corn prices will be good for me. go antiGMers! go go go. ;-D

[benwha]

10:56 PM on 08/24/2010

Haha you know the ironic thing here is our land becomes even more valuable if the GMers win.

[benwha]

11:01 PM on 08/24/2010

Make that antiGMers

[FunGuy13]

10:44 PM on 08/21/2010

Monsanto is one of the the most dangerous corporations on the planet!

[benwha]

10:57 PM on 08/21/2010

Even more dangerous than World Anniliation Corp?

[HazelPethigFan]

12:50 PM on 08/23/2010

yep.....even more dangerous World Anniliation Corp.

And even more dangerous than S.P.E.C.T.R.E., but the all the HPost James Bond wannabees are protecting us all from this GM EEEEEEVIL

[peaceandfreedom]

10:43 PM on 08/20/2010

boy...where'd all our 'friends' go?

I didn't think the Monsanto boys would give up the fight so easily...

[benwha]

07:26 AM on 08/21/2010

Oh I am here, busy gearing up for harvest. It is going to be our largest harvest ever, which is true across the country, and prices are excellent. This just might be our most profitable year ever. It seems like the world needs more grain, which is something you well fed organofiles are going to learn the hard way over the next few years.

[floodberg]

09:06 AM on 08/21/2010

I found them on other threads, so we're not going to be lonely for long!

[StopCensoringMe]

01:23 PM on 08/20/2010

Yummy! A GMO beet with a Roundup glaze.

Thank you, Judge White. I would, though, suggest you have the brake lines inspected on your car. Monsanto has a lot of different ways to 'appeal' your decision.

[peaceandfreedom]

05:55 PM on 08/19/2010

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

[floodberg]

07:46 PM on 08/19/2010

I'd love to hear more about Bhargava, Peace - and I'd love some links if you've got any to a synopsis of his gm/disease connections. I'm finding a lot of general articles, but I'd love to see a summary if you know of one.

[peaceandfreedom]

05:44 PM on 08/19/2010

Italy police seize more Monsanto seed in raid

ROME, April 10 (Reuters) - In the third raid in less than three
weeks, Italian police on Tuesday seized 88 tonnes of
soy seed from U.S. biotech group Monsanto which are expected to be
tested for genetic material.

Monsanto said it had received no prior warning from the authorities
and that all the seeds were conventional. None of
the seeds had been distributed to retailers or farmers.

``We assume the authorities will test the seeds for possible GM
content,'' a spokesman told Reuters.

The use of genetically modified (GM) seeds in open fields is
forbidden by law in Italy, a net importer of maize and
soybeans, because of worries over their possible health and
environmental impact.

Police have already cracked down on Monsanto in Italy twice before.
Between March 23 and 26, they impounded
112 tonnes of maize, and a couple of days later started to seize 300
tonnes of soy seeds that had already been distributed
to retailers.

[peaceandfreedom]

05:41 PM on 08/19/2010

(Footage of Monsanto documents; Snow Creek)

KROFT: (Voiceover) Stewart uncovered close to a million pages of company documents that show Monsanto knew PCBs were a problem as early as 1938, when scientists hired by the company reported that rats exposed to the chemicals developed liver damage. By the 1950s, Monsanto was urging its own workers to wear proper protective clothing and respiratory equipment when handling PCBs. Many of the documents were marked 'confidential: Read and destroy.' In one, from 1966, a scientist working for Monsanto found Snow Creek so polluted with chemicals that it was devoid of life. Healthy fish submerged in the creek turned belly-up and died within three minutes.

Mr. STEWART: They were warned by the people who did those tests that they should warn their neighbors because children and animals might be affected by what was being released from their plant. They knew PCBs were harmful to humans, said not one word about it.

(Footage of Monsanto confidential documents; factory in Anniston)

KROFT: (Voiceover) In 1969, Monsanto created a high level PCB Committee whose mission was to 'protect the image of the corporation' and 'permit continued sales and profits.' Even they concluded that PCBs will someday become a 'global environmental contaminant.' But no one passed that information on to the community or to state and federal regulators.

[peaceandfreedom]

05:22 PM on 08/19/2010

PEI demanding Ottawa to reveal locations of genetically modified wheat farms

CP 28jul01

TORONTO -- Ottawa is refusing to reveal the locations of experimental crops of genetically modified wheat planted somewhere on Prince Edward Island, angering the province's agriculture minister who fears cross-pollination could harm other crops, it was reported Thursday.

Canada's Food Inspection Agency said genetically modified wheat would be grown at undisclosed locations throughout the province.

But Mitch Murphy, the Island's minister of agriculture, said that when he asked where the wheat would be grown and who would be responsible for any arising problems, he was told the information was strictly confidential.

"We didn't get answers to what we thought were very important questions," Murphy told the public broadcaster.

"I absolutely think the province has a right to know."

He said wheat farmers on the island should be told if their crops are in danger of being cross-pollinated.

It's a concern that has also been expressed across Canada as more than 50 field tests of genetically modified wheat have been approved this year alone.

The Canadian Wheat Board has also tried unsuccessfully to find out site locations from the federal agency.

"We are on the side of the protection of proprietary information. That's how it looks because that's how it is," spokesman Stephen Yarrow said.

A critic with Alberta's Organic Growers said the issue boils down to one of "public interest versus private interest."

[peaceandfreedom]

05:12 PM on 08/19/2010

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/health-environment/food-agriculture/ge-wheat.shtml

[floodberg]

07:07 PM on 08/19/2010

Another great link to send around - thanks, Peace! I wonder what Kagan is going to do if we refuse to buy seed (farmers save their own.) Hope they don't adopt the Monsanto/Dow version of what is 'safe' instead of 100+ years of nonpatented, high quality 'free' seed.

[floodberg]

09:12 AM on 08/19/2010

Thanks for reposting this, NYCAbroad-I remember this from the news. (The new comments system makes it difficult to read all the comments on a thread, sorry I found this thread a little late.) .

Judging by the arrogance of some very interested and knowledgeable pro-GE/GMO posters on this thread, I'd say these chemical companies don't think much of the intelligence of either the farmers or consumers. Having bought their way into our government and associations in a huge way, they're not even trying to 'persuade.' For now, they can't seem to litigate, pressure or threaten a lot of US folks into buying their seed, so they're making sure we don't know what we're eating, then forcing farmers to comply

The 'bipartisan' backing of these concerns extends so far as to not require simple labeling of modified food or feed products in the US, and reminds me of the gleeful backing of such safe pharma as thalidomide and DES. It's required in most industrialized countries, and consumers are rejecting them - but the recent approval of modified feed grain by a few EU countries is extremely troubling. American consumers can't depend on either the 'testing results,' the objectivity or veracity of our government or the credibility, veracity or accountability of these 'too big to care' corporations to keep our children, livestock and soil safe from contamination. Organizing and publicizing one boycott of a targeted food item/producer until this law changes would be an excellent start.

[HazelPethigFan]

10:06 AM on 08/19/2010

So you going planning to boycott a targeted food item/producer. You are talking like a consumer only. Wouldn't a food producer boycott hurt farmers?

Since you are a farmer yourself wouldn't that be a bizarre way to protest? good luck explaining that boycott of farm products to your farmer neighbors. Or do you really have farmer neighbors?

I see you had to actually google weather data to show me. hahahahaha. You actually had to look up ND weather data? really? No personal stories of jumper cables, pickups not starting in -65 windchills, or frozen water pipes? No personal farm weather stories at all??

Poser.

[floodberg]

10:26 AM on 08/19/2010

1. For the 12th time, why not tell us your background and interest in this subject? It's a free plug for the company.

2. A boycott done well would hurt the item/producer, and farmers who farm those products. It's no different from any other boycott, like BP, which affects a broad scope of persons.

3. I used google because I don't expect you to be able to handle more complicated data, based on the dearth of statistics you quote and link. Of course, in this subject statistics are rather inconvenient, so you stick to silly adolescent statements like this.

4. No more replies to you until you come clean about your affiliations, little Hazel. However, I'd like to thank you for your posting on this thread. You've certainly hurt the public's opinion of GE/GMO producers and their friends in the government by being so arrogant and condescending, and alienated folks who don't like arrogant, superior attitudes and dodging tough questions like 'what's your background in this subject?' (Most farmers already had a bad opinion of the companies and government, but you really made an strong impression - not a good one - on them.)

[NYCAbroad]

05:15 AM on 08/19/2010

Needed repost:

Ever heard about Monsantov vying to create a patent on pigs? No? Must view - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ouf_gmA5o

Accurate quote - "Monsanto is an abomination against nature."

[floodberg]

11:01 PM on 08/18/2010

REPLYING TO: Neutralino 14 hours ago (8:47 AM)
34 Fans
Become a fan

Everything is fine except for the facts.

The majority of wheat farmers want the right to grow biotech wheat because they have witnessed the benefits seen by other types of biotech grain. Every single fact he lists - the issue of quality, cost, soil conditions, the effect on soil quality - is 100 percent wrong.

Where does Floodberg live, OppositeLand? I can't find it on any map of North Dakota.

I'd still like an explanation for Floodberg's transparently false statements earlier. When are you going to give an honest answer to that, Floody?

***********************************************

You made this reply to Benwha, which meant I didn't pay attention to it. Since you want answers, provide the following authority (which you never link) and I'll happily reply to each.

2. You next state: "The majority of wheat farmers want the right to grow biotech wheat because they have witnessed the benefits seen by other types of biotech grain." Please provide a credible link w/supporting statistics.

3. You then state: "Every single fact he lists - the issue of quality, cost, soil conditions, the effect on soil quality - is 100 percent wrong." Provide a credible link with statistical evidence.

4 To your next statement; "Where does Floodberg live, OppositeLand?", please give your town, state and occupations, and I'll give mine.

5. "Floodberg's transparently false statements earlier": Please copy and paste my 'false' statements and link your authority.

[Neutralino]

11:32 AM on 08/19/2010

Since you weren't paying attention the first time, I repeat that the data you seek is on the website of the National Association of Wheat Growers. As I said, one reason I began suspecting you weren't telling the truth is that you claimed to belong to the NAWG, but that you made statements that any NAWH member would know are false.

The list of falsehoods is getting too long to fit in a comment box. We are limited to 250 words.

However, I will repeated - for the bazillionth time - that you could not possibly have been telling the truth when you claimed that you and your fellow farmers were going out burning GMO wheat. Again, that's because there is no such thing as GMO wheat. Unless the regulators change their mind, that particular product will remain locked away forever in the lab at Monsanto.

As to your repeated requests for personal information:

I see that tactic as an effort to deflect attention from the issue of your honesty, or lack thereof. Don't expect me to help you change the subject.

[floodberg]

10:16 PM on 08/18/2010

REPLYING TO: HazelPethigFan 21 hours ago (12:28 AM)
52 Fans, 6700 comments, member since 2/2010

"Naw..its 60 all winter long [referring to winter in NoDak]. Believe me.

Visit FarmerFloodberg in January. You don't need a coat."

***************************************************************
First, "FarmerFloodberg" is obviously a adolescent attempt to denigrate farmers, but your arrogant, superior attitude antagonized a lot of readers. Impress us by telling us your background and any employment/financial interest you may have. You've run from answering this like a thief in the night, but it's time to come clean.

Second, most farmers are nice folks - educated, intelligent, open minded - who sure aren't 'snobbish.' I'm honored to be considered their equal.

Third, at least check NoDak weather before posting idiocy. For the record:

Average Winter temps (Dec-Feb): high 20F, low 0F.

"Being 1,000 mi (1,600 km) from any large body of water (with the exception of Lake Superior), temperatures and precipitation in North Dakota can vary widely. North Dakota is far enough north to experience −60 °F (−51 °C) temperatures and blizzards during the winter months, but far enough south to experience 121 °F (49 °C) temperatures and tornado outbreaks in the summer.[5] The 181 degree (100 °C) variation between North Dakota's highest and lowest temperature is the 3rd largest variation of any U.S. State, and the largest of any non-mountainous state." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_North_Dakota

[peaceandfreedom]

04:59 PM on 08/18/2010

The monsanto boys have tried the old sophistic tool of the ad hominem, straw man attack. Create a target or lightening rod of one opponent, malign his position and person, and use that to rebut EVERY point against you.

This weak attempt doesn't even deserve to be called 'debate.' More like 3rd grade playground your mama jokes.

You guys used to be more fun, but this lack of real repartee tires me. So I'm taking my marbles and heading for the margaritas.

Ta ta.

[benwha]

05:17 PM on 08/18/2010

Could you please point to a time when I made an ad hominem, straw man attack?

[benwha]

07:33 PM on 08/18/2010

Way to make accusations, claim that you are leaving, post on other sites while ignoring my questions. Nicew work? Can you explain to me how, based on this behavior and your posts since joining this thread, how anyone could have came to the conclusion you were interested in repartee? Every post is either your standard cheerleading, or bashing of others on here. I don't see one post where you asserted a claim or an item to create a debate around. And this is after being asked specific questions.

You are following the same pattern so many follow on here (amber, tresluv, ocean and flood), once you reach a point where you can no longer justify what you are being challenged about you scream shill and disappear. Not all do this, I have had numerous solid conversations with anti-GMOers on here who friended me right after.

So peaceandfreedom, do you want to have repartee or what?