It should be no surprise that Monsanto's PR machine is working hard to spin the truth in this morning's decision in the first-ever Supreme Court case on genetically engineered crops (Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms). Despite what the biotech seed giant is claiming, today's ruling isn't close to the victory they were hoping for.
The 7-1 decision issued today by the Supreme Court was on the appeal of the Center for Food Safety's (CFS) successful suit, which resulted in a ban on GMO alfalfa. And, while the High Court ruled in favor of Monsanto by reversing an injunction that was part of the lower court's decision, more importantly, it also ruled that the ban on GMO alfalfa remains intact, and that the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa remains illegal.
This point, which seems to be lost in some news reports, is actually a huge victory for the Center for Food Safety and - most importantly - for the farmers and consumers who we represent.
The Supreme Court ruled that an injunction against planting was unnecessary since, under lower courts' rulings, Roundup Ready Alfalfa became a regulated item and illegal to plant. In other words, the injunction was "overkill' because our victory in lower federal court determined that USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws when it approved Roundup Ready alfalfa. The court felt that voiding the USDA's decision to make the crop legally available for sale was enough.
A different ruling could have had far-reaching ramifications that might have extended beyond our borders, affecting the health and status of world markets for U.S. alfalfa, and impacting the fastest growing sector of the US agriculture market - organic. But the court clearly saw that, and opted instead to rule very narrowly.
And yet, Monsanto is out there in a public statement saying that they've won a great victory. They claim that they're ready to sell Roundup Ready Alfalfa seeds now, and that they hope that their farmers should be able to plant by fall 2010. It's a canny statement, but neither of those potential situations is by any means possible at this point. The bottom line: the ban on planting Roundup Ready Alfalfa still stands.
The Center is victorious in this case in several other ways: most importantly, the High Court did not rule on several arguments presented by Monsanto about the application of federal environmental law. As a result, the Court did not make any ruling that could have been hurtful to National Environmental Policy Act or any other environmental laws. In addition, the Court opinion supported the Center's argument that gene flow is a serious environmental and economic threat. This means that genetic contamination from GMOs can still be considered harm under the law, both from an environmental and economic perspective.
This Court opinion is in many ways a victory for the environment, the Center for Food Safety, for farmers and for consumers and a defeat for Monsanto's hopes of a green light. To represent this opinion in any other way is just spin.
False. Farmers CAN continue planting Monsanto's GE alfalfa. Kimbrell's case-reading is wrong. See my post of 5:00 PM, today, 24 June.
"...the High Court...ruled that the ban on GMO alfalfa remains intact, and that the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa remains illegal."
Mr. Kimbrell is hallucinating. The Court did NOT render such ruling.
The Court ruled that the District Court abused its discretion by enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation AND BY PROHIBITING THE PLANTING of Monsanto's GE alfalfa seeds till the USDA completes its environmental review.
Among the Court's clarifications, is this:
"...the [vacating] of APHIS's deregulation...means that VIRTUALLY no...Roundup Ready Alfalfa...can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision [occurs]...." (My emphasis/ellipses.)
"Virtually" is immensely ambiguous—ambiguous enough to let Monsanto sell and its purchasers plant enough GE alfalfa to taint thousands of acres of previously non-GE alfalfa and alfalfa-fields. Perhaps opponents will sue if they believe Monsanto and its purchasers are violating the vague limit the Supreme Court's opinion left standing. But even if they win, they lose.
The Supreme Court's opinion will constrain any prudent District Judge not to restrain further sales or planting, since in Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms, the Supreme Court held that the District Court abused its discretion by prohibiting the planting of Monsanto's GE alfalfa till the USDA completes environmental review. While the new dispute is pending, seed sale/planting will continue long. Even if ultimately the court restrains sale/planting, Monsanto will resist enforcement, long.
WASHINGTON (AP)-- The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, despite claims they might harm the environment.
In a 7-1 vote Monday, the court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had prohibited Monsanto Co. from selling alfalfa seeds because they are resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup.
The U.S. Agriculture Department must now decide whether to allow the genetically-modified seeds to be planted. It had earlier approved the seeds, but courts in California and Oregon said the USDA did not look hard enough at whether the seeds would eventually share their genes with other crops.
A federal judge in San Francisco had barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide until the government could adequately study the crop's potential impact on organic and conventional varieties.
St. Louis-based Monsanto argued that the ban was too broad and was based on the assumption that their products were harmful. Opponents of the use of genetically engineered seeds say they can contaminate conventional crops, but Monsanto says such cross-pollination is unlikely.
"We agree that the District Court's injunction against planting went too far," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion.
I wish I could see things as optimistically as you, but I lost faith in the USDA to protect our food supply a long time ago. Unless there's a magical change out of everyone that runs that branch/department (i.e. lobbyists) between now and the release of that "study" (which will surely be paid for and actually written by Monsanto - who would know better (sarcasm)?), we are doomed to continue down the highly profitable path of GMO farming, all the while wrecking the land and water with ever increasing amounts of Monsanto's "RoundUp." After all the farmers, who chose not to plant GM crops, get sued for possessing the plants (via pollination), Monsanto will have the entire agribusiness locked down for themselves.
e.g.
truefoodnow.org/campaigns/factory-farming/get-the-“pig”-picture/
a exellent book to read " Seeds of Deception " : Jeffrey M. Smith
"This powerful exposé could spark the revolution that this topic deserves."
- Hunter Lovins, coauthor of Natural Capitalism
"This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and environmental hazards of GM crops, and scarifying examples of the manipulation of both science and the media by the biotech industry... What is so exciting about this book is that it is no dry text of scientific exegesis - it positively fizzes with the human drama of the cabals and conspiracies behind the scenes... It is meticulously documented and powerfully written, somewhere between a documentary and a thriller."
- From the UK edition foreword by Michael Meacher, former UK environment minister
10 page summary of the book: .wanttoknow.info/deception10pg
in Europe there's a " we're not lab rats " campaighn to ban GMOs :.bangmfoods.org/
Moonspinner
The high court seems to be limiting the injunction as a remedy but upholding the agency's ban.
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-monsanto-20100622,0,5503905.story
Don't believe anything you hear from the Center for Food Safety. It is a corporate front sponsored by agricultural corporations with a vested interest in suppressing this technology. It's no different from those groups of "scientists" who used to claim tobacco is not addictive or cancerous.
In addition, this group has absolutely no connection to the U.S. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, which is a legitimate organization that employs actual scientists. Kimbrell is head of a group that obviously selected a deliberately misleading name to conceal the fact that they are a bunch of corporate-sponsored lawyers and PR flaks with a political agenda.
Plants reproduce naturally as do animals. We do not need GMOs to
infest, infect and otherwise destroy other plants.
This planet and all it's species do NOT need GMOs nor cloned animals
When are we going to collectively WAKE UP and take back our rights
to have a clean and natural planet???