|
Monsanto Ruling? What did it say?
Monsanto Ruling? What did it say?
Date: 6/23/2010 11:21:57 PM ( 14 y ) ... viewed 1027 times
9:20 pm
June 23, 2010
Both sides are claiming victory.
Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-monsanto-20100622,0,5503905.story
Andrew Kimbrell
Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety
Posted: June 21, 2010 05:09 PM
Read More: Center For Food Safety ,
Justice Samuel Alito , Monsanto ,
National Environmental Policy Act ,
Roundup Ready Alfalfa ,
Supreme Court , Food News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/supreme-court-case-a-defe_b_620...
Share Comments 44
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.
High Court Delivers Ruling that Leaves Ban on Planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa in Place in First-Ever Case on a Genetically-Engineered Crop
The United States Supreme Court announced its decision today in Monsanto v. Geerston Farms, the first genetically modified crop case ever brought before the Supreme Court. Although the High Court decision reverses parts of the lower courts’ rulings, the judgment holds that the ban on planting Roundup Ready Alfalfa still stands until and unless future deregulation by the Agency occurs. This is a major victory for the Center for Food Safety and the Farmers and Consumers it represents!
In the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held: “In sum…the vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA (Roundup Ready Alfalfa) can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made.” (Opinion at p. 22).
The Court also held that:
Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an EIS subject to legal challenge.
The Court further recognized that the threat of transgenic contamination is harmful and onerous to organic and conventional farmers and that the injury allows them to challenge future biotech crop commercializations in court.
USDA indicated at the Supreme Court argument that full deregulation is about a year away and that they will not pursue a partial deregulation in the interim. Any new attempt at deregulation in full or part will still be subject to legal challenge.
Many of you may have read press this morning reporting that the 7-1 decision announced by the Supreme Court today went entirely in Monsanto's favor. Not to our surprise, Monsanto’s PR machine is working hard to overpower the truth in today's decision in the first-ever Supreme Court case on genetically engineered crops (Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms). While the decision is complicated, this Court opinion is in many ways a victory for CFS and a defeat against Monsanto—especially given that it is still illegal to sell or plant GMO alfalfa.
CFS’s Executive Director, Andrew Kimbrell authored an article in today's Huffington Post to help clarify the legal ramifications of the decision. Grist also has a good piece outlining the decision, as does Eco Centric.
Despite what Monsanto is claiming—and what many mainstream media outlets reported earlier this morning—today’s ruling isn’t even close to the victory they were hoping for. Generally speaking, Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to rule on three main issues: (1) to lift the injunction on GMO alfalfa; (2) to allow the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa; (3) to rule that contamination from GMO crops not be considered irreparable harm.
In fact, the court only ruled on the first request which it did affirm by stating that the injunction was overly broad and should be overturned. However, the Court ruled in CFS's favor on the other two issues, which in many ways are more important as the fact remains that the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa remains illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that an injunction against planting was simply 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 Protection 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.
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, another huge victory for CFS.
We could not have gone all the way to the Supreme Court without your support—thank you! Your letters, phone calls and donations have been invaluable in the efforts to ban GE alfalfa. We will keep you updated on any Agency attempts to deregulate GE alfalfa and on the ongoing EIS process. In the meantime, if you have not already done so, please take a moment to contact your Congressional representatives and ask them to sign the “Dear Colleague” letter circulating in the U.S. House and Senate urging USDA to ban GE alfalfa.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
