Tech | April 27, 2010 | 15 comments

Diverse Interests Back Center for Food Safety, Oppose Monsanto in Upcoming High Court Hearing on Biotech Alfalfa

Image
JanforGore
STATES, SCIENTISTS, ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL FARMERS, FOOD COMPANIES, EXPORTERS, FORMER GOVT. OFFICIALS, AND LEGAL SCHOLARS FILE BRIEFS IN SUPPORT. SEVEN AMICUS BRIEFS FILED IN ALL.

A myriad of interests – ranging from food companies to farmers unions to scientific experts and legal scholars – have filed briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Center for Food Safety and opposed to Monsanto in a case to be argued on April 27, Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms. This will be the first genetically engineered crop case ever heard by the High Court.

All lower courts that have heard the case temporarily stopped the planting of Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” alfalfa because the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) failed to analyze the crop’s impacts on farmers and the environment. Although it is undisputed that USDA violated environmental laws and that the agency must rigorously analyze the crop’s impacts if it is to again approve it for sale, Monsanto is arguing that the lower courts should have allowed the planting of the now-illegal crop to go forward anyway.

The Attorneys General of California, Oregon and Massachusetts filed a brief on behalf of their citizens supporting the Center, emphasizing the “States’ interests in protecting their natural resources and their citizens’ rights to be informed about the environmental impacts of federal actions.” The States note “immense” ramifications for all environmental protection should Monsanto prevail, which would damage the States’ interest in “protection of wilderness, habitat preservation for endangered species, watershed protection, [and] air quality.”

Leading organic businesses and trade groups – including Organic Valley, Stonyfield Farms, the Organic Trade Association, United Natural Foods, Eden Foods, Annie’s, Clif Bar and Nature’s Path Foods – warned of the imminent threat from unwanted biotech contamination to their businesses. The $25 billion-a-year organic industry, the fastest growing sector of U.S. agriculture for more than a decade, is at particular risk from the effects of contamination because alfalfa is pollinated by bees, which can fly many miles to cross-pollinate different fields. Organic dairy alone is a one-billion-dollar-a-year industry and depends on organic hay as the main forage for its cows. These commercial entities warned that “widespread planting of RR alfalfa imposes massive risk and uncertainty on the continued viability of organic dairy farming” and that overturning the lower courts would “irreparably harm” their ability to grow and sell organic food.

Conventional farmers and exporters filed a similar brief, warning of lost overseas alfalfa markets in Asia, Europe and the Middle East that reject biotech-contaminated crops. The Arkansas Rice Growers Association, which produces approximately half of all exported U.S. rice and which in 2006 lost their overseas markets from a biotech rice contamination episode, voiced similar concerns: “Genetically engineered (“GE”) crops have already contaminated conventional crops, resulting in damages of over a billion dollars to the rice trade, and ruinous results to many of Amici’s export operations.”
snip

A full list of those filing briefs, as well as background and related information, are available Here.

Full List of Amici:

• Amicus brief from California, Oregon, and Massachusetts

• Amicus brief from CROPP Cooperative (Organic Valley), Montana Organic Ass’n, Nat’l Cooperative Grocers’ Ass’n, Nat’l Organic Coalition, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Organic Seed Alliance, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Ass’n, Organic Trade Ass’n, Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, United Natural Foods, Inc., Eden Foods, Inc., Annie’s, Inc., Clif Bar & Company, Nature’s Path Foods, Inc., Purist Foods, Inc., Stonyfield Farm, Inc., and Straus Family Creamery

• Amicus brief from Arkansas Rice Growers Association, Rice Producers of California, New England Farmers Union, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, FedCo Seeds, Inc., Nat’l Farmers Union of Canada, Genetics International, Eckenberg Farms, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture

• Amicus brief from Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for Responsible Genetics, Dr. Steven R. Radosevich, Dr. Paul E. Arriola, Dr. John Fagan, Dr. E. Ann Clark, Dr. Don M. Huber, Dr. Rubens Onofre Nodari, Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, and Caroline Cox

• Amicus brief from Dinah Bear, Robert Glicksman, Oliver Houck, Daniel Mandelker, Thomas McGarity, Robert Percival, Zygmunt Plater, Nicholas Robinson, and Gary Widman

• Amicus brief from Natural Resources Defense Counsel and Prof. Craig N. Johnston, Prof. Michael C. Blumm, Prof. David W. Case, Prof. Jamison E. Colburn, Prof. William F. Funk, Prof. David K. Mears, Prof. Patrick A. Parenteau, Prof. John T. Parry, Prof. Melissa A. Powers, and Prof. Mary C. Wood

• Amicus brief from Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States, and Center for Biological Diversity
_______
You can read the Amicus briefs at the link.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Current Tonight,   9 more
  2. tags:
    Environment Monsanto transgenic contamination Food Sovereignty 7 more
  3.     
    |

15 comments // Diverse Interests Back Center for Food Safety, Oppose Monsanto in Upcoming High Court Hearing on Biotech Alfalfa

  • JanforGore
  • futuregen
    • +1
      futuregen  
    • Image
    • http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

      Under twitter:
      News segment guest: Jeffrey M. Smith http://www.seedsofdeception.com http://www.responsibletechnology.org
      about 14 hours ago via web

      Jeffery Smith was interviewed on Coast to Coast AM last night briefly about this. He brought up all the studies they have done on rats/mice and that by the third generation they are sterile, hair growing in their mouths, etc from eating GMO soy. George Noory promised to have him on again for a full hour in the near future to help get the word out.

      How incredibly stupid and evil this all is. All for money and control. And the "Supreme Court" gave us George Bush. How do you protest to the Supreme Court??? Do individuals file briefs? Guidance please. Massive protests need to be organized.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • masterzip
    • 0
      masterzip  
    • I predict, Monsanto will win
      public will be mildly outraged
      some will not even understand the reason this is a court case
      it may not be the end of the world now, as Scalia put it.

    • 2 years ago
  • diode
  • JanforGore
  • queenofit
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • queenofit:

      Thank you. I was reading a couple of the amicus briefs filed and just started reading this after getting home from work this morning. I suspect there will be much reading in the next couple of months.

    • 2 years ago
  • cutee_leslie
    • 0
      cutee_leslie  
    • Conventional farmers and exporters filed a similar brief, warning of lost overseas alfalfa markets in Asia, Europe and the Middle East that reject biotech-contaminated crops.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • http://www.kfwb.com/pages/6907713.php?contentType=4&contentId=5999748

      I want to have hope, but according to this, the USDA will more than likely approve these seeds in a year's time as it is. I cannot BELIEVE Monsanto will get away with saying transgenic contamination is "unlikely." Where is Percy Schmeiser? He can attest to the fact that they are lying!

      ________________

      WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court justices on Tuesday sharply questioned a lower court's decision that has prohibited biotech giant Monsanto Co. from selling genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, possibly paving the way for the company to distribute the seeds for the first time since 2007.
      The case has been closely watched by environmentalists and agribusiness. A federal judge in San Francisco 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 is arguing 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.

      Organic groups and farmers exporting to Europe, where genetically modified crops are unpopular, have staunchly opposed the development of such seeds.

      Environmentalists are concerned with the case's effect on a federal law that requires the government to review a product's effect on the environment before approving it. The U.S. Agriculture Department earlier approved the seeds, but courts in California and Oregon said USDA did not look hard enough at whether the seeds would eventually share their genes with other crops.

      Aside from the precedent, the case may be irrelevant in another year, when the USDA is expected to finish the full environmental review that was not done in the first place. It is expected to again approve the seeds for production.

      Several justices appeared skeptical that the lower court had the authority to fully ban the sale of the product because of the pending environmental review. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why the court issued the injunction instead of simply remanding the matter back to the USDA.

      Justice Antonin Scalia appeared even more wary, questioning the idea that genetically modified crops could contaminate other crops.

      "This isn't the contamination of the New York City water supply," he said. "This isn't the end of the world, it really isn't."

      Alfalfa, which is used for livestock feed and can be planted in spring or fall, is a major crop grown on about 22 million acres in the U.S., Monsanto said in court papers. Monsanto's alfalfa is made from genetic material from bacteria that makes the crop resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup.

      Justice Stephen Breyer did not taking part in the case because his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, issued the initial ruling against Monsanto.

      A decision is expected before late June. The case is Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms, 09-475.

    • 2 years ago
  • ivaanna2001
    • 0
      ivaanna2001  
    • If there ever was a time that you feel like praying, I submit, this would be one of them. The results will not be known until later in June. I shall now retire to my chamber to do more praying.

    • 2 years ago
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  
    • Please do Jan (keep monitoring) . This is a big one, and from what I have been reading it is going to Monsanto. I pray I am wrong, and maybe my fear is unjustified, but some of the stuff I read today online, for example here is a quote taken from a site today

      "Justice Antonin Scalia appeared even more wary, questioning the idea that genetically modified crops could contaminate other crops.

      "This isn't the contamination of the New York City water supply," he said. "This isn't the end of the world, it really isn't."

      (source)

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isgbi9DSGVLOvoyTQ3f8M--Aw4sQD9...

      Such a pathetic cavalier approach, it just makes me sick.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • queenofit:

      Yes, it is sickening. Our USSC is a mockery of justice to me ever since they thought they could pick the president. Their ignorance not only on issues of democracy but of the environment is staggering. How sad they too are now only another corporate mouthpiece.

    • 2 years ago
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  
    • JanforGore:

      Jamin Raskin, professor of constitutional law said when the Court ruled in the Corporations favor on campaign spending.

      “Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States."

      Well, the Court needs to have it's power dropped a notch or two (this is still our country), they have elected a president, made corporations people, and now they are going to allow those corporations power to control our food.

      I will be watching to see how this one turns out. This is beyond the scope of most folks level of knowledge. I must add, there is a great deal of momentum building on the Millions Against Monsanto effort. The numbers are growing by leaps each week, and the folks are truly educating themselves, and THAT is giving me hope!

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • This is the big one. The results of this case could determine ownership of all seeds. If Monsanto by some miracle were also to lose, this could also be a precedent for putting BT corn, GM soy, and other GMOS under the same legal scrutiny and could be a step towards the moratorium we need to see on all GMOS to protect our environment and the health of humans and animals. Of course, with former Monsanto lawyer Clarence Thomas hearing this case the chances are slim, but considering the lower court ruling they still exist.

      http://current.com/news/90333588_federal-court-upholds-ban-on-genetically-modifi...

      I will be monitoring this case every day and posting as much as I can find on it.

    • 2 years ago
more from Tech:

top videos