Federal judge orders destruction of illegal GM sugar beets

[Twisted Titan]

Federal judge orders destruction of illegal GM sugar beets


By Caroline Scott-Thomas, Food Navigator

A federal court judge has ordered the destruction of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets planted in September, saying that they were planted in contravention of a previous court decision.
US District Court Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco found that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had illegally allowed the planting of sugar beets genetically modified to resist Roundup Ready herbicide, despite an earlier court decision requiring the government agency to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to planting. The order to destroy the beets will come into effect on December 6 to allow time for appeal.

Judge White said in the court order: “The legality of Defendants’ conduct does not even appear to be a close question. It appears clear that Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants were merely seeking to avoid the impact of the Court’s prior order.”

The lawsuit was filed in September by environmental groups alleging the USDA's action violated an earlier decision by Judge White.

In response to the court’s decision, lead counsel for the plaintiffs Paul Achitoff of Earthjustice said: “USDA has shown no regard for the environmental laws, and we’re pleased that Judge White ordered the appropriate response.”

Monsanto is currently the only supplier of GM sugar beets.

Plaintiff Center for Food Safety’s Senior Staff Attorney George Kimbrell said: “Today’s decision is a seminal victory for farmers and the environment and a vindication of the rule of law. The public interest has prevailed over USDA’s repeated efforts to implement the unlawful demands of the biotech industry.”

Sugar supply disruption?

According an earlier ruling by Judge White in August, this year’s beets will still be allowed to be harvested and processed as usual, but sugar farmers have warned that US sugar supply could be disrupted from 2011. GM sugar beets account for 95 percent of those being grown in the US, according to USDA figures, with beet sugar providing about half of the total US sugar supply.

Judge White also ruled in August that the planting of GM sugar beets should be halted until the USDA put together an EIS, expected to be completed by the end of May 2012. However, the USDA said that it would allow limited planting of the sugar beets while the EIS was prepared and issued permits to four companies, which had already planted seedlings to produce seed for the 2012 crop – a move that the court ruled in October was illegal.


http://home.ezezine.com/1636/1636-20...7.archive.html

[Twisted Titan]

Monsanto is currently the only supplier of GM sugar beets.


The planting of GM sugar beets should be halted until the USDA put together an EIS, expected to be completed by the end of May 2012. However, the USDA said that it would allow limited planting of the sugar beets while the EIS was prepared and issued permits to four companies



One Corporation owes all...... The Other issues Permission slips to eat.


A most perfect Fascism indeed.

[osoab]

The S.C. ruled in the favor of allowing GM alfalfa to be planted after a federal court banned it.
There was about a 3 year time frame from ban to reversal. I wonder how fast Monsanto can fast tract this case.
I'll give 2 years on the sugar beets. I mean, sugar beets are not grown everywhere like alfalfa.

I have no idea why you would want to spray roundup on your alfalfa. Must be one crappy stand of hay.


Supreme Court rules on GM alfalfa, but who won? (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293770)


Jun 23, 2010

In the first case of its kind to come before them, the U.S. Supreme Court this week overturned a ban on planting genetically-modified alfalfa, at the same time returning the matter for further review by the USDA. Both sides are claiming victory.
The case, Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms involves alfalfa that has been genetically-modified to tolerate Monsanto’s widely-used herbicide Roundup. In 2006, the US Dept. of Agriculture approved the seeds for planting after deciding that a full environmental review was not necessary. Geertson sued, and in 2007, a district court imposed the nationwide ban.
About 22 million acres of alfalfa are grown in the U.S. for use as cattle feed and hay.
The ban was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals, and Monsanto took the case to the Supreme Court. The high court sided with Monsanto, ruling that the district court had overstepped its jurisdiction.
“This is exceptionally good news received in time for the next planting season,” said Monsanto’s alfalfa business chief Steve Welker. “We have Roundup Ready alfalfa seed ready to deliver and await USDA guidance on release.”
And therein lies the difference.
The National Cooperative Grocers Association, made up of 114 natural food co-ops, praised the court’s ruling for maintaining a USDA decision against making the genetically-modified alfalfa available for widespread commercial use. After the initial court ruling, the USDA reversed its original position and agreed it would conduct a full environmental impact review.
“Although the decision does not uphold an indefinite ban on genetically-engineered alfalfa, it provides consumers and farmers the opportunity to voice their opinions and challenge any potential deregulation of alfalfa,” reads an organization press release.
Concerns about genetically-modified alfalfa were recently outlined in a letter being circulated around Congress by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, particularly as it relates to the $1.4 billion organic dairy industry, as well as other organic enterprises.
They point out that the USDA already recognizes that the genetically-modified alfalfa will spread and contaminate other crops, impacting other farmers; foreign markets that ban genetically-modified foods will be put at risk; and that farmers will have to use even more toxic herbicides if they want to remove the Roundup Ready alfalfa.
The ruling has been closely watched by other groups. Environmental groups say the ruling will hamper their ability to challenge the actions of federal agencies, while business and industry groups say the courts should raise the bar on such challenges.