|
 |
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
Apr. 28, 2010 St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports: Monsanto Co. asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to set aside a 2007 ban on genetically engineered alfalfa ordered amid fears that the crop might contaminate nonmodified plants. In the Supreme Court's first case dealing with genetically modified crops, Monsanto, based in Creve Coeur, MO, sought to convince justices that a federal district court in California went too far in siding with growers of conventional alfalfa who were worried about contamination from the pollen of genetically modified plants. "There is absolutely no evidence in the record whatsoever of cross-pollination," asserted Monsanto lawyer Gregory Garre. The issue is particularly important for growers who sell to Europe and other markets that ban genetically altered crops, mostly out of health concerns. The case stems from a lawsuit filed four years ago by Idaho alfalfa grower Phillip Geertson and others. A northern California district court ruled for Geertson when he argued that conventional and organic growers faced the "likelihood of irreparable harm" from contamination. The district court allowed farmers who had purchased the Monsanto-engineered seeds to plant. But it prohibited further distribution of the seeds until the Agriculture Department completed an environmental impact statement. The ruling was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Alfalfa is used mainly for livestock feed, and much of what is grown is exported. Conventional farmers fear the economic implications of the altered seeds, which are modified to protect plants from applications of Monsanto's Roundup Ready herbicide and have become popular among farmers seeking to rid their fields of weeds.The so-called contamination can occur when seed is spilled along roads or when pollen gets transferred between fields by wind or insects. Whatever the court rules also may have a bearing on regulation of other Monsanto products, such as genetically modified sugar beets. The case has implications for the biotech industry as well as for organic farmers and environmental advocates. The biotech industry has preferred operating under what the Agriculture Department calls its streamlined regulatory approach rather than more intensive oversight that could slow the movement of products to the market. Rice growers in Arkansas, the Missouri Bootheel and elsewhere are watching the case because of uncertainties related to genetic contamination of their crops. In a brief filed in the Monsanto case, rice growers contended that contamination of long-grain rice had already cost their industry $1 billion. Organic food interests, too, are participating in the case and have pointed out that about half of the alfalfa hay grown in the United States is for dairy farms. In presenting the government's position, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart echoed some of Monsanto's arguments. He said he expected that it would take another year for the Agriculture Department to complete the environmental impact statement ordered by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. Breyer is the brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who recused himself from the Monsanto case. Lawrence Robbins, who argued the case for Geertson and the other plaintiffs, referred to earlier testimony in predicting that within two years, the plantings of modified alfalfa could increase fivefold to 1 million acres. "In a year, six months, people might have to get ready for a different world, if not a brave new world," he said, referring to the spread of windblown pollen from engineered alfalfa. Justices peppered the lawyers with questions about genetically engineered crops, a topic not considered previously by the high court even though gene-altered seeds were approved for planting in the United States in 1996. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the district judge could have avoided the ban by returning the case to the Agriculture Department, the agency charged with determining the safety of modified crops. Roberts also brought up the contention that conventional and organic growers faced a "likelihood" of harm from genetic contamination. He said he was surprised that the court had not previously taken up the question of whether "likely means more likely than not." Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted Robbins when he made a reference to poisoning the water in New York City while speaking generally of contamination threats. "This isn't contamination of New York City's water supply. ... This is not the end of the world, it really isn't," Scalia said. "The most it does is affect the farmers who want to cater to the European markets." Robbins responded that Japan and other nations also demand products grown without genetic modification. "They (organic growers) have chosen this rapidly growing, large business with billions of dollars at stake," he said. While raising questions about the lower court ruling, justices also grilled Monsanto's lawyer about whether the company was seeking a review of the merits of the lower court decision when the company's appeal was based on the scope of the injunction. Geertson, 71, who was on hand for the oral arguments, said in an interview afterward that he had moved his alfalfa seed business to western Canada, where modified alfalfa can't be grown. "I think they're arguing about legal issues while the house is burning down," he said, referring to the spread of engineered seed. A decision in Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms is expected in June. Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
