|
 |
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
Jun. 23, 2010 AgNetwork.com writer Dan Murphy reports: Is it possible for a Supreme Court ruling to be a victory for both sides? You might think so if you read the responses of the opposing sides regarding yesterday's decision on genetically engineered alfalfa. Read on and judge for yourself. Here's the summary: The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in striking down a nationwide ban on planting of the Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready alfalfa. The Court ruled that it was legal for a federal District Court judge to disallow deregulation of the crop and order the Agriculture Department to conduct an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). But Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the judge went too far in issuing a nationwide ban on use of the seeds designed to withstand Roundup and other herbicides used for pre-emergent weed control. "This is exceptionally good news received in time for the next planting season," Steve Welker, Monsanto's alfalfa business lead, said in a news release. "We have Roundup Ready alfalfa seed ready to deliver and await USDA guidance on its release. Our goal is to have everything in place for growers to plant in fall 2010." However, the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety, which has been involved in the litigation leading up to the Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms decision and which takes credit for helping to halt the introduction of genetically engineered wheat and other GMO crops, including a recent federal court ruling against GMO sugar beets, disagreed. "This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers and most conventional farmers," said Andrew Kimbrell, the Center's Executive Director. "Roundup Ready alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmer's livelihoods and the environment. The Court rightly dismissed Monsanto's claim that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and America's farmers." So who's right? To help answer that question, Kimbrell spoke with AgNetwork.com Contributing Editor Dan Murphy just hours after the ruling was announced. AgNetwork.com: Both sides are claiming "victory" here. Monsanto issued a news release saying the ruling would allow farmers to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa this fall. Are they right? Kimbrell: No. They're wrong. The legal status of Roundup Ready alfalfa (RRA) is unchanged. Farmers cannot plant it until USDA completes the regulatory process. Justice Samuel Alioto, who wrote the majority decision, said that the alfalfa "cannot be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place." The crop has to be regulated under the Plant Protection Act and USDA has to finalize an EIS. During the recent 60-day comment period [that closed on Feb. 16], USDA received more than 200,000 comments regarding its deregulation of RRA, and [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services] officials already told the Supreme Court it will take a year to process those comments and issue an EIS. So nobody's going to be planting RRA this season. AgNetwork.com: But didn't the Supreme Court ruling effectively overturn the District Court injunction that banned RRA? Kimbrell: Not really The Court did two things. First, it said that the [District Court] Judge (Charles) Breyer's injunction was too broad. He did not permit a partial deregulation option that should be available to USDA. Basically, the lower court cannot restrict USDA's regulatory options. Second, the Court said that the lower court's order requiring an EIS effectively forbade the sale and use of RRA, so the imposition of an injunction banning its use was unnecessary. AgNetwork.com: So why is Monsanto calling this ruling a favorable one for them? Kimbrell: I don't know. As a genetically engineered crop, Roundup Ready alfalfa is regulated and subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires a detailed EIS for any action impacting the environment, which RRA certainly does. The bottom line here is that Monsanto appealed parts of the [District Court] injunction, and then on appeal asked the Supreme Court to accept their injunctive relief-which the Court refused to do. AgNetwork.com: Looking at the bigger picture, what is the Center for Food Safety's opposition to genetically engineered alfalfa? You stated that contamination of organic alfalfa fields could occur, but isn't cross-pollination going to happen with different varieties anyway? Kimbrell: The point is that there is no genetic difference between different varieties of alfalfa developed by conventional plant breeding, so there's no genetic "pollution." But GE crops engineered with gene transfer technology are genetically different, and USDA's organic statues specifically prohibit contamination of organic crops with GMOs. That's the problem. You have tolerance limits for pesticide and herbicide residues on organic crops to account for wind drift. But bio-pollution with different genetic material is strictly prohibited. AgNetwork.com: But why the opposition to alfalfa? There's no threat to human health, is there? Kimbrell: Well, there is a problem with herbicide and pesticide residues that get into the meat and milk from cows fed with the alfalfa, but the real reason is that Monsanto is developing Roundup Ready alfalfa for only one reason: To sell herbicides. It doesn't increase yields, and the quality of the crop isn't improved. It simply puts another crop on the toxic treadmill, which eventually could cause the emergence of super weeds resistant to herbicides and requiring the development of more and more toxic products to deal with them. That would be a real problem for farmers. AgNetwork.com: Is the Center opposed to all biotechnology? What about the research aimed at increasing food crops' nutritional value, or developing drought-resistant crops that could provide food for growing populations in developing countries? Kimbrell: Al that is fine, and as soon as it happens, we'll support it. It hasn't happened yet, though. So far, 80% of biotech research has been used to create proprietary, herbicide-tolerant crops that encourage the use of poisonous chemicals that degrade the environment. It's been about private corporations making profits, not about improving our food supply. Look, we don't oppose all biotechnology. But we're not going to support the introduction of herbicide-resistant crops. That's why we're fighting this GMO alfalfa case. Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
