US Supreme Court lifts ban on sale of GM crop

Source: afp

AFP - The US Supreme Court overturned Monday a decision to ban biotech giant Monsanto's sale of genetically modified alfalfa despite farmers' fears that other crops could be contaminated.

Read more: http://www.france24.com/en/20100621-us-supreme-court-lifts-ban-sale-gm-crop

MONSANTO CO. v. GEERTSON SEED FARMS
STEVENS, J., dissenting
American business, and that limits on RRA deregulation might not be followed or enforced—and that even if theywere, the newly engineered gene might neverthelessspread to other crops. Confronted with those disconcert-ing submissions, with APHIS’s unlawful deregulationdecision, with a group of farmers who had staked their livelihoods on APHIS’s decision, and with a federal statute that prizes informed decisionmaking on matters that seriously affect the environment, the court did the best itcould. In my view, the District Court was well within its discretion to order the remedy that the Court now re-verses. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf

Stevens' proposed replacement argued for the U.S. in support of lifting the ban, even though Bush's USDA had not complied with law before giving Monsanto the go ahead.

She'll sell out every time to the big corps.

Expect a lot of what used to be 5-4's turn to 6-3's in commercial cases.

But, she's a friend of Obamas.

Perhaps Obama should look farther afield for some new friends.

If a farmer fears his crops will become contaminated by Monsanto's experiments, then he should have protection and not another give-away to big corporations by the Supreme Bozos...

complied with!

Bah.

:grr:

The Supreme Court lifted Monday a four-year ban on the sale in the United States of genetically modified alfalfa, which farmers fear contaminates others crops.

A district court judge in California in May 2007 blocked the US biotech giant Monsanto from selling alfalfa seeds that it had genetically modified to resist its Roundup weed killer.

The ruling was upheld on appeal in 2009, but Monsanto went to the Supreme Court arguing that any decision should have awaited the findings of a study by the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

"Until APHIS seeks to effect a partial deregulation, any judicial review of such a decision is premature," the Supreme Court said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100621/sc_afp/uscourtcompanymonsantofarmbiotech

Needless to say this news sickens me.

And Stevens is retiring.

This corporatist trend is literally going to kill us all off.

... that is merely the icing on the corporate cake being served.

:grr:

The case regarding support for "terrorist" organziations --- Stevens joined with Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy to make up the majority, while Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.

Of the other two cases decided today, in one Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens dissneted with Breyer joining the conservative majority while in the other it was the conservative five v. Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens.

At this point, assuming that things would change substantially with Kagan replacing Sotomayor is foolish guesswork.

New movie damns Monsanto's deadly sins
Feature story - March 7, 2008


A new movie has dealt yet another severe blow to the credibility of US based Monsanto, one of the biggest chemical companies in the world and the provider of the seed technology for 90 percent of the world’s genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The French documentary, called "The world according to Monsanto" and directed by independent filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, paints a grim picture of a company with a long track record of environmental crimes and health scandals.

The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the "revolving door". One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company's vice president for public policy.

Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market.

Monsanto's long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.

Monsanto's background

Monsanto was founded in 1901 as a chemical company. Its history is intimately linked to the production and promotion of highly toxic chemicals such as Agent Orange (used as a chemical weapon in the Vietnam war) and PCBs (widespread toxic pollutants). Robin's movie reveals that Monsanto already knew about the "systematic toxic effects" of PCBs for decades, but instructed its salespeople to stay silent because, "we can't afford to lose one dollar."

More:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/monsanto_movie080307/

and the Supreme Court is losing touch with reality

His SCOTUS picks will insure that our country continues down the same path that brought us the economic meltdown and gulf oil spill.

Corporate fascists everyone of them

Monsanto = famine

BP = famine and death

? = pestilence

? = war

We're already half way there. Can WEtop the other two horsemen before they arrive?

although we have always had both, I'm assuming that the pestilence and war that will be brought by the Four Horsemen are going to be worse than anything this old world has seen before (at least in the human years) and I don't know who/what to put there.

Monsanto is famine because they are working very hard to destroy the diversification of our food crops causing the very probable possibility that a blight or disease will wipe much of our food supply.

BP's gusher in the Gulf is death for obvious reason and famine because we rely greatly on the oceans for food and for the food chain.

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court overturned on Monday a ruling that barred Monsanto Co from selling its genetically modified alfalfa seed until the federal government completed an environmental review.

By a 7-1 vote, the justices in their first decision involving genetically modified crops overturned a lower-court ruling that barred the sales until the completion of an environmental impact study on how the Roundup Ready seed could affect nearby crops.

Read more: http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/Monsanto-wins-top-court-alfalfa-seed-ruling-2010-06-21T141549Z-US

---

Our corporate overlords win again. Supremes wouldn't have it any other way.

polluting THEIR crops with foreign GM seeds that were involuntarily blown onto their property and took root. Why is it Monsanto sues them for theft of their product?

In any case, mandatory labeling for GM crops of any sort!

This is one of those cases where the big guy totally dominates the issue.

practice that wears you down financially.

to investigating and prosecuting farmers. The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments"

The odds are clearly stacked against the farmer.

The theory of the case would be nuisance.
If someone let a cow out of its pasture and it did damage to another farmer's crop, the owner of the cow would be liable. Why not the same for Monsanto which is unable to keep its seed within its land?

As it happens, Monsanto only actually sues those farmers which do steal their product.

Monsanto takes no responsibility for the accidental cross-pollination / contamination of their seeds from field to field, uncovered truck on the road to the elevator, etc., yet admits it is 'vital' to win cases against small farmers who have had their crops contaiminated, in order to keep their monopoly.

Canadian seed accidentally contaminated that was sold to Europe contained a small percentage of GM modified seed ...... Gov'ts were furious and many farmers plowed their crops under. The contamination occurred from a field more than a km away. No ... they don't steal this freak seed.

From eating MonSatan FrankenHay?

7 - 1 huh? So who were the other two who sold out this time?

Watch the documentary: "Food Inc."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100621/pl_afp/uscourtcompanymonsantofarmbiotech_20100621150216

The Supreme Court simply said that there was a legal and procedural process to follow, and that the lower courts overstepped their authority because they did not wait for findings from the Department of Agriculture, as it should have done. This doesn't mean that there won't be a ban in the future, it simply means that you can't go about banning things without either the reason or authority to do so.

as more of a procedural issue as well. It didn't appear that science was even argues, although perhaps it was at a lower level.

Of course had anyone wailing and gnashing their teeth read the opinion they would have realized that what you posted reflected the actual case.

It's a victory for Kagan.

Oh. We are soooo sooorrrryyy we poisoned the food supplies, but it is a procedural matter, you understand.

The plaintiff was trying to block *any* planting, so there could be no actual findings. The court said that you cannot block science through legal challenges.

edit: typo

Hmmm, well there are no definitive studies that really PROVE that GM products are harmful to humans. Actually, GM crops FEED hungry people and keep them alive. And to make corporate farm revert to prior methods of weed-killing will kill food production.

Decision: Let them keep their GM food.

n/tr

in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project where he sided with Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy with Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer dissenting.

got the info here:

http://iowaindependent.com/37197/supreme-court-sides-with-monsanto-lifts-ban-on-genetically-modified-alfalfa

So much for the quaint belief that Republicans are America's only issue.

those robes sure do get around - and to think I thought they were just for show

Ironically, the lower courts did what you accuse SCOTUS of.

If you read the opinion, SCOTUS makes no ruling on the science and does chastise the lower court for acting before the reports from govt were in.

No regard for the poor smaller farmers who wanted to keep their own product safe and no regard for the American consumer.

All we need is for one of these corporate justices to retire so we can appoint a non-corporate justice and rebalance the Supreme Court

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Supreme Court Decision on Biotech Alfalfa – Who Wins?

Jun 21, 2010

The big news kicking off the week is the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7-1 ruling to reverse a lower court’s ban on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa product. Media reports trumpeted Monsanto’s win:

•High Court Sides With Monsanto in Alfalfa Case -Wall Street Journal
•Monsanto Wins as Court Backs Alfalfa Seed Planting (Update1) – Bloomberg
•Monsanto wins Supreme Court ruling – Des Moines Register
•Justices Back Monsanto on Biotech Seed Planting – Wall Street Journal
Then, surprisingly, the Center for Food Safety issued a statement mid-day claiming victory. According to CFS, they are “celebrating” today the victory of a 7-1 ruling against them. I guess maybe CFS runs with a glass half-full mentality.

We had a reporter call and ask if CFS mistakenly issued the wrong statement. Go figure.

What happens now?
The court’s ruling is clear, and it unequivocally overturns the ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa. That does not mean that alfalfa seed can be planted today, but the Supreme Court decision does clear the way. Now, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) can determine what interim measures need to be established for farmers to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa while the agency completes the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). That framework could include processes such as minimum distance requirements for planting.

No date has been set by USDA/APHIS for the completion of the EIS nor when a final decision will be made to deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa. Partial deregulation does NOT have to wait until after the EIS is complete, which the USDA estimates is approximately a year away. During the Supreme Court proceedings, USDA-APHIS stated it saw no reason to block expanded planting in the interim of the EIS completion.

USDA-APHIS had a proposed framework in place for partial deregulation at the time of the original court proceedings to allow farmers to plant.

Alfalfa is planted in the spring and fall, and Monsanto and its seed partner, Forage Genetics International (FGI), hope to be able to deliver seed in time for fall planting under USDA’s guidance.

What about sugarbeets?
The Supreme Court decision doesn’t a have direct impact on other crops, including Roundup Ready sugarbeets.

What it does is give a clear legal process to environmental challenges. A court can’t order an injunction (ban) on the presumption of harm (as it did in Roundup Ready alfalfa), but must follow a four-factor test to determine whether injunctive relief is necessary. Learn more about the four-factor test (and why this ban didn’t pass muster), in the official court ruling.

http://www.monsantoblog.com/2010/06/21/supreme-court-decision-roundup-ready-alfalfa/

Redstone