permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SANET-MG] ORDER BANS PLANTING OR SALE OF CONTROVERSIAL CROP. 
COURT DENIES MONSANTO REQUEST TO ALLOW CONTINUED PLANTING
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:13:33 -0400
From: jcummins <jcummins@UWO.CA>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

From GM Watch
1.VICTORY! FEDERAL COURT RESCINDS USDA APPROVAL OF GENETICALLY 
ENGINEEREDSUGAR BEETS
2.Judge's ruling uproots use of biotechnology beets
---
---
1.VICTORY! FEDERAL COURT RESCINDS USDA APPROVAL OF GENETICALLY 
ENGINEEREDSUGAR BEETS

ORDER BANS PLANTING OR SALE OF CONTROVERSIAL CROP. COURT DENIES MONSANTO 
REQUEST TO ALLOW CONTINUED PLANTING

Today Judge Jeffrey White, federal district judge for the Northern 
District of California, issued a ruling granting the request of 
plaintiffs Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing 
Organic Seeds, andthe Sierra Club to rescind the United States 
Department of Agriculture's(USDA’s) approval of genetically engineered 
"Roundup Ready" sugar beets (Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 
C08-00484 JSW [N.D. Cal. 2010]). In September 2009, the Court had found 
that the USDA had violated theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
by approving the Monsanto-engineered biotech crop without first 
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. The crop was engineered to 
resist the effects of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, which it sells to 
farmers together with the patented seed. Similar Roundup Ready crops 
have led to increased use of herbicides, proliferation of herbicide 
resistant weeds, and contamination of conventional and organic crops.

In today's ruling the Court officially "vacated" the USDA "deregulation" 
of Monsanto's biotech sugar beets and prohibited any future planting and 
sale pending the agency’s compliance with NEPA and all other relevant 
laws. USDA has estimated that an EIS may be ready by 2012.

Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of plaintiff and co-counsel the 
Center for Food Safety, stated, "This is a major victory for farmers, 
consumers and the rule of law. USDA has once again acted illegally and 
had its approval of a biotech crop rescinded. Hopefully the agency will 
learn that their mandate is to protect farmers, consumers and the 
environment and not the bottom line of corporations such as Monsanto."

Paul Achitoff of Earthjustice, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, 
commented: "Time and again, USDA has ignored the law and abdicated its 
duty to protect the environment and American agriculture from 
genetically engineeredcrops designed to sell toxic chemicals. Time and 
again, citizens speaking truth to power have taken USDA to court and won."

In his order, Judge White noted that USDA's "errors are not minor or 
insignificant," and his "concern that Defendants are not taking this 
process seriously." He also pointed out that "despite the fact that the 
statutes at issue are designed to protect the environment," USDA and the 
sugar beet industry focused on the economic consequences to themselves, 
yet "failed to demonstrate that serious economic harm would be incurred 
pending a full economic review...."

The Court held in part:

…the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' request to vacate APHIS's decision to 
deregulate genetically engineered sugar beets and remands this matter to 
APHIS. Based on this vacatur, genetically engineered sugar beets are 
once again regulated articles pursuant to the Plant Protection Act. This 
vacaturapplies to all future plantings…

This is the second time a Court has rescinded USDA's approval of a 
biotech crop. The first such crop, Roundup Ready alfalfa, is also 
illegal to plant, based on the vacating of its deregulation in 2007 
pending preparation of an EIS. Although Monsanto took that case all the 
way to the Supreme Court and the High Court set aside part of the relief 
granted, the full prohibition on its planting - based on the same remedy 
granted here, the vacatur - remains in place. In the past several years 
federal courts have also held illegal USDA's approval of biotech crop 
field trials, includingthe testing of biotech grasses in Oregon and the 
testing of engineered, pharmaceutical-producing crops in Hawai'i.

We could not have won this important case without you! Stay tuned to the 
website for updates, and thank you for all your support!
---
---
2.Judge's ruling uproots use of biotechnology beets
MICHAEL LIEDTKE
Associated Press, 14 August 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ggF-I0WscO7Ejo_-2GgVKjVFe7XQD9HJFJ8O0

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge has revoked the government's approval of 
genetically altered sugar beets until regulators complete a more 
thoroughreview of how the scientifically engineered crops affect other food.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White Friday means sugar 
beet growers won't be able to use the modified seeds after harvesting 
the biotechnology beets already planted on more than 1 million acres 
spanning 10 states from Michigan to Oregon. All the seed comes from 
Oregon's Willamette Valley.

Additional planting won't be allowed until the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture submits an environmental impact statement. That sort of 
extensive examination can take two or three years.

White declined a request to issue an injunction that would have imposed 
apermanent ban on the biotech beets, which Monsanto Co. developed to 
resist its popular weed killer, Roundup Ready. Farmers have embraced the 
technology as a way to lower their costs on labor, fuel and equipment.

The Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance and Sierra Club have 
been trying to uproot the biotech beets since filing a 2008 lawsuit.

Andrew Kimbrell, the Center for Food Safety's executive director, hailed 
Friday's decision as a major victory in the fight against genetically 
engineered crops and chided the Agriculture Department for approving the 
genetically engineered seeds without a full environmental review.

"Hopefully, the agency will learn that their mandate is to protect 
farmers, consumers and the environment and not the bottom line of 
corporations such as Monsanto," Kimbrell said in a statement.

Attempts to reach the Agriculture Department for comment Saturday were 
unsuccessful. Monsanto, based in St. Louis, referred requests for 
comment to the America Sugarbeet Growers Association, which pointed to a 
Saturday statement from the Sugar Industry Biotech Council.

In the statement, the sugar beet council said it intends to help the 
Agriculture Department come up with "interim measures" that would allow 
continued production of the genetically altered seeds while regulators 
conducttheir environmental review.

If a temporary solution isn't found, the planting restrictions are 
likelyto cause major headaches for sugar beet growers and food processors.

The genetically altered sugar beets provide about one-half of the U.S. 
sugar supply and some farmers have warned there aren't enough 
conventional seeds and herbicide to fill the void. The scientific seeds 
account for about 95 percent of the current sugar beet crop in the U.S.

"The value of sugar beet crops is critically important to rural 
communities and their economies," the Sugar Industry Biotech Council 
said Saturday.

White expressed little sympathy for any disruption his decision might 
cause. He noted in his 10-page ruling that regulators had time to 
prepare for the disruption because he had already overturned the 
deregulation of the genetically altered beets in a decision issued last 
September.

The Agriculture Department "has already had more than sufficient time to 
take interim measures, but failed to act expediently," White wrote.

Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups contend 
genetically altered crops such as the sugar beets could share their 
genes with conventionally grown food, such as chard and table beets.

Those arguments helped persuade another federal judge in San Francisco 
tostop the planting of genetically altered alfalfa seeds in 2007 pending 
afull environmental review that still hasn't been completed.

Monsanto took that case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 
June overturned an injunction against the company's sale of the modified 
seeds.