US Supreme Court overturns ban on GM crop

Jun 21, 2010
Activists protest against a request by US biotech giant Monsanto against Germany's decision to ban a type of genetically modified maize, in Braunschweig, northern Germany, in 2009. The US Supreme Court has overturned a decision to ban biotech giant Monsanto's sale of genetically modified alfalfa despite farmers' fears that other crops could be contaminated.

In a landmark first ruling on genetically modified crops, the US Supreme Court overturned Monday a four-year ban on alfalfa seeds engineered by biotech giant Monsanto to resist weed killer.

A California district judge voided in 2007 the Department of Agriculture's authorization of the seeds, finding that a proper environmental review had not been conducted. The decision was upheld on appeal in 2009.

But justices voted 7-1 Monday to reverse the ruling, saying the injunction overstepped the mark and prevented the agency from carrying out a "partial deregulation" of the crop, known as Roundup Resistant Alfalfa (RRA).

"We agree that the district court's injunction against planting went too far," Justice Samuel Alito wrote. "In sum, the District Court abused its discretion."

Opponents of RRA claim it could cross pollinate with conventional alfalfa seeds and other neighboring crops, promoting "super-weeds" with a tolerance to the Roundup herbicide.

"Until APHIS (the DoA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) seeks to effect a partial deregulation, any judicial review of such a decision is premature," the Supreme Court said.

"The district court barred the agency from pursuing any deregulation, no matter how limited the geographic area in which planting of RRA would be allowed."

Justices ordered APHIS to carry out the long-awaited study and referred the case back to the lower courts.

Their decision that no new claims should be filed until the study is complete opens the way for the government to allow Monsanto to resume the limited sale and planting of genetically modified alfalfa seeds.

"Until such time as the agency decides whether and how to exercise its regulatory authority, however, the courts have no cause to intervene," the ruling said.

Plaintiffs, who are organic farmers supported by organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity, worry that genetically modified seeds will contaminate their crops.

Monsanto took the fight all the way to the highest court in the land, arguing that the federal court did not have authority to block the alfalfa seed sales. Alfalfa is the fourth most popular crop grown in the United States.

In a hearing in April, justices had appeared skeptical of the ban and questioned whether the environmental impact could have been properly assessed before the completion of the environmental impact study.

Judge Antonin Scalia minimized potential risks saying, "This is not the contamination of the New York city water supply. This isn't the end of the world. It really isn't."

The ninth justice, Stephen Breyer, had to recuse himself from the case because the judge who gave the initial ruling against Monsanto in California is his brother, Charles Breyer.

Explore further: Elucidating extremophilic 'microbial dark matter'

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Court Denies Vonage Bid for Patent Case Retrial

May 04, 2007

A U.S. appeals court denies a request by Internet phone company Vonage Holdings that it order a retrial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Verizon Communications.

Court rules against Bush administration

Mar 20, 2006

A federal appeals court has overturned a clean-air regulation issued by the Bush administration, ruling in favor of environmental advocacy groups.

Ariz. court rules records law covers 'metadata'

Oct 29, 2009

(AP) -- Hidden data embedded in electronic public records must be disclosed under Arizona's public records law, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that attracted interest from media and government organizations.

Herbicide diversity needed to keep Roundup effective

Jul 13, 2009

Using a diverse herbicide application strategy may increase production costs, but a five-year Purdue University study shows the practice will drastically reduce weeds and seeds that are resistant to a popular herbicide.

Recommended for you

For legume plants, a new route from shoot to root

Sep 19, 2014

A new study shows that legume plants regulate their symbiotic relationship with soil bacteria by using cytokinins—signaling molecules— that are transmitted through the plant structure from leaves into ...

Controlling the transition between generations

Sep 18, 2014

Rafal Ciosk and his group at the FMI have identified an important regulator of the transition from germ cell to embryonic cell. LIN-41 prevents the premature onset of embryonic transcription in oocytes poised ...

User comments : 9

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JCincy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
Monsanto already has produced and markets Roundup Ready seeds, such as soybeans and corn.

How did these seeds make into commercial use and alfalfa has not?

I'm not suggesting Roundup Ready seeds are good or bad, I'm just wondering what the difference or the danger is between Roundup Ready Alfalfa and Roundup Ready Corn in the environment.
knikiy
Jun 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
The Supreme Court is in the pocket of Monsanto.


Following hard upon the heels of "Citizens v United", I think that they have just demonstrated beyond a doubt that they are corporate sympathizers. Why are we not surprised?
Djincs
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
Monsanto already has produced and markets Roundup Ready seeds, such as soybeans and corn.

How did these seeds make into commercial use and alfalfa has not?

I'm not suggesting Roundup Ready seeds are good or bad, I'm just wondering what the difference or the danger is between Roundup Ready Alfalfa and Roundup Ready Corn in the environment.

I agree there is no difference, and round up ready crops are far more!Maybe the concerns are that alfalfa is not that cultivated and it is kind of wild species(it is more close to wild species that exist and maybe it is more likely to crosbread), but still i dont see any danger, alfalfa is not that invasive.
Despite the critisism Monsanto are doing great job, and they get money for that job-what a surprise and unjustice wollll!
knikiy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2010
Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, as quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994:
"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."

Djincs
5 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2010
yes the good old pesticide farming is much more great for envirenment and people, we all have used to it , it is just so easy to use chemicals for everything!
knikiy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2010
There are other choices. What's even better for the environment & people is organic farming. And there's no patent on that neither.
Djincs
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
Now we have organic farming, people who can aford it buy it, if all the food is organic the price wont drop significantly(thats why this is not a solution), GM is way too good than pesticides, and 90% of the concern linked with this food are baseless. The other 10% can be avoided with right testing and developing before introduction.
And i cant understand what is the problem with the patent, to create something like bt corn you need money , it is hard work and those who have to pay are farmers, after all for buying the seed they have profit from that thing, no one is that stuped!
And this money goes to developing new products, this is how our world work!At the end environment and people win-les pesticides, go and find information for the harmfull efect of pesticides then you can compare this with GM, and you will see what i am talking about.
knikiy
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
If migrant workers were paid minimum wage, food would be less affordable as well, organic or otherwise. Why not do the right thing for coming generations instead of just what is expedient and profitable for the few? Do we need more new products that just point us further in the direction of unsustainability?
Djincs
not rated yet Jul 06, 2010
I dont thing GM is unsustained, you should read more about the topic all the critisism of GM is lies, food price is important thing for a lots of people, and not only in the developing countries...and we have market here when GM lower the price for growing then eventually competition will lower the price in the market, and all the people will pay less, compared with organic it is far less, compared with pesticides it if far more helty, and genes are organic GM can have new genes but they are organic too- no chemicles here(or at least less)
Read this article :
http://www.taipei...03477210