Supreme Court to Take First Look at Monsanto Genetically Modified Crops

[Robbien]

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Tuesday involving a federal judge's temporary ban on a breed of pesticide-resistant alfalfa, setting the stage for the court's first-ever ruling on genetically modified crops.

Legal experts do not expect a blockbuster decision on the merits of regulating modified plants such as Monsanto Co.'s Roundup Ready alfalfa, but the case, Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, has drawn widespread interest because the justices could issue a ruling that would raise or lower the threshold for challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Environmental groups, which frequently use the statute to bring lawsuits against government agencies and industry groups, "don't expect anything good" to come from the Supreme Court's eventual decision, said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club. It seems that some of the justices are "on a kick to gut NEPA remedies," he said earlier this year during a panel discussion on environmental law at Georgetown University.

That sense of foreboding is compounded by the fact that the case comes from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a frequent source of environmental cases struck down by the Supreme Court. Last year, when the Supreme Court overturned five decisions favoring environmentalists, four had come from the 9th Circuit (Greenwire, June 25, 2009).

The Monsanto case stems from a 2006 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Led by Phillip Geertson, a producer of organic alfalfa seeds from Adrian, Ore., the plaintiffs claimed that Roundup Ready alfalfa could spread its genes to alfalfa in neighboring fields, potentially preventing the other farmers from marketing their produce as organic.

Organic farmers convinced the court that they faced a "likelihood of irreparable harm" from genetic contamination, securing a ban on planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa that would remain in place until the Department of Agriculture concludes an environmental review.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/22/22greenwire-supreme-court-to-take-first-look-at-genetically-4425.html

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. A former Montsano employee (lawyer) is ON the Supreme Court, no?

Boy, this is going to be fair. :sarcasm:

[Robbien]

5. That would be Clarence Thomas

if I am remembering correctly

He is the one responsible for the ruling that farmers can no longer save their own seeds but have to buy new every year from Monsanto.

[truth2power]

10. Shouldn't he recuse himself, then?? Yeah, fat chance. n/t

[truedelphi]

2. In a government run by the Wall Street and Monsanto interests, I am not going to

Hold my breath on this one.

There probably is a way to stop this nonsense - the fact that the monstrous changes, including the rather scary increase in fungal material found in grain crops now that the GMO stuff is out there, means if this were a just nation, we would have more than the "Doctrine of Substantially Similar" standing between us and famine.

But in CorpoRATe run Amerika, I don't think anyone is speaking for common sense. And certainly no one at SCOTUS seems to be speaking for common sense. Far better that Monsanto realizes its profits today and tomorrow and for the next ten years, than that our nation has edible food.

[nosmokes]

3. As if this Court would ever rule against a multi-national corporation that

wields such great power and influence as the world's leading dealer in weaponized food.

[gateley]

4. But Monsanto could go after the same farmer for the same reason -- because

their patented seeds blew into his crops -- and that's fair? I. Hate. Monsanto. I want to see them go down.

[texastoast]

6. Oh, this should go well

for us organic folks.

:sarcasm:

[FiveGoodMen]

7. ...and mandate their consumption by all Americans.

[marmar]

8. No Sh*t.......

The Corporate Supreme Court, led by Chief Corporate Justice Roberts, will probably order taxpayers to reimburse Monsanto's legal expenses.

[Prometheus Bound]

9. Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters

April 20, 2010 HuffingtonPost
“This study was just routine,” said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn’t shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov’s Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html