Center for Food Safety
Kevin Golden
Washington, D.C. – In a decision handed down today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa pending a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Court determined that the planting of genetically modified alfalfa can result in potentially irreversible harm to organic and conventional varieties of crops, damage to the environment, and economic harm to farmers.
Although the suit was brought against United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); Forage Genetics and Monsanto Company entered into the suit as Defendant-Intervenors. In her opinion, Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder held that “Monsanto and Forage Genetics contend that the District Court disregarded their financial losses, but the district court considered those economic losses and simply concluded that the harm to growers and consumers who wanted non-genetically engineered alfalfa outweighed the financial hardships to Monsanto and Forage Genetics and their growers.”
“This ruling affirms a major victory for consumers, ranchers, organic farmers, and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “Roundup Ready Alfalfa represents a very real threat to farmers’ livelihoods and the environment; the judge rightly dismissed Monsanto’s claims that their bottom line should come before the rights of the public and America’s farmers. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country.”
Today’s decision upholds District Court Judge Charles Breyer’s earlier ruling of May 2007, in which he found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. Judge Schroeder’s decision affirms that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement. It also affirms that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant “superweeds” that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa.
The Center for Food Safety represented itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms. For more information, please visit www.centerforfoodsafety.org.
Engineered Alfalfa Ban Upheld On Appea
San Francisco Chronicle
Bob Egelko,Bernadette Tansey, Chronicle Staff Writers
A federal appeals court upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa Tuesday until the government completes a study on whether the altered seeds would contaminate other farmers’ alfalfa crops.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge’s decision that halted the planting of Monsanto Co.’s herbicide-resistant strain of alfalfa on March 30, 2007. The suit was filed by alfalfa farmers who feared that the Monsanto product, spread by winds and bees, would pollinate their crops and take over their fields.
The ruling was “a major victory for farmers, both conventional and organic, for consumers and for the environment,” said attorney George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, which represented the plaintiffs. He said it helps consumers who don’t want dairy products from cattle that forage on altered alfalfa and protects growers who want to export crops to Japan, which bans genetically modified alfalfa.
Monsanto had no comment.
It was the second victory in a week for opponents of genetically modified food. The state Legislature passed a bill last week that would shield California farmers from lawsuits by companies such as Monsanto when patented pollen and seed drift onto their land.
The bill, AB541, was a response to patent infringement suits by biotech companies against farmers who grew genetically altered crops because of uninvited pollination. The measure would protect farmers who acquired such crops unknowingly and had minimal levels of patented seeds on their land.
Tuesday’s ruling involved Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa, so named because it is designed to withstand applications of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Alfalfa, used for hay and cattle feed, is grown on 23 million acres and is the nation’s fourth-largest crop. California, with 1 million acres, is the leading producer.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the Monsanto alfalfa in 2005, saying buffer zones around organic farms would protect them from unwanted pollination.
But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco rejected the USDA’s assurances last year and ruled that the department had failed to conduct a thorough study of the product’s safety and environmental effects.
Saying some crops had already been contaminated despite buffer zones, Breyer allowed farmers who had already bought Roundup Ready alfalfa to plant and harvest it, but prohibited further sales and planting until the government studied the possibility of effects on other crops and on human health. It was the first-ever injunction against a genetically altered, government-approved commercial crop, said the Center for Food Safety, which represented the plaintiffs.
The appeals court upheld Breyer’s ruling on Tuesday, saying the USDA and Monsanto have now conceded that the government approved the product without conducting the required study.
Breyer reasonably concluded that, “while agricultural biotechnology has social value,” Monsanto’s alfalfa should be banned while its impact is studied, “because failing to do so could potentially eliminate the availability of non-genetically engineered alfalfa,” said Judge Mary Schroeder in the majority opinion.
Judge Randy Smith dissented, saying Breyer should have held an additional hearing and listened to Monsanto’s witnesses before issuing a nationwide injunction with “severe economic consequences” for the company and its customers.
