SUBSCRIBE

Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development - North AmericaEU edition | Asian edition

Trends > The GM debate

Plaintiffs hail dismissal of appeal in GM sugar beet case

5 commentsBy Caroline Scott-Thomas , 26-May-2011

A US court of appeals has said that Monsanto must produce further studies examining the environmental impact of its genetically modified (GM) sugar beets before they can be planted on a commercial scale.

The dismissal of Monsanto’s appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been welcomed by plaintiffs in the suit, who have hailed it as a benchmark case meaning the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will have to prepare a thorough review of its sugar beets, which have been engineered for resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup-brand insecticide, before they can re-enter commercial production. The USDA has said it expects to complete an Environmental Impact Statement by mid-2012.

Center for Food Safety (CFS) attorney George Kimbrell said in a statement that the order, passed on Friday, “cements a critical legal benchmark in the battle for meaningful oversight of biotech crops and food.”

He said: “Because of this case, there will be public disclosure and debate on the harmful impacts of these pesticide-promoting crops, as well as legal protections for farmers threatened by contamination.”

However, Monsanto said in an emailed statement that the dismissal would have little effect.

It said: “As a result of subsequent court decisions and USDA actions, continuation of the appeals had little consequence for Roundup Ready sugarbeet growers or seed companies. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has issued interim measures to allow the planting of Roundup Ready sugarbeets and farmers are planting their Roundup Ready sugarbeet crops.”

In August last year, US District Court Judge Jeffrey White ruled in favor of the coalition of environmental groups led by Earthjustice and the Center for Food Safety – which are also the plaintiffs in this latest case – to block the further cultivation of GM sugar beets while an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared. The plaintiffs had expressed concern that GM beet pollen could contaminate non-GM and organic crops because sugar beets are wind pollinated.

During this case’s appeal the USDA allowed planting of GM sugar beets to continue on a partially regulated basis for the 2011-2012 season. That issue is the subject of separate litigation.

GM sugar beets account for 95 percent of those being grown in the US, according to USDA figures, with beet sugar providing about half of the total US sugar supply.

5 comments (Comments are now closed)

Endless Growth Economics Doom

Burning crops will actually change things...

Report abuse

Posted by RootCauseAnalysis
27 May 2011 | 20h132011-05-27T20:13:09Z

Farmers.....its up to You !

Why on earth, do we even Think, we need to tamper with mother nature?
Why indeed....when what we have already works, is 'self-sustaining' (produces seeds, and is free for all who wish to grow their own.
Hmmm.....free for all.....I think that right their is the problem in the greedy eyes of certain globalists.

Listen Up globalists,
We do Not want fake food, food that animals even turn their noses up at.

Farmers......I do not care if these GMO company's offer you millions.....Do Not Sell Out Our Future Generations.

These globalists want us in chains, forced to buy their toxic food.
They even employ (employ) the courts to lay siege against those who will not bend a knee to helping in the destruction of the worlds food supply.

Boycott ALL things related to these vile cancers of earth, and do not accept anti-human 'regulations'

Report abuse

Posted by Robert Munse
27 May 2011 | 19h342011-05-27T19:34:38Z

Uintended Consequences and Rights of Others

It seems almost invariable that when the subject of GMO's is brought up that it attracts a cloud of proponents trying to obscure what are straight forward issuses.

1. In genetically modifying an organism other unintended modifications in the plant genome occur. Contrary to the mantra of it being "science" never mentioned is that it is not exact science.

2. Farmers grow what is profitable and available. If they have genetically modified seed shoved down their throat if they want to stay in business they have to grow the genetically modified seed or change crops. There is nothing that REQUIRES them to use genetically modified seed.

3. We have a limited store of knowledge on the adverse affects of genetically modified crops, and their suitability for human consumption. Animal studies, when they are not conducted by Monsanto (or Bayer or any other Biotech COMPANY seeking to forge a monopoly market) have a FINANCIAL INTEREST in suppressing adverse study results. Of the few independent studies done, such as in the extensive Russian Study headed by Doctor of Biology Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy of Science, found that feeding GMO Soy to laboratory test animals resulted in birth defects, low birthweight, high infant mortality, and infertility. That was just on one GMO product - however Soy is our food chain in many different forms. No one knows what effects it is having on the unintended experimental animals called the American Public. GMO Corn has been shown to cause allergic reactions, GMO Tomatoes were so toxic they never were released, and the GMO Potato, with Bt insecticide inserted into its genetics, was withdrawn because it was making people sick.

There are many good, sound, reasons to DEMAND that any gentically modified food crop receive complete and thorough testing before it is released into the food chain.

Other observed adverse affects are reports coming in from veterinarians citing ill health among livestock fed a diet of genetically modified fodder. At this point it is anecdotal, but there are increasing numbers of reports.

Report abuse

Posted by Gregor Mendel
27 May 2011 | 19h182011-05-27T19:18:33Z

Read all comments (5)

Related products

Key Industry Events

 

Access all events listing

Our events, Events from partners...