Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Niches Blogs -> Agricultural Law

Legal Niches

: Agricultural Law

Living on Earth: Round-Up Ready Alfalfa

By Jim Chen at al.

I received an email from Jessica Ilyse Smith, journalist and producer of the Public Radio International show, Living on Earth. I am pleased to report that Jessica got my email address as a result of this blog, and I pass along her compliments on Agricultural Law.

Jessica was working on a story about the case of Monsanto Co. v Geertson Seed Farms and wanted an overview of the case and its implications. I was honored to oblige, and you can listen to the program, now available on the Living on Earth website.

Monsanto Co. v Geertson Seed Farms was argued before the Supreme Court this week. Copies of all of the briefs and related information is available on the SCOTUS wiki for the case.

The case concerns Round-up Ready Alfalfa (RRA). In 2004, Monsanto and Forage Genetics petitioned the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for non-regulated status of their RRA seed so they could move forward with widespread commercial production.

In 2005, APHIS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the petition and made a finding of "no significant impact" which allowed it to move forward without preparing a complete environmental impact statement. Monsanto's petition for non-regulated status was granted.

In February 2006, Geertson Seed Farms and Trask Family Farms (along with a number of environmental and farm groups and the Center for Food Safety filed suit against the Secretary of Agriculture. They alleged that APHIS had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is required under NEPA whenever a federal agency undertakes a major action that will significantly affect the environment.

The district court agreed, finding that the agency?s Environmental Assessment was inadequate. The court allowed Monsanto to join the suit and turned to the question of an appropriate remedy for the NEPA violation. APHIS agreed to prepare the EIS and proposed restrictions on the planting and handling of RRA until it could be completed. However, the district court rejected APHIS' proposal and ordered a permanent nationwide injunction against the planting of RRA. The Ninth Circuit court affirmed the District Court. Monsanto appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the preliminary injunction.

Meanwhile APHIS proceeded with the preparation of its EIS. In December 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of APHIS? Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). APHIS extended the initial 60-day comment period on the Draft EIS for 15 days, and it closing on March 3, 2010. APHIS held public meetings in Las Vegas, NV, Kearny, NE, Lincoln, NE, and Riverdale, Md. Information on the process is available on the USDA APHIS Biotechnology Roundup Ready website. In the Draft EIS, APHIS still takes the position that non-regulated status is appropriate for RRA and that its use will not result in significant impacts to the environment.

Geertson Seed Farms and the other respondents have consistently argued that the use of RRA risks the genetic contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa and the proliferation of weeds that tolerate Roundup herbicide.

Living on Earth is commended for reporting on this important case.

Full post as published by Agricultural Law on May 02, 2010 (boomark / email).