Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Health Law Blogs -> Food Safety News
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Health Law
: Food Safety NewsOpponents of GM Sugar Go Back To Court
By Dan Flynn and Suzanna Schreck
And that's exactly what has happened when it comes to genetically modified sugar beets.
The original opponents to Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM sugar beets--the Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club-- went back to the Northern District of California in San Francisco last week, objecting to what they saw as permission for immediate planting of GM sugar beets by USDA's Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS).
The seed-grower and environmental groups on Aug. 13 won a ruling from U.S District Court Judge Jeffrey White that ordered APHIS to begin regulating GM sugar beets for the first time in five years. Included in the order is the judge's insistence that APHIS conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on GM sugar beets.
But Judge White was also critical of APHIS for not already acting "expediently" to take "interim measures" to regulate GM sugar until the EIS is completed in about 2 years.
APHIS announced steps it was taking on Sept. 2 that might lead to permission to again plant GM sugar beets, which about 95 percent of U.S. growers now prefer. "The Court has already found that the approval of this engineered crop was illegal," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "Rather than complying with the court's order, the USDA is once again acting as a rogue agency in illegally allowing these crops to be planted without the required hard look at their environmental and economic dangers." The sugar beet seed crop will be grown in and around Oregon's Willamette Valley, where farmers also grow seed for other crops.
Judge White had found that the GE sugar beets, which can cross-pollinate table beets and Swiss chard, may contaminate organic and conventional crops and threaten these farmers' livelihoods, and deprive farmers and consumers of the choice to grow and consume non-genetically engineered food. Unwilling to await preparation of the court-ordered EIS and a new, public process on whether to again deregulate and allow for commercialization, APHIS responded to the urgings of the sugar beet industry by issuing permits purporting to allow the industry to plant its Roundup Ready sugar beet seed crop this fall, without any environmental review or public notice and comment, to create seed for a future Roundup Ready sugar beet crop that is still illegal.
Otherwise growers would be prohibited from using the popular GM sugar beets for one or more seasons.
The unprecedented permitting process for a commercially grown genetically engineered crop violates, among other laws, the National Environmental Policy Act. Although APHIS claims the permits do not allow the crop to flower and spread pollen, the seed crop is expressly intended to flower and create seed next summer. NEPA requires APHIS to first examine the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the seed crop together with the impacts of the rest of the sugar beet production cycle the seed crop is intended to facilitate. The plaintiffs have asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction enjoining the issuance of the permits and any planting pursuant to them.
One attorney for the GM sugar opponents went so far as to suggest that APHIS had become "Monsanto's puppet."
Full post as published by Food Safety News on September 13, 2010 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Processing Pollution
Michigan Sugar to pay $210,000 settlement in environmental lawsuit.
Chattanooga, TN
Seven months in back pay resolves pepper spray dispute.
Deja Vu
Exotic Dancers file class action claiming back wages
Canadian Government
former RCMP officer claims thousands of disability dollars clawed back.
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation

State of Florida to Buy US Sugar While US Sugar ESOP Litigation Continues
Washington Post editorial on Sugar, Imports, and Ag Policy







