Alberta Co-op Grocery

Supreme Court Rules on GMO

Posted July 28th, 2010

opinion by Jhan Hochman, Working Owner, email hidden; JavaScript is required

MONSANTO CO. ET AL. v. GEERTSON SEED FARMS ET AL.
Argued April 27, 2010—Decided June 21, 2010

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Protection Health Service (APHIS) classifies and regulates genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as pests, primarily because a plant GMO might pollinate/taint its natural—even if highly bred—cousins. APHIS, however, may undo/deregulate the “pest” status of a GMO by means of either a less comprehensive Environmental Assessment (EA), or the more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The star GMO in the Supreme’s spotlight is Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a crop resistant to Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup. APHIS, after conducting the less comprehensive EA, unconditionally deregulated RRA as a pest.

But conventional alfalfa growers and environmental groups, especially the Center for Food Safety, filed a suit arguing that the APHIS decision violated the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federal laws, and that an EIS must be conducted. The lower court agreed, deciding in favor of farmers and environmentalists and against APHIS and Monsanto, ordering RRA back on the list of regulated pests, at least until an EIS was completed.

Monsanto and the government appealed the lower court’s decision and lost. Monsanto and the government then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Our highest court was interested in one issue only: was it justifiable that the lower court had ordered a complete ban on planting RRA until an EIS was conducted? No, wrote Alito for Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. The seven justices (Stevens dissented and Breyer recused himself) decided the lower court overstepped its authority and acted drastically in ordering a complete ban.

Controversy was stirred when both sides claimed victory. My understanding is that Monsanto and the government won to the extent that a complete ban on planting RRA during the EIS process is no longer possible (though right now it remains unclear to what extent RRA can or will be planted since it is again regulated as a pest). Environmentalists and farmers won because APHIS, as the lower courts ordered, must still run RRA through an EIS.

Since both sides won, both sides also lost, a perspective worthy of ongoing reflection and action rather than victorious cheer.

The decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf

Analysis of the decision: http://www.grist.org/article/food-supreme-court-ruling-on-monsanto-

Local action: http://gmofreeportland.com/

Posted in General Information