Re: US Supreme Court Considers Genetically Modified Crops

[Guest guest]

I know I can't eat them. And many I talk to in our business say the same. Everyone's health is deteriorating, I wonder how it is in "developing countries" where it's all they have?

   ~Katy

Sheep to the right; His Lamb

Zeal for your house consumes me-Ps 69:9

http://orchardhouseheirlooms.com/product_info.php/cPath/157_163/products_id/199 survival seeds

Christian-homesteaders/?yguid=227010598 biblical survival

-- US Supreme Court Considers Genetically Modified Crops

US Supreme Court Considers Genetically Modified Crops Case questions whether environmental law has gone too farSteve Baragona | Washington, DC 27 April 2010 For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments ina case involving genetically modified crops. The crops' safety is not atissue in this case, but their potential economic impact is. The case mayhave ramifications beyond GM crops.Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the United States.Farmers harvested 8.5 million hectares last year. The case being arguedbefore the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 27, involves a geneticallymodified variety of alfalfa designed by the seed and biotech companyMonsanto to grow even when farmers spray it with a chemical that killsweeds. The U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)approved the crop in 2005. "From what I can see, APHIS really did not do due diligence under theseregulations," says Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of ConcernedScientists, an environmental group. "It was so far from what it wassupposed to be doing."Pollen contaminationGurian-Sherman says APHIS should have looked more closely, inparticular, at the risk of cross-contamination. Organic alfalfa farmerscontend they could lose money if wind-blown pollen from their neighbors'GM alfalfa were to contaminate their crop, because buyers would nolonger consider their alfalfa organic. Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the United States.Photos.comAlfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the United States. An organic seed company took Monsanto to court over the issue. It won aninjunction forcing the GM seeds off the market until APHIS does a fullenvironmental impact study. Monsanto appealed, saying the experts at APHIS knew what they were doingwhen they approved the crop without the study. The largest U.S. farmers'organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation, agrees. It says thelower court's injunction creates uncertainty that hurts farmers who growGM crops. "If I plant this in the ground, is a court three years down the roadgoing to come and mess everything up and tell me I can't do it anymore?"she asks. "That costs money, just like it costs the organic farmer moneyif there's cross-contamination."Out-of-control regulation...Quist notes that the organic seed company didn't have to present anyevidence that it was actually harmed before the court issued theinjunction. The case was brought under a federal environmental law thatshe says some courts are interpreting too loosely."When those lawsuits are filed," she says, "harm is presumed. It's justautomatic. You get to file a lawsuit and you get this extraordinaryremedy without having to show the requisite level of harm, and thatreally needs to stop."The case has attracted attention from other groups, including thepetroleum, home building and pesticide industries, that believe theenvironmental law has gone too far. Along with the Farm Bureau,officials of those industries have written to the Supreme Court backingMonsanto in the lawsuit. For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments ina case involving genetically modified crops.Photos.comFor the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments ina case involving genetically modified crops....or democracy in action?On the other hand, the organic seed company's backers include the HumaneSociety, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union ofConcerned Scientists, whose Doug Gurian-Sherman says the ability ofcitizens' groups to question the decisions of regulators is one ofAmerican democracy's important checks and balances. "If the court moves towards choking off some of those checks andbalances in the form of the public's ability to challenge an agency, Ithink that would have some chilling effect on the operation of sciencein our democracy," he says.The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case in June.