US Supreme Court Considers Genetically Modified Crops

[Guest guest]

US Supreme Court Considers Genetically Modified Crops

Case questions whether environmental law has gone too far

Steve Baragona | Washington, DC 27 April 2010

For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in

a case involving genetically modified crops. The crops' safety is not at

issue in this case, but their potential economic impact is. The case may

have 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 argued

before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 27, involves a genetically

modified variety of alfalfa designed by the seed and biotech company

Monsanto to grow even when farmers spray it with a chemical that kills

weeds. 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 these

regulations, " says Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned

Scientists, an environmental group. " It was so far from what it was

supposed to be doing. "

Pollen contamination

Gurian-Sherman says APHIS should have looked more closely, in

particular, at the risk of cross-contamination. Organic alfalfa farmers

contend they could lose money if wind-blown pollen from their neighbors'

GM alfalfa were to contaminate their crop, because buyers would no

longer consider their alfalfa organic.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the United States.

Photos.com

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the United States.

An organic seed company took Monsanto to court over the issue. It won an

injunction forcing the GM seeds off the market until APHIS does a full

environmental impact study.

Monsanto appealed, saying the experts at APHIS knew what they were doing

when they approved the crop without the study. The largest U.S. farmers'

organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation, agrees. It says the

lower court's injunction creates uncertainty that hurts farmers who grow

GM crops.

" If I plant this in the ground, is a court three years down the road

going 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 money

if there's cross-contamination. "

Out-of-control regulation...

Quist notes that the organic seed company didn't have to present any

evidence that it was actually harmed before the court issued the

injunction. The case was brought under a federal environmental law that

she says some courts are interpreting too loosely.

" When those lawsuits are filed, " she says, " harm is presumed. It's just

automatic. You get to file a lawsuit and you get this extraordinary

remedy without having to show the requisite level of harm, and that

really needs to stop. "

The case has attracted attention from other groups, including the

petroleum, home building and pesticide industries, that believe the

environmental law has gone too far. Along with the Farm Bureau,

officials of those industries have written to the Supreme Court backing

Monsanto in the lawsuit.

For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in

a case involving genetically modified crops.

Photos.com

For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in

a case involving genetically modified crops.

....or democracy in action?

On the other hand, the organic seed company's backers include the Humane

Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of

Concerned Scientists, whose Doug Gurian-Sherman says the ability of

citizens' groups to question the decisions of regulators is one of

American democracy's important checks and balances.

" If the court moves towards choking off some of those checks and

balances in the form of the public's ability to challenge an agency, I

think that would have some chilling effect on the operation of science

in our democracy, " he says.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case in June.