Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Supreme Ct over turns MonSATAN Alfalfa Ban!!!!

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Wow, this is extremely important news, and it didnt even make it to the

alternative-health-news sites I view! wtf? This is big.

>

>

>

>

> Keep in mind, Clarence used to be the atty for MonSatan!

>

> What I CAN'T understand, is how the people who created the movie, Food, Inc.,

are HAPPY with this decision!

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/business/22bizcourt.html?src=busln

>

>

>

> Justices Back Monsanto on Biotech Seed Planting

>

> Bob Brawdy/The Tri-City Herald, via Associated Press

> The decision was a victory for Monsanto and othersin the agricultural

biotechnology industry. Above, an alfalfa field inPasco, Wash.

>

> By ANDREW POLLACK

>

> Published: June 21, 2010

>

>

> Facebook

> Twitter

> Recommend

> Sign In to E-Mail

> Print

>

> Reprints

> ShareClose

> Linkedin

> Digg

> Mixx

> MySpace

> Buzz

> Permalink

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> In its first-ever ruling on genetically modified crops, the Supreme Court on

Monday overturned a lower court’s ban on the planting of alfalfa seeds

engineered to resist Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

>

>

> Add to Portfolio

>

> Monsanto Co

>

> Go to your Portfolio »

>

>

> The decision was a victory for Monsanto and others in the

agriculturalbiotechnology industry, with potential implications for other

cases,like one involving genetically engineered sugar beets.

> But in practice the decision is not likely to measurably speed up

theresumption of planting of the genetically engineered alfalfa.

> A federal district judge in San Francisco had ruled in 2007 that

theAgriculture Department had approved the genetically engineered alfalfafor

commercial planting without adequately considering the possibleenvironment

impact, as required by federal law. The judge vacatedapproval, known as

deregulation of the crop, and also imposed anationwide ban on planting those

seeds. The ban was later upheld onappeal.

> But the Supreme Court, in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...