Supreme Ct over turns MonSATAN Alfalfa Ban!!!!

[Guest guest]

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 a 7-to-1 decision, said the lower court judgehad gone

too far, ruling that the national ban prevented theAgriculture Department from

considering a partial approval. Thatavenue, the court said, would have allowed

some of the alfalfa to begrown under certain conditions; for example, isolating

it fromconventional alfalfa.

“The district court barred the agency from pursuing any deregulation —no

matter how limited the geographic area in which planting of RRAwould be

allowed,†Justice A. Alito Jr. wrote in the opinion, referring to

Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Justice s was the lone dissenter. Justice G. Breyer did

not take part because his brother, District Judge Breyer, had issued

the original decision.

Because the Supreme Court left in place the lower court’s rejection

ofapproving the crop, the Agriculture Department must either fully orpartly

approve it before growing can resume.

“I think the practical impact is nil,†said A. Kimbrell of theCenter

for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group that was part of acoalition of

environmental groups and organic and conventional alfalfafarmers who had

challenged the crop’s approval.

The Agriculture Department said Monday that it was on track to completeits

environmental impact statement and approve the crop in time fornext spring’s

planting.

Speeding up planting beyond that could only occur if the agency pursuesa partial

approval while finishing its environmental assessment. Butgetting partial

approval in time for this fall’s planting season —beginning in two months

— might be difficult.

Still, F. Snively, Monsanto’s general counsel, called thedecision a

significant victory. “Monsanto and farmers in the UnitedStates are thrilled

with this decision, which is far-reaching in itslook at the regulatory framework

that should govern biotech crops,†Mr.Snively told reporters in a conference

call.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could affect a similar case, also brought bythe

Center for Food Safety, involving Roundup Ready sugar beets.

In that case, a different federal judge in San Francisco ruled lastSeptember

that the Agriculture Department had failed to adequatelyassess the environmental

impact.

Planting has continued, however, because the judge, S. White,has not yet

ruled on a remedy. A hearing on the matter is scheduled forJuly 9. The Supreme

Court’s decision makes it highly unlikely that hewill issue a blanket ban on

the growing of the genetically engineeredbeets.

The decision could also sway environmental law in general. Organizations like

the National Association of Home Builders and the American Petroleum

Institutehad filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Monsanto,

whileenvironmental groups as well as the states of California, Oregon

andMassachusetts had weighed in on the side of the Center for Food Safety.

Mr. Snively of Monsanto said the decision made it clear that courtsmust meet the

same strict test in granting injunctions in environmentalcases as in other

cases. But iel S. W. Lawrence, an attorney forthe Natural Resources

Defense Council,said the decision also contained wording that would make it

easier insome instances for lawsuits to be filed in cases of

possibleenvironmental dangers.

Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets were the newest additions toMonsanto’s

extremely successful lines of Roundup Ready soybeans, cornsand cotton.

The crops contain a bacterial gene that allows them to withstandspraying with

Roundup or its generic equivalents, known as glyphosate.That allows farmers to

spray their fields to kill weeds while leavingthe crop intact, making weed

control easy.

The environmental groups and others had said that the foreign genemight spread

to organic or conventional nongenetically engineeredcrops, hurting sales of

organic farmers or exports to countries likeJapan that did not want genetically

engineered varieties.

Court Upholds Verdict

The Supreme Court rejected Pfizer’sappeal of a verdict for an Arkansas woman,

Donna Scroggin, who blamedthe company’s menopause drugs for her breast cancer,

leaving intact a$2.7 million award that may grow with punitive damages.

The justices let stand on Monday a lower court decision upholding thataward,

which was the first federal verdict against Pfizer’s Wyeth unit over its

Prempro hormone-replacement treatment.

The appeal by Wyeth and Pfizer’s Upjohn unit sought to leverage adifferent

part of the appeals court ruling ordering a new trial onpunitive damages, which

a jury had set at $27 million. Pfizer arguedthat the new trial should cover all

aspects of the case, including thejury’s finding that the drugs had helped

cause Ms. Scroggin’s cancer.

A version of this article appeared in print on June 22, 2010, on page B5 of the

New York edition.