US SUPREME COURT NOW IN THE FOOD BUSINESS

Us Supremes , by a 7to 1 decision, have opened the door to genetically modified foods without any knowledge re:
the safety of the crops.

In a recent California decision by a lower court, Monsanto, the developer of"roundup ready alfalfa" was not permitted to sell the seed until its safety was established by testing and field trials. (A minimal amt of such testing had been done).
We already know that "roundup ready" sowbeans have led to the total immunity of weeds to the chemical Glyphosate, which is the main ingredient of Roundup. So, by some corporate "Slight of hand" Monsanto's attorneys had appeaked the lower coursts decision and the SUpreme Court, one of our nations most "knowledgeable bunch of plant scientists" had decided to reverse the California decision. NOW, Roundup Ready Alfalfa may not be required to have ANY science behind it, just so our slowly fascist [ ???? ] leaning Supreme Court shows how it licks the boots of most industry.

Itll probably be up to the several states to put a stop to this agri bullshit. Perhaps Monsanto has gotten the permission from USSC to market this stuff, but several states have agriculture departments that require all ag products to show efficacy, health safety, and environmental safety.
In PA, for example, we never plant alfalfa as a sole crop. We ALWAYS interplant (by sequential seeding) alfalfa and pasture grasses. ALl farmers who use forage for either seasonal or "grass feeding programs" will never feed pure alfalfa. That practice is usually reserved for the Western Feedlots. Roundup ready alfalfa, will not be of any use in the Eastern farms because the grasses will be killed by any roundup use on the alfalfa stand, and since there is ample rain in the east to allow an alfalfa field to age gracefully and be slowly overtaken by its grass component, we can have a several year overlap of alfalfa to grass without losing appreciable nutrients (even our orchard grasses are about 17% protein while alfalfa is about 23%).




I have no idea on what basis the USSC stuck its fat head into this issue anyway. I dont understand why they heard this.

And, by the USSC's ignorance (and yours) of the science of risk analyses and genetics,
they seem to want to extend Judicial pOwers beyond anything provided in the Constitution.

The USSC could, by not hearing the case, gone as far as they should have.

Where does their power end? Its getting a bit scary living here with this activist court

If the lower court shoud have done nothing, then the USSC was correct to undo what it did n give
the lower court a good rap on the knuckles for usurpation (regardless of safety).

If the lower court shoud have done nothing, then the USSC was correct to undo what it did n give
the lower court a good rap on the knuckles for usurpation (regardless of safety).

As Mr Bumble said'The law is an ass".
These sexagenarian douche bags who are noithing more than ideologues
beholden to the left or right tit of government seem to gather some undeserved credibility
when posted to the Highest Court.

I want to know who was the 1 in the 7 to 1.

The lower court had, by virtue of requiring that efficacy and safety and environmental risk data be fully developed BEFORE anyy proposals for "Roundup ready" alfalfa gets to the market. I think that you, in your zeal to accept that everything the USSC does is correct

(not the law, I understand that this is now the law) BUT THE DECISION SHOWS A BONEHEADED LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE CANNOT BE MERE PAWNS OF INDUSTRY> AND HOW SAFETY MUST BE A CONCERN OVER PROFIT (THats where my fascisti refernce has congruence with this decision). Considering the footprints, I think the act of allowing such envrionmentally unproven technology is more something that the Chinese communists would love.

There have been waay too many "Industry friendly" decisions coming out of the USSC lately.

I hope he states tell the USSC to go **** themselves

It is simply the job of the USSC to apply the Constitution or the law. The Court knows that.

As long as u HOPE that, I 'm sure it'll be OK.

I 'm no hypocrit. When I have wanted to disagree with the USSC, I have done, explaining how n Y.

Excerpts:

Govt overrules own experts, puts Bt brinjal in deep freeze
Posted: Tue Feb 09 2010, 16:18 hrs New Delhi:

Citing a lack of scientific consensus and the absence of any “over-riding urgency”, the government on Tuesday put an indefinite “moratorium” on the introduction of a genetically-modified brinjal developed after ten years of research, which was cleared by India’s apex technical committee three months ago.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, who took the decision, questioned the logic of letting private companies drive biotechnology research in agriculture. The brinjal in question has been developed by Mahyco — a private firm in which global seed major Monsanto holds a 26% stake — in collaboration with two Indian agricultural universities.

...

Ramesh argued that there was no “clear consensus” in the scientific community over the safety of the crop, that many state governments had strongly opposed its introduction, that public sentiment was overwhelmingly negative, and that there was “no over-riding urgency” to introduce it in the country.

“It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary principle-based approach and impose a moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal, till such time as independent scientific studies establish, to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals, the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and environment, including the rich genetic wealth existing in brinjal in our country,” Ramesh said.

“By taking this decision, the government is being responsible to science and responsive to society,” he added.

...

If cleared, Bt brinjal would have become the first genetically-modified vegetable to be grown anywhere in the world. In India, the only GM crop allowed to be cultivated is Bt cotton, which has brought about a huge increase in yields.

Bt cotton was cleared by the GEAC in 2002, without referring it to the government. But Ramesh today renamed the GEAC, replacing Approval with Appraisal, to underscore the fact that, henceforth, decisions of the committee would not be considered final.

Ramesh also sought to make a distinction between Bt cotton and Bt brinjal on the grounds that the former was not a food crop.

Agri-biotech sector battles confusion over GM crops’ status; wants clarity
Shreya Roy
Posted online: 2010-06-21 23:07:54+05:30

Bangalore

The Rs 2,000-crore agri-biotech sector is experiencing an existential crisis of sorts due to an uncertain regulatory environment following the moratorium on Bt Brinjal.

Companies and institutes with investments of millions of dollars and time in genetically modified crop research, are uncertain about the future. This is owing to lack of clarity in the government’s stance on GM crops, say industry experts.

A recent study by the Association of Boitech Led Enterprises (ABLE) — the premier biotech trade body — says that while the moratorium for genetically-modified foods has not had any great impact on the agribio industry’s performance, the industry is waiting for correct signals from the regulator. The recent regulatory approval to conduct field trials of 17 crops has sent mixed signals about the future prospects of the sector, the study said.

Bt Cotton is the only GM crop commercialised in the country. However, public and private Indian research institutes have been working on GM technology for insect resistance in cabbage, cauliflower, rice and sorghum, disease resistance in potato, insect resistance and herbicide tolerance in corn, virus resistance in groundnut, and drought resistance in chickpea.

“Bt cotton is a great success story for India. However, with Bt Brinjal, regulation became a political and emotional issue and moved away from science and reason, creating great uncertainty for all the research work that is going on,” says KK Narayanan, MD, Metahelix.

V Ram Kaundinya, chairman ABLE, says regulatory requirements introduced after the Bt Brinjal moratorium are more favorable for large companies. “Additional studying of the crop for four to five years will require more money, which favours large international conglomerates. Stringent price control also hits smaller companies more and will be counter productive in the long run,” Kaundinya said.

Indian bio-tech research companies such as Metahelix, for instance, would find it very difficult to sustain through such requirements. Metahelix has been working on insect resistance for rice and is uncertain about the possibility of taking its product to the market.

Last month’s recommendation by the agriculture minister to introduce a new seed bill that would impose price regulations on normal seeds and cut FDI to under 50% could spell disaster for seed businesses, industry fears.

Amy Howe originally wrote the following for SCOTUSblog:

On June 21 the Court issued its decision in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms (No. 09-475). We will have a more detailed recap of the opinion soon, but we thought it would be useful in the interim to provide a brief summary of the decision (and an introduction to the myriad acronyms in the case). At issue in the case was what injunctive relief a district court may order to remedy a procedural violation of a federal environmental statute – here, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Here the district court had held that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) violated the NEPA when it deregulated Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) without conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As a remedy, the district court enjoined APHIS from partially deregulating RRA, and it prohibited virtually all planting of RRA pending a new EIS.

The Court granted certiorari, and today it reversed. It began by rejecting both sides’ arguments that the other lacked standing. Turning to the merits of the case, it held that the district court abused its discretion in entering the injunctions. With regard to the partial deregulation of RRA, it explained that none of the four criteria for a permanent injunction had been met; moreover, with regard to the nationwide injunction against the planting of RRA, a less drastic remedy was available.

Justice Stevens was the lone dissenter in the case; Justice Breyer did not participate in the case.