Genetically Modified Crops, Monsanto’s Roundup and the Contamination of America’s Food Chain | Global Research

Genetically Modified Crops, Monsanto’s Roundup and the Contamination of America’s Food Chain | Global Research

This path-breaking article was first published by GR in June 2010

On June 21, [2010]the US Supreme Court released its long awaited decision
on the first case involving genetically modified crops, allowing the
USDA to impose a partial deregulation, should it so choose. This would
permit the sale of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa (RRA). However, in
its 7-1 ruling, the court also upheld the lower decision to ban complete
deregulation.

The US Supreme Court found that the “District Court abused its
discretion when banning a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the
planting of RRA pending completion of a detailed environmental review,”
known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The decision flies in the face of the facts in this case, and subjects us to further contamination of our food supply.

Monsanto expressed glee:
“We have Roundup Ready alfalfa seed ready to deliver and await USDA
guidance on its release. Our goal is to have everything in place for
growers to plant in fall 2010.”

Adversarial party Center for Food Safety also expressed delight in the decision, calling it a “Victory for Center for Food Safety, Farmers.” In its release, CFS asserts:

“The Justices’ decision today means that the selling and
planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa is illegal.  The ban on the crop will
remain in place until a full and adequate EIS is prepared by USDA and
they officially deregulate the crop.  This is a year or more away
according to the agency, and even then, a deregulation move may be
subject to further litigation if the agency’s analysis is not adequate.”

CFS is happy because, as the Court pointed out, “we do know that the
vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA can
be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in
place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical
future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge
it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a
decision is made.”

While CFS may be happy to fight this case again, food freedom suffered a blow by this decision.