Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Court Rejects Genetically Modified Sugar Beets
SAN FRANCISCO -- The government illegally approved a genetically modified, herbicide-resistant strain of sugar beets without adequately considering the chance they will contaminate other beet crops, a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled.
Sugar beet at harvest time (Flickr photo by grabe) The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White rejected the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision in 2005 to allow Monsanto Co. to sell the sugar beets, known as "Roundup-Ready" because they are engineered to coexist with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
Sugar beets produce 30 percent of the world's sugar and, according to consumer groups, half the granulated sugar in the United States. This year's planting, centered in Oregon's Willamette Valley, is the first to include a full crop of the Monsanto product.
White said the USDA, in concluding that the new crop would have no significant environmental effects, discounted the likelihood that wind-borne pollen would spread to fields where conventional sugar beets, table beets and the beet variety known as Swiss chard are grown.
Planting genetically modified sugar beets has a "significant effect" on the environment, White said in his ruling Monday, because of "the potential elimination of a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food."
He said the department must prepare an environmental impact statement, which would include public input.
White did not immediately prohibit distribution of the genetically modified sugar beets, but a lawyer for plaintiffs in the case said they would ask the judge for an injunction against sales until the review was completed.
The ruling "sends a very clear message to the USDA to protect American farmers and consumers and not the interests of Monsanto," said Kevin Golden, a San Francisco attorney for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, which opposes genetically modified foods and supports organic farming.
Golden said the ruling could also affect herbicide use, because the Environmental Protection Agency has allowed more herbicide spraying in areas where the resistant crops are grown.
Representatives of the Agriculture Department and Monsanto were unavailable for comment. Luther Markwart, spokesman for the 10,000-member American Sugar Beet Growers Association, said the group is "looking forward to aggressively advocating" for farmers who want to use the altered beets.
The ruling followed a similar decision in 2007 by another federal judge in San Francisco, Charles Breyer, to halt the nationwide planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered strain of alfalfa until the USDA conducted an environmental study. A federal appeals court upheld Breyer's decision last year.
The department's 2005 decision on sugar beets acknowledged that pollen from the genetically modified crop could spread to other beet crops. But the USDA said farmers would not be harmed because they would still be able to buy non-genetically modified seeds.
White, however, cited studies that said winds can carry sugar beet pollen at least 2 1/2 miles, much farther than the voluntary buffer zones between beet crops recommended by Oregon agriculture officials.
He said the department had failed to consider the economic effects of its decision and had provided no evidence for its conclusion that non-genetically modified sugar beets would remain available to farmers.
30 Comments so far
Show AllI'm just wondering ... is that a picture of a sugar beet or is it dracula's heart after being shot with a few silver bullet rounds?
I KNOW! Is that the natural sugar beet or the genetically-modified version? I never did like beets very much, anyway. Think I'll continue to avoid them.
Me too, but I'm dreading the day when sugar cane is taken over by the Frankenfood doktors.
Beets me!
Brave judge! Maybe a good SCOTUS candidate.
Now if only all judges were similarly astute and courageous.
As was once said about 10 lawyers at the bottom of a swimming pool, "it's a good start."
Next step is to reverse the travesty whereby Monsanto wins judgements against neighboring farmers, whose crops are contaminated with Frankenpollen, for "theft of intellectual property," or "violation of licensing agreements," or whatever legal sophistry they cook up next.
Third step is to force these experimental Chimeras underground, in hermetically-sealed environments from which they can never escape---that is, if we can't ban them entirely.
Has anyone ever wondered why crops need to be "engineered to coexist" with the herbicide Roundup?
... because when they first tested it on the field, it not only killed the weeds but also the seeds...
So this is what passes off as "scientific progress" now: concoct a dangerous herbicide (which, like all other attempts to "control" nature eventually fails, because the weeds will sooner or later become resistant to the stuff) then "invent" a transgenic plant which is able to survive even if the spraying is intensified...
Sales of Roundup will increase and the patented seeds bring even more profit....
...but the environmental and health damage will be "socialized".. (shifted to the people and the state)
"Roundup formulations are lethal cocktails" ... More information see below:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GTARW.php
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DMPGR.php
"There is clear evidence that repeated glyphosate applications over several seasons increases soil-borne pathogens..." (read: the soil gets "sick"...)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/RRSD.php
Farmers who use this stuff need to have their heads examined.... (no offense, but they do not even begin to understand the consequences of this perverted form of "agriculture"... The only form of sustainable agriculture is organic farming..
Bravo Judge Jeffrey White!
"or a consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food".
Because I have worked as a chemist in a plant that made sugar from sugar beets I chuckle. There is zero difference between pure crystalline sugar made from genetically engineered or non-genetically engineered sugar. However, I resent commentators who try to scare the public with fairy tales worthy of the Brothers Grimm.
Pippilin: at the end of WW2 we ate cooked sugar beets. Their taste is godawful.
Is pure crystalline sugar what the consumer gets? No trace of added herbicides or any other byproducts of genetic engineering?
And if the consumer possibly gets only pure crystalline sugar, does that ensure that they are provided with the option to not support GMO crops with their dollars?
Is it a fairy tale that GMO crops contaminate other crops with genes spliced from other species, and thus threaten to alter the entire genetic makeup of all living things?
Genetic engineering is as old as agriculture which is to say thousands of years. It is called breeding. Please get this into your memory system: essentially every plant or product of plants you eat has been genetically engineered during its existence yet mankind has not perished. What are you complaining about? Modern genetic engineering instead of traditional genetic engineering? The really serious dangers in our foodstuffs are residues of herbicides and fertilizers which have nothing to do with genetic engineering. Ergo: please stop spreading scary Grimm's fairy tales about genetic engineering and focus on the truly serious dangers which are herbicides and fertilizers.
Genetic engineering is not the same as breeding plants and animals and selecting for certain traits. That genetic engineering is the same as plant breeding is something that Monsanto is happy you believe. The escape of a flounder gene into a tomato isn't going to happen in nature.
"The really serious dangers in our foodstuffs are residues of herbicides..."
Are you seriously not aware that the bulk of the frankenfoods are designed to withstand the application of more herbicides? Are you not aware that the rest are designed to contain pesticide in every cell?
You are the one who should stop spreading fairy tales, the corporate fairy tales engineered to sell products to consumers.
Crownest
I've farmed all my life and never known the "breeder" of any animal or plant to introduce cells of E. coli into a plant, seed or animal as is done in "Modern Genetic Engineering".
Agreed: chemical residues in our foodstuffs and used on our foodstuff are serious dangers.
So why do you support GE when its greatest use so far has been in crops that allow the use of Roundup (glyphosate)? Statistical studies link glyphosate exposure to ADD, ADHD and possibly autism - all on the rise in recent years.
Genetic engineering is a far cry from "hybridizing", which HAS been going on since the dawn of agriculture. A FIREFLY will NOT mate with an ear of corn in nature, nor will a cod fish breed with a tomato. These monsan-trocities are the workings of men who would be gods. You obviously do not understand what genetic engineering is, but there is still time for you to learn. YES, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers are dangers to be aware of, BUT, we know they are dangerous. We do not understand the dangers of GM crops, the interaction of one GM organism with another, the effects upon humans and animals, and yet we go full steam ahead. THAT is more dangerous than all the others combined, (IMHO).
Oh, by the way, you forgot to answer my questions.
Re Crowsnest September 23rd, 2009 4:33 pm, who asserts,
"Genetic engineering is as old as agriculture which is to say thousands of years. It is called breeding."
Okay Mr. Scientist, tell us how exactly do fish breed with tomatoes, or corn with B. thuringensis?
(added after reading the other replies)
Thanks all, you've got this covered.
Zero difference in what way? Taste, texture? Does any of the gentically modified cells get into the end product? Because you worked as a chemist, you are also a bio-engineering expert? Your comments are reminiscent of the old cigarette debate. Seemingly qualified science "experts" paid to lie. Same old corporape playbook. Deny, deny, deny, then when that no longer works sue or otherwise marginalize the people telling the truth then when that doesn't work, blame the victim then when that doesn't work, get bailed out by the government. People that are concerned about paid researchers playing god with our food genetics are not telling fairy tales to scare the public. GMOs in general are undertested, poorly regulated, and an abomination to nature. And can anyone tell me the long term health effects to humans or animals of eating these unnatural foods or eating animals that have been fed with these genetic mutant crops?
If anyone has a problem it is you Crowsnest. Why are you trying to reassure people about something you or anyone else knows very little about?
Also, I don't know about those big ugly beets in the photo, but the red ones are quite yummy...
Interesting that there is "zero difference" between gmo and non-gmo when trying to shove it down the throats of consumers, yet when pollen drift results in gmo genes in the fields of farmers who never bought gmo seed, then there's a world of difference, there are intellectual property rights, there are lawyers coming to terrorize you, there are lawsuits, there are fines to be paid, there is the ruin of farmers who can't fight it.
Also interesting how all of the testing that shows the dangers of gmo foods to humans and animals ends up suppressed. If it's so safe and good and substantially the same as non-gmo, then it's interesting how the biotech industry fights against any labeling that would allow consumers to choose for themselves.
Also interesting that in Europe consumers do have a choice, and gmo is having a much harder time penetrating the food chain.
If there were "zero difference" then there would be no need to genetically mutilate the seed, would there?
I don't see any pressing need to eat GMO when organic is the same (in your own words) On top, I don't like when the soil is sprinkled with this "roundup" stuff, it smells very bad... So, even if you are right, GMO products have to be labeled with huge labels "UNTESTED GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD". I want nothing more.
A chemist has no expertise in biology or ecology. Trying to make your opinion sound good by saying you are a scientist doesn't help your cause. A scientist should know better than to ignore what creates the reaction, despite identical end products.
If you can get the same product using a dangerous, unproven reactant or the same old reactant that's always worked, which reactant would you choose? As scientist? Not as a guy who sees the unproven reactant might make few bucks but have disastrous consequences.
Monsanto is BORG (nonfictional pseudo-human company) they are embodiment of satanic NWO agenda. Morbid obsession of controlling everything, they perfectly fit in the NWO acclamation and they are major part of the remaining NWO puzzle, besides chipping (RFID), vaccination, FEMA .....Veritas Omnia Vincit !
A very good reason to stop eating sugar and respective products.
Quote from "New research on the impact of GMOs on health"
"Although some GMOs have been approved and marketed for several years, there was no body of scientific research on their impact on the biology of living organisms. This is partly because animal feeding trials are not required in the current safety approval process for GMOs in the EU or USA. Only now is a body of evidence starting to emerge from a small number of animal feeding trials into the health effects and progress in the new science of epigenetics. This indicates that genetic engineering is much more unpredictable and risky than traditional breeding."[10]
Various health problems from GMO products have been identified, from serious skin problems in humans in Argentina at soya plantations (documented by Marie-Monique Robin in her film – The World According to Monsanto), to allergies in humans as well as tumors, damage to internal organs and internal bleeding in rats fed with genetically engineered potatoes.
From a lack of sufficient research and the fact that many health hazards develop over a long period of time, there is still no complete list of real health hazards to humans caused by GMO products. Monsanto who provides 90% of the world's long list of genetically engineered products[11] (having bought up 50 smaller companies during the last decade) does their business with such complete secrecy that there are still sold-out individuals out there who praise the complete revolution of agriculture achieved by the culture of GMO crops. These corrupt people seem to be totally unaware of the health hazards and the drive to despair and ruin of small farmers caused by GMO products. They seem to still believe that genetically engineered seeds can save the world's food problems. Or worse yet, they don't care.
A high representative for Monsanto has openly admitted that "We want to control the world's food supply."[12] It is also very clear that they have no concern for health hazards or human disasters caused by the callous decisions of world leaders to give up on biological farming and opt for genetically engineered food production and monoculture industrial farming.
The proofs that GM huge industrial monocultures and Roundup herbicide are destroying the earth's environment and human health are completely censured and ignored, due to intense lobbying and pressure from sold-out individuals at the United States Department of Agriculture and the Federal Drug Administration.
Once again, only corporate profit counts and people as well as the environment are of no importance. And the neocon puppets are playing the game with great gusto.
[12] Greenpeace researcher uncovers chilling patent plans. One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. (Direct quote in Marie-Marianne Robin's documentary)
Thank you Judge Jeffrey White!
This is but a small victory in a district court, so we might do well to keep our revelry subdued. There are sure to be appeals and attempts at injunctions. But it IS a ray of sunshine on an otherwise dismal landscape.
It is a heartening sign to see the courts to wake up to the potential dangers of genetic engineering. I would hope that it is also a sign of a shift in the field of 'environmental law', to protect nature rather than believe that we can 'control' it.
A small victory but the big defeat is on the way. The FDA wants organic standards to allow GMOs and nanotechnology. If this happens, it will have a domino effect. Many of us shop at health food stores for organic vegetables and fruits. When the organic standards are trashed, we probably won't and the health food stores will close. At some point, we will all be nothing more than factory farm animals.
Organic farmers and grocers worth their salt will simply turn to other groups for the kind of organic certification we want. Before the appearance of the untrustworthy USDA label on organics, logos of more firmly disciplined organic standards groups graced organic foods. It would be nice to have a strict and reliable USDA, but all won't be lost if it goes even more corporate.
Earlier this year the EPA approved open growing of 'pharma-crops', which I strongly opposed. Ya know, back in the early 70's I was 100% sold on geneticly modified foods and even held a couple of shares of stock for a few years. It wasn't until I realized the magnitude of the potential dangers of transference of modified genes that I changed and became actively opposed to the industry. The lure of the 'philosophical' aspects of GMOs and nanotechnology is intoxicating, and an intoxicated person acts without reason. Should we perhaps 'insist' that universities include a course of "ethics" in all agricultural classes, to make the potential franken-farmer realize the implications of growing of such crops? just an idea.
When will we have "Roundup-Ready" weeds, pot, poppies and coca plants?
When will Monsanto finish working on "Roundup-Ready" human beings?
The picture of that horrific "beet", what's supposed to be a beet, should be enough to start waking people up.
How much longer will Monsanto be poisoning our environment? How much longer will Monsanto be able to buy politicians? How much longer will Monsanto drive farmers in India to commit suicide? How much longer will Monsanto be allowed to get away with MURDER???