September, 22 2009, 03:53pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Paul Achitoff, Earthjustice, 808-599-2436
Andrew Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety, 703-927-2826
Zelig Golden, Center for Food Safety, 415-826-2770
John Bianchi, Goodman Media, 212-576-2700
Matthew Dillion, Organic Seed Alliance, 360-385-7192
Tom Stearns, High Mowing Seeds, 802-472-6174
Neil Carman, Sierra Club, 512-288-5772
Government Failed To Evaluate Environmental and Economic Risks of Monsanto Product
Court Finds USDA Violated Federal Law by Allowing Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets on the Market
SAN FRANCISCO
In a
case brought by Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice representing a
coalition of farmers and consumers, a Federal Court ruled yesterday
that the Bush USDA's approval of genetically engineered (GE) "RoundUp
Ready" sugar beets was unlawful. The Court ordered the USDA to conduct
a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the
crop on farmers and the environment.
case brought by Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice representing a
coalition of farmers and consumers, a Federal Court ruled yesterday
that the Bush USDA's approval of genetically engineered (GE) "RoundUp
Ready" sugar beets was unlawful. The Court ordered the USDA to conduct
a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the
crop on farmers and the environment.
The federal district court for the Northern
District of California ruled that the U. S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ("APHIS") violated the
National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") when it failed
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") before
deregulating sugar beets that have been genetically engineered ("GE")
to be resistant to glyphosate herbicide, marketed by Monsanto as
Roundup. Plaintiffs Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance,
Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds, represented by Earthjustice and the
Center for Food Safety, filed suit against APHIS in January 2008,
alleging APHIS failed to adequately assess the environmental, health,
and associated economic impacts of allowing "Roundup
Ready" sugar beets to be commercially grown without restriction.
District of California ruled that the U. S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ("APHIS") violated the
National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") when it failed
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") before
deregulating sugar beets that have been genetically engineered ("GE")
to be resistant to glyphosate herbicide, marketed by Monsanto as
Roundup. Plaintiffs Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance,
Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds, represented by Earthjustice and the
Center for Food Safety, filed suit against APHIS in January 2008,
alleging APHIS failed to adequately assess the environmental, health,
and associated economic impacts of allowing "Roundup
Ready" sugar beets to be commercially grown without restriction.
"This court decision is a wakeup call for the Obama
USDA that they will not be allowed to ignore the biological pollution
and economic impacts of gene altered crops," stated Andrew Kimbrell
Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety.
"The Courts have made it clear that USDA's job is to protect America's
farmers and consumers, not the interests of Monsanto."
USDA that they will not be allowed to ignore the biological pollution
and economic impacts of gene altered crops," stated Andrew Kimbrell
Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety.
"The Courts have made it clear that USDA's job is to protect America's
farmers and consumers, not the interests of Monsanto."
While industry asserts that the adoption rates of
GE sugar beets has been high, food producers have shown reluctance in
accepting GE beet sugar. Over 100 companies have joined the Non-GM Beet
Sugar Registry opposing the introduction of GE
sugar beets, and pledging to seek wherever possible to avoid using GM
beet sugar in their products: https://www.seedsofdeception.com/includes/services/nongm_sugar_beet_registry_display.cfm
.
GE sugar beets has been high, food producers have shown reluctance in
accepting GE beet sugar. Over 100 companies have joined the Non-GM Beet
Sugar Registry opposing the introduction of GE
sugar beets, and pledging to seek wherever possible to avoid using GM
beet sugar in their products: https://www.seedsofdeception.com/includes/services/nongm_sugar_beet_registry_display.cfm
.
Sugar beet seed is grown primarily in Oregon's
Willamette Valley, which is also an important seed growing area for
crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table
beets. GE sugar beets are wind pollinated and will
inevitably cross-pollinate the related crops being grown in the same
area. Such biological contamination would be devastating to organic
farmers, who face debilitating market losses if their crops are
contaminated by a GE variety. Contamination also reduces
the ability of conventional farmers to decide what to grow, and limits
consumer choice of the foods they can eat. In his September 21, 2009
order requiring APHIS to prepare an EIS, Judge Jeffrey S. White
emphasized that "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, is an action that potentially
eliminates or reduces the availability of a particular plant has a
significant effect on the human environment."
Willamette Valley, which is also an important seed growing area for
crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table
beets. GE sugar beets are wind pollinated and will
inevitably cross-pollinate the related crops being grown in the same
area. Such biological contamination would be devastating to organic
farmers, who face debilitating market losses if their crops are
contaminated by a GE variety. Contamination also reduces
the ability of conventional farmers to decide what to grow, and limits
consumer choice of the foods they can eat. In his September 21, 2009
order requiring APHIS to prepare an EIS, Judge Jeffrey S. White
emphasized that "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, is an action that potentially
eliminates or reduces the availability of a particular plant has a
significant effect on the human environment."
The Court found "no support in the record" for
APHIS' conclusion that conventional sugar beets would remain available
for farmers and consumers and held that the agency's decision that
there would be no impacts from the GE beets "unreasonable."
APHIS' conclusion that conventional sugar beets would remain available
for farmers and consumers and held that the agency's decision that
there would be no impacts from the GE beets "unreasonable."
The Court also held that APHIS failed to analyze
the impacts of biological contamination on the related crops of red
table beets and Swiss chard. "Organic seed is the foundation of organic
farming and organic food integrity, said Mathew
Dillion, Director of Advocacy of the Organic Seed Alliance. "We must
continue to protect this natural resource, along with the rights of
organic farmers to be protected from negative economic impact from GE
crops, and consumers rights' to choose to eat food
free of GE components."
the impacts of biological contamination on the related crops of red
table beets and Swiss chard. "Organic seed is the foundation of organic
farming and organic food integrity, said Mathew
Dillion, Director of Advocacy of the Organic Seed Alliance. "We must
continue to protect this natural resource, along with the rights of
organic farmers to be protected from negative economic impact from GE
crops, and consumers rights' to choose to eat food
free of GE components."
"The ruling is a major consumer victory for
preserving the right to grow and eat organic foods in the United
States," stated Neil Carman of the Sierra Club. "Environmental impacts
of Roundup Ready sugar beets were also not considered by
APHIS, and they need to be fully evaluated."
preserving the right to grow and eat organic foods in the United
States," stated Neil Carman of the Sierra Club. "Environmental impacts
of Roundup Ready sugar beets were also not considered by
APHIS, and they need to be fully evaluated."
"Roundup Ready" crops allow farmers to douse their
fields with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide without killing the crop.
Constant application of the herbicide has resulted in weeds becoming
resistant to it. There are now millions of acres
across the U.S. of such "superweeds," including marestail, ragweed, and
waterhemp, and farmers are using greater applications of Roundup or
other, even more toxic chemicals. According to an independent analysis
of USDA data by former Board of Agriculture Chair
of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Charles Benbrook, GE crops
increased herbicide use in the U.S. by 122 million pounds - a 15-fold
increase - between 1994 (when GE herbicide-tolerant crops were
introduced) to 2004.
fields with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide without killing the crop.
Constant application of the herbicide has resulted in weeds becoming
resistant to it. There are now millions of acres
across the U.S. of such "superweeds," including marestail, ragweed, and
waterhemp, and farmers are using greater applications of Roundup or
other, even more toxic chemicals. According to an independent analysis
of USDA data by former Board of Agriculture Chair
of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Charles Benbrook, GE crops
increased herbicide use in the U.S. by 122 million pounds - a 15-fold
increase - between 1994 (when GE herbicide-tolerant crops were
introduced) to 2004.
Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff noted,
"Although touted by Monsanto as offering all sorts of benefits, GE
crops offer consumers nothing, and are designed primarily to sell
herbicides. The end result their use is more toxics in our environment
and our food, disappointed farmers, and revenue for Monsanto."
"Although touted by Monsanto as offering all sorts of benefits, GE
crops offer consumers nothing, and are designed primarily to sell
herbicides. The end result their use is more toxics in our environment
and our food, disappointed farmers, and revenue for Monsanto."
A 2008 scientific study revealed that Roundup
formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic,
placental, and umbilical cells in vitro even at low concentrations.
Other recent studies suggest Roundup is an endocrine
disrupter, and that some amphibians and other organisms may be at risk
from glyphosate.
formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic,
placental, and umbilical cells in vitro even at low concentrations.
Other recent studies suggest Roundup is an endocrine
disrupter, and that some amphibians and other organisms may be at risk
from glyphosate.
In addition, Judge Jeffrey S. White - in his ruling
- has scheduled a meeting in his courtroom on October 30, 2009 to
discuss the remedies phase of the case, including potential injunctive
relief.
- has scheduled a meeting in his courtroom on October 30, 2009 to
discuss the remedies phase of the case, including potential injunctive
relief.
Monsanto has been the subject of increasing
speculation that the Department of Justice's antitrust division is
scrutinizing the biotechnology company's control of the markets for GE
crops, and for commodities such as corn, soy and cotton.
speculation that the Department of Justice's antitrust division is
scrutinizing the biotechnology company's control of the markets for GE
crops, and for commodities such as corn, soy and cotton.
The case is Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack,
No. C 08-00484 JSW (N.D. Cal. 2009). The decision follows on the heels
of a June 2009 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirming the illegality of the APHIS' approval
of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa.
No. C 08-00484 JSW (N.D. Cal. 2009). The decision follows on the heels
of a June 2009 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirming the illegality of the APHIS' approval
of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular