Caught out in yet another instance of crop contamination and an attempt to limit the power of U.S. courts – this time an unapproved and commercially unreleased genetically modified wheat variety and a piece of legislation quietly slipped into an appropriations bill - Monsanto & Co decides to blame the bogeymen.
SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act H. R. 933—35 is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions
shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That
nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
..the agribusiness industry…… maintains the Farmers Assurance Provision prevents activists from manipulating the court system.
In bad news for Monsanto, but good news for food safety advocates, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., has vowed to oppose a provision that protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks. The provision, dubbed “the Monsanto Protection Act” by activists for the benefit it would provide biotech giants like Monsanto, was sneaked into a broad spending bill and passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees…..
Stabenow made her pledge in a conversation with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who has been pushing the Senate to vote on an amendment to the farm bill that would repeal the provision. That vote was blocked by [Republican Sen. Cochran] and on Thursday morning the Senate voted to end debate and move to final passage.
When two senators have a pre-arranged public conversation on the Senate floor, it’s known as a colloquy and is typically the bow that ties up a deal struck beforehand. While Merkley was unable to get a repeal vote, the colloquy is a significant win for him, with Stabenow promising she will oppose any attempt to extend the Monsanto Protection Act in backroom negotiations.
This week, more than 2 million people protested around the world against the corporate conglomerate Monsanto...
Monsanto executives described the discovery of genetically-modified wheat growing in an Oregon farmer’s field this spring an “isolated occurrence.”
During a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Monsanto officials said the company has tested 31,200 seed samples in Oregon and Washington since the May 29 announcement of the GM wheat sprouts. They found no evidence of contamination in the tests, and said the GM wheat found last month was likely the result of an accident or deliberate mixing of seeds. They are not ruling out sabotage….
American wheat farmers and a food safety advocacy group filed a lawsuit Thursday against biotech seed developer Monsanto Co, accusing the company of failing to protect the U.S. wheat market from contamination by its unauthorized wheat.
The petition, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, seeks class-action status to represent other farmers it says were harmed by lower wheat prices as some foreign buyers have shied away from U.S. wheat.
It names Clarmar Farms Inc., farmer Tom Stahl, and the Center for Food Safety as plaintiffs…….
The suit follows a similar action filed Monday by a Kansas wheat farmer, alleging that he and other growers have been hurt financially by the discovery of an unapproved biotech wheat that Monsanto said it stopped testing and shelved nine years ago….
Background
Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff: “Dismissal of the appeal confirms that the district court rightly concluded that in this case, as in every other case that has challenged USDA’s oversight of genetically engineered crops, the agency has flouted the law, favoring the interests of Monsanto over those of American people. With every court decision the need for fundamental reform in this area becomes ever more obvious.”
Remarkably, the EIS is only the second USDA has undertaken for any GE crop in over 15 years of approving such crops for human consumption. Both analyses were court-ordered. USDA said it expects to finish the GE sugar beets EIS and have a new decision on commercialization in 2012.
Despite the absence of lawful review or a new agency decision, in summer 2010, USDA and the biotech industry demanded the court allow planting to continue unabated. The district court refused to do so and instead set aside USDA’s approval of the crop based on the agency’s failure to comply with environmental laws. That precedential ruling was also preserved by today’s order.
