
The US Supreme Court has rendered a decision on its first case involving genetically modified crops, and both proponents and opponents of biotech crops are declaring victory.
Yesterday, the court decided 7-1 to overturn a San Francisco district court decision banning genetically modified, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. (Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer abstained because his brother was the judge in the district court case.) A group of alfalfa farmers and the Center for Food Safety had filed the case, asserting that the USDA had not completed a thorough environmental assessment before approving the crops for commercial use. The district court agreed, and banned the crop.
But a nationwide ban prohibiting all planting of the modified alfalfa seeds was unwarranted, wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Instead, the USDA should have the ability to regulate where the crops were planted: for example, mandating that they be a set distance away from conventional crops, to prevent cross contamination.
Monsanto, the agricultural firm that developed the crop, was pleased. According to the NY Times, Monsanto’s general counsel told reporters: “Monsanto and farmers in the United States are thrilled with this decision, which is far-reaching in its look at the regulatory framework that should govern biotech crops.” Meanwhile, over at Grist, the decision was “a fairly significant win for opponents of biotech crops” because the Supreme Court acknowledged that loss of market due to genetic contamination can cause environmental harm. “That’s a huge win for our side… That’s gigantic!” a senior scientist at Consumers Union told Grist.
In any case, the appeal that brought the case before the Supreme Court protested the ban, but did not challenge the district courts finding that the USDA had shortchanged its environmental assessment of the crop. The USDA issued a statment saying that it intends to complete a new environmental assessment in time to approve the alfalfa for next spring’s planting season.
Image: Gary D. Robson