Monsanto to Appeal Ban on GE Sugar Beets

December 3, 2010

2 Min Read
Supply Side Supplement Journal logo in a gray background | Supply Side Supplement Journal

ST. LOUISMonsanto Co. announced Dec. 1 it would appeal a federal judges Nov. 30 order to uproot and destroy genetically modified sugar-beet plants in Arizona and Oregon. The plants were to be used to produce genetically altered seeds for the 2012 sugar beet crop.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco ruled that USDA improperly granted permission for the planting of the beets without a detailed environmental review. The order, which would impact limited late-season and isolated planting of sugar beet seedlings, or stecklings, is set to take effect Dec. 6.

With due respect, we believe the courts action overlooked the factual evidence presented that no harm would be caused by these plantings, and is plainly inconsistent with the established law as recently announced by the U.S. Supreme Court," said David Snively, general counsel  for Monsanto. We intend to seek an immediate stay of this ruling and appeal to the Court of Appeals."

The sugar beets were genetically engineered to include a bacteria gene that helps the plants withstand applications of weed killer. Several environmental groups had already filed a lawsuit last September alleging that USDAs approval of the plantings violated an earlier decision by Judge White.

The courts ruling does not affect the 2010 Roundup Ready sugar beet seed crop which had been planted earlier in the year prior to the September permits. Moreover, the decision will have little impact on the sugar beet crop that farmers anticipate planting in 2011. Stecklings produced in 2010 would supply seed for root crop growers in the 2012 season.

Roundup Ready sugar beets have been planted in North America for the past four years. USDA issued permits for this additional seed production in accordance with the June 2010 Supreme Court ruling that clearly authorizes such actions. The district courts decision would impose unnecessary costs on the seed producers when there has been no demonstrated harm to plaintiffs or risk to the environment associated with the seed production in the multiple years that the crop has been successfully planted and harvested.

Subscribe for the latest consumer trends, trade news, nutrition science and regulatory updates in the supplement industry!
Join 37,000+ members. Yes, it's completely free.

You May Also Like