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
As Flood Deaths Rise, Texas Officials Blast Faulty Forecast by DOGE-Gutted National Weather Service
"Experts warned for months that drastic and sudden cuts at the National Weather Service by Trump could impair their forecasting ability and endanger lives during the storm season," said one critic.
Jul 05, 2025
As catastrophic flooding left scores of people dead and missing in Texas Hill Country and President Donald Trump celebrated signing legislation that will eviscerate every aspect of federal efforts to address the climate emergency, officials in the Lone Star State blasted the National Weather Service—one of many agencies gutted by the Department of Government Efficiency—for issuing faulty forecasts that some observers blamed for the flood's high death toll.
The Associated Press reported Saturday that flooding caused by a powerful storm killed at least 27 people, with dozens more—including as many as 25 girls from a summer camp along the Guadalupe River in Kerr County—missing after fast-moving floodwaters rose 26 feet (8 meters) in less than an hour before dawn on Friday, sweeping away people and pets along with homes, vehicles, farm and wild animals, and property.
"Everybody got the forecast from the National Weather Service... It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw."
"The camp was completely destroyed," Elinor Lester, 13, one of hundreds of campers at Camp Mystic, told the AP. "A helicopter landed and started taking people away. It was really scary."
Kerr County Sheriff Larry Leitha said during a press conference in Kerrville late Friday that 24 people were confirmed dead, including children. Other officials said that 240 people had been rescued.
Although the National Weather Service on Thursday issued a broad flood watch for the area, Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd—noting that the NWS predicted 3-6 inches of rain for the Concho Valley and 4-8 inches for the Hill Country—told reporters during a press conference earlier Friday that "the amount of rain that fell in this specific location was never in any of those forecasts."
After media reports & experts warned for months that drastic & sudden cuts at the Nat Weather Service by Trump could impair their forecasting ability & endanger lives during the storm season, TX officials blame an inaccurate forecast by NWS for the deadly results of the flood.
[image or embed]
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) July 5, 2025 at 3:19 AM
"Listen, everybody got the forecast from the National Weather Service," Kidd reiterated. "You all got it; you're all in media. You got that forecast. It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw."
Kerrville City Manager Dalton Rice also said during the press conference that the storm "dumped more rain than what was forecasted" into two forks of the Guadalupe River.
Kerr County judge Rob Kelly told CBS News: "We had no reason to believe that this was gonna be anything like what's happened here. None whatsoever."
Since January, the NWS—a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—has reduced its workforce by nearly 600 people as a direct result of staffing cuts ordered by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, as part of Trump's mission to eviscerate numerous federal agencies.
This policy is in line with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government that calls for "dismantling" NOAA. Trump has also called for the elimination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, arguing that states should shoulder most of the burden of extreme weather preparation and response. Shutting down FEMA would require an act of Congress.
Many of the fired NWS staffers were specialized climate scientists and weather forecasters. At the time of the firings, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, was among those who warned of the cuts' deadly consequences.
"People nationwide depend on NOAA for free, accurate forecasts, severe weather alerts, and emergency information," Huffman said. "Purging the government of scientists, experts, and career civil servants and slashing fundamental programs will cost lives."
Writing for the Texas Observer, Henry D. Jacoby—co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change—warned that "crucial data gathering systems are at risk."
"Federal ability to warn the public is being degraded," he added, "and it is a public service no state can replace."
On Friday, Trump put presidential pen to congressional Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a $4 trillion tax and spending package that effectively erases the landmark climate and clean energy provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act signed by then-President Joe Biden in 2022.
As Inside Climate News noted of the new law:
It stomps out incentives for purchasing electric vehicles and efficient appliances. It phases out tax credits for wind and solar energy. It opens up federal land and water for oil and gas drilling and increases its profitability, while creating new federal support for coal. It ends the historic investment in poor and minority communities that bear a disproportionate pollution burden—money that the Trump administration was already refusing to spend. It wipes out any spending on greening the federal government.
Furthermore, as MeidasNews editor-in-chief Ron Filipkowski noted Saturday, "rural areas hit hardest by catastrophic storms are the same areas now in danger of losing their hospitals after Trump's Medicaid cuts just passed" as part of the budget reconciliation package.
At least one congressional Republican is ready to take action in the face of increasing extreme weather events. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who once attributed California wildfires to Jewish-controlled space lasers—announced Saturday that she is "introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity."
"It will be a felony offense," she explained. "We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering."
Keep ReadingShow Less
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular