The Center for Food Safety today celebrated the United States Supreme
Court€™s decision in

Monsanto v. Geerston Farms, the first
genetically modified crop case ever brought before the Supreme Court. 
Although the High Court decision reverses parts of the lower courts€™
rulings, the judgment holds that a vacatur bars the planting of
Monsanto€™s Roundup Ready Alfalfa until and unless future deregulation
occurs.  It is a victory for the Center for Food Safety and the Farmers
and Consumers it represents.

€œThe Justices€™ decision today means that the selling and planting of
Roundup Ready Alfalfa is illegal.  The ban on the crop will remain in
place until a full and adequate EIS is prepared by USDA and they
officially deregulate the crop.  This is a year or more away according
to the agency, and even then, a deregulation move may be subject to
further litigation if the agency€™s analysis is not adequate,€ said
Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. €œIn
sum, it€™s a significant victory in our ongoing fight to protect farmer
and consumer choice, the environment and the organic industry.€

In the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court
held: €œIn sum€¦the vacatur of APHIS€™s deregulation decision means that
virtually no RRA (Roundup Ready Alfalfa) can be grown or sold until such
time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that
any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will
have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate
preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made.€ (Opinion at p.
22).

The Court also held that:

• Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an
  EIS subject to legal challenge. 
• The Court further recognized that the threat of transgenic
  contamination is harmful and onerous to organic and conventional farmers
  and that the injury allows them to challenge future biotech crop
  commercializations in court.

USDA indicated at the Supreme Court argument that full deregulation
is about a year away and that they will not pursue a partial
deregulation in the interim.  Any new attempt at deregulation in full or
part will be subject to legcl challenge. 

€œThe bottom line is that the Supreme Court set aside the injunction
because the vacating of the commercialization decision already gave us
all the relief we needed, by forbidding RRA planting until a new
decision is made by the agency.  And at such time, farmers and consumers
still have the right to challenge the adequacy of that process.€ said
George Kimbrell, senior staff attorney for CFS.  €œThe Court€™s decision
affirmed that the threat of genetic contamination of natural plants
posed by biotech crops is an issue of significant environmental concern
now and in the future.€

In this case, CFS faced off against powerful opposing entities,
including the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural biotech
giant, Monsanto Corporation. The Center and the other respondents were
supported by a broad array of diverse interests, marshalling no less
than seven amicus briefs in support.  The amici included three states€™
attorneys general, leading scientific experts, legal scholars, former
government officials, farmers, exporters, environmental groups, food
companies and organic industry trade groups.  The Organic Trade
association and companies like Stonyfield Farms, Cliff Bar and Eden
Foods voiced united concern over the threat a ruling for Monsanto would
pose to the organic food businesses, the fastest growing sector in the
American food industry.   Attorneys general from California, Oregon and
Massachusetts filed a brief on behalf of their citizens emphasizing €œthe
States€™ interests in protecting the environment, their natural
resources and their citizens€™ rights to be informed about the
environmental impacts of federal actions.€ A full list of the more than
sixty organizations, companies and individuals who filed briefs in
support of CFS and opposed to Monsanto can be viewed at http://truefoodnow.org/publications/supreme-court-briefs/.

Monsanto was supported by a bloc of powerful corporate interests and
industry groups, including the American Farm Bureau, the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, and CropLife America.

The environmental, health, cultural, and economic impacts of the
genetically-engineered alfalfa seed, which is designed to be immune to
Monsanto€™s flagship herbicide Roundup, and the USDA€™s plan to
commercialize it, was at the heart of this dispute since 2006, when CFS
filed a lawsuit against the USDA on behalf of a coalition of non-profits
and farmers who wanted to retain the choice to grow non-GE alfalfa. 
Central to the issue is unwanted transgenetic drift: GE alfalfa can
spread uncontrollably by way of bees that can cross-pollinate plants
many miles away, contaminating both conventional and organic alfalfa
with foreign DNA, patented by Monsanto.

€œWe brought this case to court because I and other conventional
farmers will no doubt suffer irreversible economic harm if the planting
of GE alfalfa is allowed,€ said plaintiff Phil Geerston.  €œIt was simply
a question of our survival, and though we did not win on all points of
the law, we are grateful that the practical result of today€™s ruling is
that Monsanto cannot take away our rights and Roundup Ready alfalfa
cannot threaten our livelihoods.€

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S., and a key
source of dairy forage. Organic and conventional farmers faced the loss
of their businesses due to widespread contamination from Monsanto€™s
patented GE alfalfa, and the foreseeable contamination of feral or wild
alfalfa would ensure an ongoing and permanent source of transgenic
pollution in wild places akin to that of invasive species.  The New York
Times (link) recently covered the epidemic of super-weeds Monsanto€™s
Roundup Ready crops are causing across the country.

Further background information on the history of this case and
scientific studies are available at http://truefoodnow.org/publications/supreme-court-briefs/.
The Supreme Court decision can be viewed here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf