A federal appeals court upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa Tuesday until the government completes a study on whether the altered seeds would contaminate other farmers' alfalfa crops.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's decision that halted the planting of Monsanto Co.'s herbicide-resistant strain of alfalfa on March 30, 2007. The suit was filed by alfalfa farmers who feared that the Monsanto product, spread by winds and bees, would pollinate their crops and take over their fields.
The ruling was "a major victory for farmers, both conventional and organic, for consumers and for the environment," said attorney George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, which represented the plaintiffs. He said it helps consumers who don't want dairy products from cattle that forage on altered alfalfa and protects growers who want to export crops to Japan, which bans genetically modified alfalfa.
Monsanto had no comment.
It was the second victory in a week for opponents of genetically modified food. The state Legislature passed a bill last week that would shield California farmers from lawsuits by companies such as Monsanto when patented pollen and seed drift onto their land.
The bill, AB541, was a response to patent infringement suits by biotech companies against farmers who grew genetically altered crops because of uninvited pollination. The measure would protect farmers who acquired such crops unknowingly and had minimal levels of patented seeds on their land.
Tuesday's ruling involved Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, so named because it is designed to withstand applications of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Alfalfa, used for hay and cattle feed, is grown on 23 million acres and is the nation's fourth-largest crop. California, with 1 million acres, is the leading producer.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the Monsanto alfalfa in 2005, saying buffer zones around organic farms would protect them from unwanted pollination.
But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco rejected the USDA's assurances last year and ruled that the department had failed to conduct a thorough study of the product's safety and environmental effects.
~ more... ~
No comments:
Post a Comment