An upcoming court case in the United States either has far-reaching implications for Canadian growers or no consequences whatsoever, depending on who is voicing the opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Jan. 15 it would review a federal district court order that halted the planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa in 2007.
Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, said the case is significant to Canadian farmers.
The most direct impact is it could pave the way for the planting of genetically modified alfalfa in the United States as early as the spring of 2010, which she claims could lead to the cross-border contamination of Canadian alfalfa.
Read Also
Man charged after assault at grain elevator
RCMP have charged a 51-year-old Weyburn man after an altercation at the Pioneer elevator at Corinne, Sask. July 22.
Sharratt fears a decision in favour of Monsanto could also prompt Monsanto’s business partner, Forage Genetics International, to proceed with commercialization of the crop in Canada.
Equally concerning for Sharratt are the broader ramifications if the Supreme Court overturns the lower court’s injunction.
“That could change the future of any similar types of attempts by farmers to place injunctions on GM crop plantings, like GM wheat, for example,” she said.
Monsanto Canada spokesperson Trish Jordan attached little significance to the GM alfalfa case because of the countries’ different regulatory approval processes and legal systems.
“Nothing that the U.S. courts do has any relevance to Canada,” she said.
Jordan said Forage Genetics still has no commercialization plans for the crop in Canada, but it wouldn’t matter if it did because the U.S. is a separate jurisdiction.
Sharratt and Jordan do agree that the environmental impact statement the U.S. Department of Agriculture is preparing is the more interesting aspect of the case.
The Roundup Ready alfalfa went to the market in 2005 after receiving approval from the USDA.
The Center for Food Safety filed a federal lawsuit in early 2006 citing the USDA’s failure to prepare an environmental impact statement. In May 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California halted further sale or planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa pending completion of an environmental impact statement.
The USDA, Monsanto, Forage Genetics and Roundup Ready alfalfa growers launched an appeal of that decision in August 2007 but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against Monsanto.
In October 2009, Monsanto and its supporters appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts were wrong to ban the planting of the GM crop while the UDSA was conducting its environmental review.
They contend the law is clear that such drastic action should be taken only when it is likely that irreparable harm will result. There is no evidence of such harm in growing GM alfalfa, they added.
The USDA released its draft environmental impact statement in December and is accepting comments on it until Feb. 16.
The preliminary finding is that commercially growing Roundup Ready alfalfa would not significantly affect humans or the environment. If that finding stands in the final report, GM alfalfa production could resume as early as this spring.
The draft report, which exceeds 1,400 pages, was two years in the making and took into account views of those who favour and oppose biotechnology.
“It’s a very, very thorough, scientifically based review,” said Jordan, who was pleased with the preliminary finding.
Sharratt worries Canadian governments could be influenced by the conclusion that GM contamination can be managed.
She said the U.S. Supreme Court case will not proceed if GM alfalfa is approved and the injunction removed before the hearing takes place.
Jordan thinks the case would still be heard because it could resolve the injunction issue.
Monsanto is already facing the potential of a similar injunction on the planting of its herbicide tolerant sugar beets.
A Northern District of California judge recently ruled the USDA’s environmental review of GM sugar beets was insufficient. The plaintiffs in the case are seeking a planting injunction similar to what occurred with the alfalfa case.
The difference between the two cases is that 95 percent of U.S. sugar beet farmers grow GM varieties compared to one percent of alfalfa growers.
