Court just says no -- again -- to genetically modified alfalfa

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


We know you're just dying to taste that delectable genetically modified alfalfa, but you'll have to wait: an appeals court today ruled  that the feds  must review the potential environmental effects of the biotech seeds before farmers can plant them.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals forces the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue an environmental impact statement on Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds, which are made by ag giant Monsanto and would be planted exclusively by Forage Genetics International.

"It’s a historic moment of a court requiring an environmental review, and until it's done Monsanto can't plant or sell its seed," said Kevin Golden, a staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety (CFS), which along with eight other parties sued the government green-lighting the seeds. "It puts on notice the government and creators of this technology -- Monsanto in particular -- that if it wants to bring GE (genetically engineered) crops into the American agricultural system, it must do its work to show that farmers and consumers will be protected and non-GE crops won't be affected."

The decision upholds an injunction issued by a district court judge last year.  CFS and other critics worry that tiny genetically modified alfalfa seeds will contaminate organic and conventional crops through cross-pollination.

"The concern is there will one day not be organic alfalfa, which is the primary food for cattle in this country," Golden said. "If you lose organic alfalfa, you lose organic cheese."

Representatives from USDA, Monsanto and Forage Genetics International didn't immediately respond for comment.

(Image courtesy of iStockphoto; Copyright: Daniel Loiselle

 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe