Court Refuses to Stop Current Planting of GE Sugar Beets
A federal court in California has denied a request for preliminary injunction to halt the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets while the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) completes its court-ordered environmental impact statement (EIS) for the crop under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Ctr. for Food Safety v. Schafer, No. 08-00484 (N.D. Cal., decided March 16, 2010).
Because the court already determined that APHIS improperly deregulated Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® sugar beet seed without preparing an EIS, the judge noted that the plaintiffs have established the initial element for obtaining injunctive relief, that is, a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. The judge also found that they have demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm, given evidence that the GE crop is capable of contaminating conventional and organic corps.
Still, he refused to issue a preliminary injunction to immediately halt the sale, planting, cultivation, and harvesting of the crop because plaintiffs had delayed seeking the relief and such an order would have devastating economic effects. According to the court, 95 percent of the sugar beets grown on more than 1 million acres in the United States, representing half the nation’s sugar supply, are genetically engineered, and 99.9 percent of the GE seed “that has been or will be planted this spring has already been purchased and almost all of the seed has been or will be delivered by the end of March.” Prohibiting the planting or processing of the GE sugar-beet crop could cause a shortage, said the court, that would force the closure of more than half the sugar-beet processing plants in the United States and cause
the loss of some 5,800 full-time and seasonal jobs, $283.6 million in gross profits for sugar-beet growers and $180 million for seed growers and technology companies. With multiplier effects, the losses could reach $1.469 billion.
The judge cautioned, however, “[t]he parties should not assume that the Court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction is indicative of its views on a permanent injunction pending the full environmental review that APHIS is required to conduct. Rather, while the environmental review is pending, the Court is inclined to order the Intervenor-Defendants [sugar-beet farmers and associations and biotechnology companies] to take all efforts, going forward, to use conventional seed. In light of Plaintiffs’ showing of irreparable harm to the environment, the Court is troubled by maintaining the status quo that consists of ninety-five percent of sugar beets being genetically engineered while APHIS conducts the environmental review that should have occurred before the sugar beets were deregulated.” According to the court, the plaintiffs’ delay in seeking injunctive relief will have “less weight in consideration of a permanent injunction.”
According to news sources, the next hearing is scheduled for July 9, 2010, at which time plaintiffs will argue their case for a permanent injunction. An attorney for plaintiff Earthjustice was quoted as saying, “Based on today’s ruling, we are encouraged that Judge White will order permanent injunction relief.” The executive director for another plaintiff, the Center for Food Safety, reportedly said, “Monsanto’s gene-altered sugar beets were illegally approved by the Bush Administration’s USDA. The profound economic impacts on organic and conventional farmers, as well as the environment, were not assessed. As a result, the planting of these crops should be halted to avoid further harm.”
A Monsanto spokesperson reportedly said, “This ruling provides clarity that farmers can plant Roundup Ready sugar beets in 2010.” The Sugar Industry Biotech Council reportedly said in a statement, “We are pleased that the court denied the request and recognized the significant negative impact that an immediate ban on planting would have caused to growers, processors, rural communities and the U.S. sugar supply. We look forward to the next phase of the court proceedings where we can present evidence about potential choices for our growers and processors.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a decision that stopped the sale and planting of GE alfalfa, again because of the government’s failure to conduct an EIS. Details about that case and the sugar-beet litigation can be found in issues 202, 205, 206, 208, 229, 274, 320, 325, and 334 of this Update. See Earthjustice Press Release, St. Louis Business Journal, PR Newswire, The New York Times, Center for Food Safety Press Release, March 16, 2010.
