I wonder how much it cost Monsanto to get that “premature approval.” Apparently they didn’t spend enough on the judicial side of the government.

A federal judge ruled the premature approval of the genetically modified sugar beets from Monsanto by the government as unlawful.

Federal District Judge Jeffrey S. White said that the lack of any thorough risk assessment of the transgenic plants, as required by law, makes an approval for commercial cultivation impossible.

The environmental consequences of the sugar beets were not assessed adequately by the Agriculture Department, but an approval was given despite this violation of the National environmental Policy Act.

White, based in San Francisco, stated this already in a ruling in September 2009 and warned farmers to opt for conventional seeds. Apparently everyone ignored this earlier decision and warning, as 95 percent of all sugar beets planted in the U.S. are based on the genetically altered Monsanto seeds. The Agriculture Department “has already had more than sufficient time to take interim measures, but failed to act expediently,” White wrote.

The planting of these plants, which are resistant against the controversial herbicide Round-Up, also marketed by agro-industrial behemoth Monsanto, is now banned.




  1. bobbo, pulling the Shirley Sherrod move says:

    Why did you “edit” the link? The very next line is:

    “But luckily for farmers, their current harvest was exempted from the ban and can be processed into sugar for the food factories.”

    Being resistant to Monsanto Herbicides means they can soak the fields in herbicides killing off all the other plants and fauna that were barely hanging in there. Sad for all the other species, but there’s no other way to get to 12 Billion by 2050.

    The future is so bright, I gotta wear shades.

  2. Zybch says:

    Well at least one judge has refused to take monsanto’s money.
    I wonder how long till he is ‘suicided’.

  3. Glenn E. says:

    “Apparently they didn’t spend enough on the judicial side of the government.”

    And American judges have become so easy to buy off. Or pre-pay for, as election candidates. I guess the chemical giant hasn’t learned that trick, just yet. Maybe they’re hoping to GM some favorable judges.

  4. ECA says:

    Old trick for finding FOOD you can eat..

    Look for water WITH BUGS IN IT!!
    Look for bushes BIRDS eat the Grapes/strawberries/…Berries.
    Watch for BUGS that can EAT the same things..
    Watch for animals to EAT IT FIRST..

    So,
    we create a plant, that BUGS dont like..We even add an ability that OTHER PLANTS cant grow around it.. PLANTS SUCK UP Nutrients from soils…WHATS IN THE SOIL??

    We are RUNNING AWAY FROM NATURE…
    and do you know the FUNNEST PART??
    MOST of our food gets EXPORTED.
    WE grow MORE rice then ANY OTHER NATION..
    we grow MORE GRAINS then any other nation..
    FEW other nations WANT our sugar, as it COSTS TO MUCH, and CANE sugar is cheaper.

    WE feed 30% of the world.

  5. Awake says:

    #4 -ECA
    Good point, and as you mention in this case, the problem is even worse.

    What is being created is hybrids that can be doused in chemicals and survive, while everything else around it dies.

    Have you seen what “Round-up” does to weeds in your driveway? One squirt and a couple of hours later the weed is shriveling and dying a nasty death.

    Do you want to eat food that has been repeatedly dowsed in that same chemical? Not me. That stuff is scary. In a sense, they are selling a product that has been soaked in “Agent Orange” and calling it safe.

    If they were marketing a veggie that had been modified to repel bugs naturally, then maybe it would be OK. But to market something that survives being dowsed in a chemical, and sell it to the public without telling the public that the product has been dowsed in that chemical, that’s too much.

    Bravo for the judge putting people before corporations and special interests. Is he what we call an “activist judge”? He must be if he is on the common person’s side… if he is, then we need more of those “activist judges”.

  6. Animby says:

    # 3 Glenn E. said,”American judges have become so easy to buy off. Or pre-pay for, as election candidates.”

    When is the last time you heard of a Federal judge being bought off? For that matter, when is the last time we elected a Federal judge?

    # 4 ECA said, “WE feed 30% of the world.” Well, we couldn’t do that if the bugs and birds were getting first shot at the fields. I don’t particularly care for the hard ass tactics of Monsanto but we’ve been genetically modifying our food supply since before Gregor Mendel. As Bobbo said, if we’re gonna feed double our current population within the next few decades, it won’t be with “organic” farming techniques. And certainly not by seeing which berries the birds will eat.

    Hate to post and run but I’m traveling for the next few days. So have fun stabbing me in the back.

  7. ECA says:

    aNIM,
    think for only a second..
    IF we can feed 30% of the world…
    Do you think they pay as Much as WE DO FOR FOOD?
    thats considered EXCESS, and we ship it out.
    WE could TRIPLE the USA population, and NOT be near what China has. AND the USA is 1% larger.

    1. WE dont need to MAKE THIS MUCH FOOD. not for this nation. ITS A BARGAINING CHIP. One we shouldnt USE. We make other nations DEPENDENT ON THE USA.
    2. We can feed every AT LEAST 3 times over with what we have ALREADY.
    3. FOOD should NOT BE and export, UNLESS you trade it for FOOD.

  8. Gay Atheist Gun nut says:

    Monsanto…you can’t beat our beats!

  9. JMJahn says:

    Probably one of the biggest threats to the US population (GM Foods). Good luck with your future. Wonder if Monsanto will pay for the cleanup (GM children)?. Unbelievable how corporations are ruling without mandate.

  10. bobbyroth says:

    Put my money on a car crash

  11. Steve S says:

    # 7 ECA said,
    “3. FOOD should NOT BE and export, UNLESS you trade it for FOOD.”
    Why not?

  12. ECA says:

    Steve,
    Figure it out.

    There are few countries that can create an EXCESS of food.
    IF we IMPORT food, we are generally TAKING food from others that need it. Those countries that MAKE excess MAKE it mostly from the sea. Sell the fish, we give you Grain.

    Export our grains for Services, is Hunger Slavery.

  13. Zybch says:

    #6 “we’ve been genetically modifying our food supply since before Gregor Mendel”

    Um, no we haven’t. We’ve been modifying it via selective breeding, not genetic engineering. There was no way to mix salmon genes into strawberry plants (for frost tolerance) before, and anyone who thinks breaking the species barrier, just so we can have strawberries in winter, is safe is a freaking retard.
    Even with selective breeding, many abominations were produced. Just look at the Belgium Blue cow, and most republicans.

  14. dexton7 says:

    I’m all for progress in producing food… but getting DNA splice happy with food that is untested is horribly irresponsible. Many of their GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels, or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene. This can cause some interesting and disastrous health problems in humans.

    Other major past products from Monsanto include the herbicides 2,4,5-T, DDT, and Agent Orange used primarily during the Vietnam War as a defoliant agent (later proven to be highly carcinogenic to any who come into contact with the solution), the artificial sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine somatotropin (bovine growth hormone (BST)), and PCBs.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that Monsanto kind of sucks.

  15. deowll says:

    Without actually making a judgment on the plant itself I wonder what the judge is afraid of? The Attack of the Killer beats?

    That isn’t going to happen and neither are these things going wild.

    The only thing I’d be worried about is if they caused the things to make an insecticide/herbicide what ever and did the processing get rid of it. Remember the end product is sugar.

  16. ECA says:

    #15
    yes they are going wild..
    Cross pollination, is HAPPENING. And monsanto is winning.

  17. Sea Lawyer says:

    #7, there is nothing wrong with nations trading food products that allow each other to benefit from their comparative advantages. It’s economically efficient. The problem is when a large industrial nation with a heavily subsidized agricultural sector (e.g. the United States) pushes its huge surpluses on developing markets, driving down prices, and forcing small local farmers out.

  18. ECA says:

    SL,

    NO. food for Food.
    Using OUR food to give for products from another nation ONLY indebts them to us for MORE FOOD. It forces a Work ethic to increase production to GET MORE FOOD. its remote controlled slavery.

    OUR surplus, is CREATED. we are making plants that can grow 2-3-4 times the amount in the same area as 1 crop. WE use chemicals to Fortify them as they EAT UP THE NUTRIENTS Totally.
    AND, do those other countries PAY MORE then we do for the food? I dont think they do. I think they pay about 1/2 the prices we pay in the USA…BUT, they are getting the real product, where the USA food stuffs have become Adulterated. I THINK, they prefer selling Offshore then to let the USA cit have real food anymore.

  19. Sea Lawyer says:

    #18, there are regions of the world where growing food crops is extremely difficult, just as there are many other regions which easily produce surpluses. If a country in one of the difficult regions can produce something else more easily/efficiently, then they should produce it to be traded for the food from other countries, instead of wasting even more resources into producing less. This doesn’t mean that such a country should forgo food production all together, but pumping resources into less efficient food production just so it can pursue some policy of agricultural autarky is not going to benefit them in the long run. I don’t understand why it is so controversial to you.

  20. RSweeney says:

    You greenies DO understand that the alternative to Roundup is mechanically tilling the soil.

    Which results in topsoil loss, increased water and air pollution, and greatly increased energy consumption by farms.

    Which are all things you oppose? Right?

  21. deowll says:

    #20 Most Greenies are not actually one with the earth. They haven’t actually done the math on what happens if they get their way other than they expect to go on living in comfort which isn’t going to happen.

  22. ECA says:

    19, FORCED over abundance ISNT an abundance.
    We have destroyed the soil so much we require, tons of nutrients.
    And dont skip my point that we are filling OUR OWN food with fillers and STUFF, that isnt natural.

    20,
    Alternative to Roundup?? Is to LEARN to grow Over laying crops, that work with each other.
    To hiring more then a FEW people to do the WORK.
    TO using GROUND covers to prevent WEEDS, that HOME gardeners already use. And help HOLD WATER.

  23. canuck says:

    I’m not opposed to GM foods, I’m opposed to them being sterile so they cannot reseed themselves and you and eventually your neighbours are forced to buy seed from Monsanto. Farmers in Africa starve as they discover their crops are cross pollinated from nearby fields. As their crops fail because more and more of their own grown seed becomes sterilized they find they cannot afford the Monsanto seed and starve.

  24. ECA says:

    #23..
    BINGO..

    Im sorry tho..
    IF bugs wont eat the plant and mice wont, I would still consider it poison.