Friday a federal judge imposed a ban
on GMO sugar beets and it was overturned** the next business day. Sugar
beets comprise 50% of the sugar used in US food, and 95% of the sugar beets
grown in the US are GMO. It is the jurisdiction of the US Department of
Agriculture to determine whether plants are environmentally safe; this case
is about whether the plants can cross pollinate (by wind, insects, etc)
and contaminate other plants. This could have cost Monsanto billions of
than 2 weeks ago, wild
growing canola in North Dakota was discovered to be 86% GMO. Because
GMO crops are crossed with herbicide resistant plants (usually weeds), they
grow like weeds and contaminate natural plants. Alarmingly, two of the canola
samples collected by scientists showed that multiple genes from different
species of GMO canola plants cross pollinated without cultivation, and probably
for several generations. The implication of this is that GMO seeds can readily
contaminate natural seeds and become out of control.
GMO alfalfa ban lawsuit about contamination was the first GMO case ever
heard by the Supreme Court, despite countless lawsuits from farmers whose
fields have been polluted by GMOs. The sugar beet ban was overturned, based
on a Supreme Court decision (7-1), which lifted the nationwide ban on GMO
alfalfa in June.
Supreme Court ruling stated that the nationwide GMO alfalfa ban was too
broad, so it was lifted; an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be performed
by the USDA is still pending. GMO crops are environmentally dangerous because
they can readily spread, as proven by the wild GMO plants found in North
Dakota. The Supreme Court never addressed the issue of whether GMO plants
contaminate natural plants through cross pollination.
that the appointed Supreme Court judges collect their paychecks from the
federal government. The USDA co-owns a patent with Monsanto for the 'Terminator'
gene (which make seeds go sterile after one harvest). Is the Supreme Court's
loyalty to the federal government, in this case protecting the 'Terminator'
patent owned by the USDA and its business-partner Monsanto, or is their
loyalty to the American people?
Supreme Court has never accepted a GMO food safety case, which falls under
the jurisdiction of the corrupt FDA. Organ damage and sterility have been
linked to a GMO food diet in lab animals.
of the organizations that represent farmers whose farms appear to be compromised.
For instance, Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety has another
tax-exempt organization that is pursuing the removal of natural colloidal
silver from public use and has accepted $1.75 million from the John Merck
Fund, which has ties to the Rockefellers, who have been major financiers
of biotechnology and food control for decades.
Sierra Club's own website supports the United Nations Population Fund which
has its roots in eugenics.
is another example of a tax-exempt organization that uses the Agenda 21
Sustainable Development model for "helping" people and the environment,
when really the overall objective is to reduce the population. Earthjustice
has a $30 million budget and they support the Sierra Club's mission against
the "overriding threat of spiraling population growth and over consumption."
GMOs, which no one would want if they fully understood the health and contamination
dangers, have thoroughly infiltrated America's farms and food supply by
way of government regulations, which is how monopolies are created. The
Rockefellers have practiced food control for generations and fund biotechnology.
The US government has worked in opposition to farmers and public health
in granting Monsanto patents on seeds, thus enabling Monsanto's licensing
agreements with farmers that keep the farmers paying royalties even after
they stop growing Monsanto products. The United Nations has been complicit
in spreading GMO seeds across the world through WTO regulations and other
means. Many environmental NGOs are accredited through the UN, "non-profit"
organizations (tax-exempt is a better description because many of these
501(c)3 organizations reap plenty of profits) and tax-exempt foundations
all work together to pursue the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development goals
of depopulation and total control, using the environment as the excuse.
For the full analysis of Food & Depopulation, please click on these
Rockefeller Family- Part One
Monopoly- Part Two
Takeover by the UN- Part Three
& Solutions- Part Four
interest of accuracy, the word "ban" has commonly been used interchangeably
in the news for two separate issues in the GMO sugar beet case. Because
the word was used interchangeably, the statement in this article that the
sugar beet ban was 'overturned' is technically incorrect and 're-interpreted'
is a more appropriate word. There are 2 definitions for "ban"in
the GMO sugar beet case:
Plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction (also
called a "ban") on planting GMO sugar beets, and the Judge
rejected the request on August 16. No immediate "ban" on further
planting, cultivation and processing has been imposed. Judge White referred
the matter back to the USDA to perform an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).
USDA APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) was responsible
for approving the GMO sugar beet seed for selling and planting in 2005,
and they have been directed to provide the EIS.
Deregulation: Federal Judge White did vacate the USDA order to deregulate
GMO sugar beets; deregulation is the free sale and planting of the GMO seeds.
Because Judge White vacated the GMO sugar beet deregulation, these plants
are now regulated and there is a "ban"; they must undergo an EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement) under the authority of the USDA APHIS.
The Sugar Biotech Council interpreted this to mean that the Court's order
does not interfere with the harvest and processing of Roundup Ready sugar
beet crops planted before the date of the order, August 13. They also said
that the harvested sugar may be supplied to the market without limitation.
the council said that under the GMO alfalfa Supreme Court ruling, APHIS
could adopt interim measures to allow plantings next season.
One of the Plaintiffs, the Center for Food Safety, interpreted the ruling
to mean that "the Court officially 'vacated' the the USDA 'deregulation'
of Monsanto's biotech sugar beets and prohibited any future planting and
sale pending the agency's compliance with NEPA and all other relevant laws."
link explains the win
of Agriculture's APHIS identifies GMO plants as "plant pests".
In order to remove regulations from GMO "plant pests", the GMO
manufacturer petitions APHIS if it believes that their plants are not "plant
pests". APHIS is required to analyze the potential impact of that GMO
plant on the environment. Generally, APHIS files a brief EA (Environmental
Assessment), but if it determines that the seeds could significantly affect
the environment, it must complete a detailed EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).
here for the legal explanation
GMO sugar beet case Judge White stated that "...APHIS's apparent position
that it is merely a matter of time before they reinstate the same deregulation
decision, or a modified version of this decision, and thus apparent perception
that conducting the requisite comprehensive review is a mere formality,
causes some concern that the Defendants are not taking this process seriously."
EIS will be performed by APHIS despite Judge White's seemingly low opinion
here for information on the injunction invalidation
APHIS completed a draft of the EIS, that determined GMO alfalfa was "unlikely
to pose a plant pest risk", Geertson Seed Farm responded by arguing
that incorrect conclusions were drawn from the data by APHIS, and the case
went to the Supreme Court.
here for document citing flaws in the EIS
COURT DECISION ON GMO ALFALFA:
failed to perform an EIS on GMO alfalfa before deregulating it and an injunction
was placed on GMO alfalfa, so it went to the Supreme Court, with Monsanto
as the Plaintiff. Both sides claimed victory in the Supreme Court's decision.
contended that they won the case because the nationwide injunction was reversed.
for Food Safety claimed victory because GMO alfalfa is now regulated
until it is approved by APHIS after they conduct an EIS.
process of GMO approval/ deregulation was the disputed issue, not the safety
of the GMO plant. However, the dissenting judge John Paul Stevens did mention
that planting should wait until the problem of gene flow could be prevented.
to an article from the GMO Journal, 75 members of Congress signed a letter
urging the USDA to allow limited planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa while
it completes the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).
here for the article
injunction against GMO alfalfa was overturned. The request for a permanent
injunction on GMO sugar beet plants was refused.
GMO alfalfa and GMO sugar beets are awaiting APHIS' Environmental Impact
that some key members of Congress are now urging the USDA to allow limited
planting of GMO alfalfa.
Sugar Industry Biotech Council has indicated that APHIS could adopt interim
measures to allow planting of GMO sugar beet seeds, based on the Supreme
pointed out in the earlier article, the USDA has a vested interest in Monsanto,
as they co-own a patent on the Terminator gene. APHIS, an agency of the
USDA will be performing the EIS reports for both GMO plants.
apologies to anyone who was inconvenienced about this complicated matter
in which both sides have used plenty of 'spin'.