Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Opponents of GM Sugar Go Back To Court

When things get confusing, lawyers do what lawyers do–go back to court for directions more to their liking.

And that’s exactly what has happened when it comes to genetically modified sugar beets.

The original opponents to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM sugar beets–the Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club– went back to the Northern District of California in San Francisco last week, objecting to what they saw as permission for immediate planting of GM sugar beets by USDA’s Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS).

sugarbeet-featured.jpgThe seed-grower and environmental groups on Aug. 13 won a ruling from U.S District Court Judge Jeffrey White that ordered APHIS to begin regulating GM sugar beets for the first time in five years.  Included in the order is the judge’s insistence that APHIS conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on GM sugar beets.

But Judge White was also critical of APHIS for not already acting “expediently” to take “interim measures” to regulate GM sugar until the EIS is completed in about 2 years.

APHIS announced steps it was taking on Sept. 2 that might lead to permission to again plant GM sugar beets, which about 95 percent of U.S. growers now prefer.


“The Court has already found that the approval of this engineered crop was illegal,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety.  “Rather than complying with the court’s order, the USDA is once again acting as a rogue agency in illegally allowing these crops to be planted without the required hard look at their environmental and economic dangers.”  


The sugar beet seed crop will be grown in and around Oregon’s Willamette Valley, where farmers also grow seed for other crops.

Judge White had found that the GE sugar beets, which can cross-pollinate table beets and Swiss chard, may contaminate organic and conventional crops and threaten these farmers’ livelihoods, and deprive farmers and consumers of the choice to grow and consume non-genetically engineered food.  


Unwilling to await preparation of the court-ordered EIS and a new, public process on whether to again deregulate and allow for commercialization, APHIS responded to the urgings of the sugar beet industry by issuing permits purporting to allow the industry to plant its Roundup Ready sugar beet seed crop this fall, without any environmental review or public notice and comment, to create seed for a future Roundup Ready sugar beet crop that is still illegal. 

Otherwise growers would be prohibited from using the popular GM sugar beets for one or more seasons.

The unprecedented permitting process for a commercially grown genetically engineered crop violates, among other laws, the National Environmental Policy Act.  Although APHIS claims the permits do not allow the crop to flower and spread pollen, the seed crop is expressly intended to flower and create seed next summer.  NEPA requires APHIS to first examine the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the seed crop together with the impacts of the rest of the sugar beet production cycle the seed crop is intended to facilitate.


The plaintiffs have asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction enjoining the issuance of the permits and any planting pursuant to them.  

One attorney for the GM sugar opponents went so far as to suggest that APHIS had become “Monsanto’s puppet.”

© Food Safety News
  • It is ridiculous that we have to go back to court again. I sincerely hope that Judge White puts an end to this nonsense and tells the USDA/APHIS that they must comply with the law and the spirit of the law. The USDA should know better than trying to circumvent the law in order to placate Monsanto.

  • What many commentators are missing is the fact that the USDA can partially deregulate a GE crop and that this does not violate the re-regulation (vacatur) of the RR Sugar Beet as per Judge White’s decision. What needs to be made clear is that the judge did not make all planting of the crop illegal – he merely revoked the “deregulated” status of the crop, making it a regulated article. Therefore, the USDA can issue permits and come up with a partial deregulation plan before the EIS is completed. In fact, the Supreme Court case on RR alfalfa specifically discussed the issue of partial deregulation when they issued their ruling that struck down the full injunction against all plantings of RR alfalfa. Even though the Center for Food Safety lost that case, they still tried to argue for that injunction when they went back to court for the sugar beets. Even now, they are looking to get the same injunction that the Supreme Court struck down.
    Part of the issue here is that the statements of the Center for Food Safety are being taken at face-value. They can call the USDA a “rogue agency” and claim that the USDA is violating the law. But you have to remember that they are a group of lawyers with a vested interest in litigating against GE crops, just as Monsanto has a vested interest in planting them. Therefore, a little skepticism is in order, and checking their claims against the publicly-available facts is necessary.
    I feel it necessary to point out that I do not work for any GE companies, but I do volunteer my time to edit and write for the plant genetics group blog, Biofortified.org.

  • Gregor Mendel

    95% of the sugar beet growers use roundup ready seed. When the sugar is produced, it is crystalized and it is pure sugar. Growers used roundup previous to round up ready seeds, they had to do it more often as they had to use lower concentrations so they did not kill the beets. Now with roundup ready, larger yields are a reality, less chemical applications and more land opened up for other crops (roundup ready soybeans, corn to name 2)
    Biotech has been done for centuries, cows, chickens, and hogs are being bred to get a specific trait, and so are plants.
    enough already,

  • The seeds being genetically modified is only part of the problem, If plants in neighboring fields are pollinated by Monsanto’s plants, They claim that the plant’s regardless of where they are become the property of Monsanto.
    Also, you can not buy seed from Monsanto, and then save some of the seed from the crop that you raised, for planting next year without violating their patent. You must buy new seed each year.
    Say you bought chickens to raise to lay eggs, if they were genetically modified, you would be prohibited from saving some of the eggs to incubate and hatch more chickens.
    It’s a slippery slope .