Monsanto has fought this decision repeatedly in the courts and is now taking the case to the Supreme Court even thought the final EIS report is due for publication next month.
Garrett Kasper, a spokesperson for Monsanto, said the company is continuing the legal battle in order to fight for grower rights and set a legal precedent.
The Center for Food Safety disagrees with this assessment. Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director of the organic lobby group, said Monsanto is pushing the case all the way to the Supreme Court even though the USDA analysis is now complete and the US government has actively opposed further litigation.
This, Kimbrell said: “Underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides.”
Monsanto LOST the appeal 3x before, yet continue to press the case. they Talk of Growers rights?
when the rights of growers using their products are NIL as far as freedom to sell outside their control to save seed or to choose what chemicals and fertilizers to use.
Monsanto tried to SUE the French government ( really they did) over the Banning of Mon 810 last year, the govt decided there Was enough reason to doubt the safety of it, yet M wanted to force it into a market that didn't want it, to people who do NOT want to eat it or feed it to their animals.
Very thorough checking of the USDA's own data on crops areas and yields and the Limited (very) data supplied by M showed , apart from Some years(when corn borer and cotton bugs were a problem) there is/was NO appreciable increase in yield or saving to farmers.
most (from memory) were 13% lower.( for the full PDF on it go to www.unionofconcernedscientists.com
Mon seeds are up 42% in one news report I blogged on . Hugh Grant wants a fourfold profit increase and any Farmer is the bunny that makes their profit.
sob sob, their profits were down a lot as the Patent rights on Roundup expired so many cheaper copies are now around...enter the next move Multiple traits, up to 6. and If you, like me, were concerned about the unknown issues with one trait, well theres a lot more to be concerned about now.
The first ones took years to hit the market, these are really quite fast, which leads me to wonder just How? and what? testing for safety was done. feeding 4 cows for a few days?
About the same as the first? and that was scant, badly designed and kept very very secret.
I also point out that here in Aus ANY GM pollen taint in honey means its rejected, and many apiarists rely on Lucerne in times between native flora.
If as with Canola the areas are kept as secret as they can, then all honey products are at risk. in a struggling industry, this is just another cruel blow to producers.