By Brad Devereaux

Opponents of genetically modified sugar beets have filed a request for a preliminary injunction last week in U.S. District Court for the Northern Division of California. If approved, the injunction could force farmers to return to planting traditional seeds in the future. The vast majority of U.S. farmers – about 95 percent – planted the seeds in question during 2009.

Since Roundup Ready beets were approved for use in 2005, farms all over the country quickly began using the seeds. The seeds are genetically modified (GM) to withstand the herbicide Roundup, which many farmers favor because it requires fewer applications than other traditional herbicide chemicals and does a good job of protecting sugar beets from weeds.

While Roundup would kill plants grown from ordinary sugar beet seed, the Roundup Ready seed has genetics that make it resistant to glyphosate, the main ingredient of Roundup herbicide. The seeds are based on genetic technology made by Monsanto, an agriculture company of St. Louis, Mo. The technology is used by seed companies and sold to farmers across the U.S.

In 2009, 95 percent of the beets planted in the U.S. were Roundup Ready, according to Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper.

“It has the fastest rate of adoption of any biotech crop,” Kasper said. “That’s a testimony to the growers. Clearly they want the technology and we’re going to fight for their right to have it.”

The company is responding to a request for a preliminary injunction filed Tuesday, Jan. 19, in U.S. District Court for the Northern Division of California. Plaintiffs the Center for Food Safety, High Mowing Organic Seeds, Organic Seed Alliance and the Sierra Club filed the injunction asking the court to suspend the use of Roundup Ready seeds or beets until they take a hard look at the technology with an Environmental Impact Statement through the National Environmental Policy Act.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is listed as the defendant, along with defendant-interveners Monsanto Company, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Betaseed, Inc., and Sesvanderhave USA, Inc.

One argument for the injunction comes from organic beet seed producers, mostly found in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, who argue that cross-pollination of GM beets could corrupt their organic varieties. They say that some cross-pollination has undoubtedly taken place already, according to media reports.

Representatives of the Center for Food Safety have gone on record in the past about potential “biological pollution and economic impacts” that could be caused by gene-altered crops. The organization is asking the use of Roundup Ready technology to be halted until it can be looked at closely through the NEPA process.

Thomas Schwartz, Executive Vice President of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists and the Beet Sugar Development Foundation in Denver, said his comments were limited because the organization’s legal team is very involved in the litigation.

“We think the grounds for the injunction are not solid,” he said, adding that the plaintiffs took five years after the Roundup Ready seeds were approved for use to request the injunction. An injunction is usually requested to stop something that poses an imminent threat or danger, but Schwartz said the timing of the injunction request doesn’t fit.

“If it was so imminent, you would think they would be more concerned about it and move it a little faster,” he said. “We are confident Roundup Ready beets are safe for the environment and for humans.”

Luther Markwart, executive vice president of the American Sugar beet Grower’s Association, echoed Schwartz’s comments in his statement about the request for an injunction.

“The plaintiffs waited five years since the biotech beets were approved, claiming imminent harm of a product used in 95 percent of acreage,” Markwork said. “They are asking the court to take radical action to shut down production, causing disastrous impact to 10,000 sugar beet growers and collateral damage to the economy in 10 states. This unreasonable request is not justified by evidence or any real or potential threat. We look forward to settling it in court.”

Many factors weigh against the granting of an injunction, said Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper.

Factors include the recent 2008 Supreme Court’s decision not to grant an injunction in the Winter vs. Natural Resource Council case. The case dealt with sonar used by the navy that critics claimed caused damage to marine mammals. The case affirms that plaintiffs must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.

Another factor on the side of Roundup Ready beets is the Supreme Court’s Jan. 15, 2010 decision to grant Monsanto’s petition to review the Roundup Ready Alfalfa injunction, according to Kasper. Monsanto had lost an earlier case in a lower court involving Roundup Ready Alfalfa and an injunction is currently in place, limiting use of the seed. The Supreme Court’s decision about the fairness of the injunction placed on alfalfa could affect the outcome of the sugar beet litigation, he said. 

“We are confident the plaintiff’s claims are contrary to these decisions and would interrupt the already existing and orderly process the Court has ordered for the remedy phase of the case,” Kasper said.

While sources had limited comments and other sugar producers and farmers chose not to comment, some other topics that will possibly be touched on during the litigation are the limited supply of viable traditional seed after GM seed has become widespread, and the possibility of creating “superweeds” that are resistant to herbicide.

Kasper said the federal judge met with the plaintiffs and defendants on Dec. 4.

“There are dramatic claims and also sound scientific arguments,” he said. “We want to make sure all of the information is heard before the judgment is placed.”

Evidentiary files will be submitted to the court until around May, Kasper estimated, and the hearing should follow sometime in June.

Q&A with Monsanto Company

Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper answered the following questions via phone and e-mail interviews with the Lovell Chronicle Tuesday:

Could this litigation affect the 2010 growing season?

As of now, the Court has not taken any action since Dec. 4 that would restrict growers’ choice to plant Roundup Ready sugar beets in 2010.  While we are unable to predict how the court will ultimately rule in the remedy phase, or if the judge will alter the court schedule based on this request, the plaintiff’s request for an injunction at this point in the case is unwarranted simply based on sound factual and legal principles.  

How would you respond to those who have concerns about GM crops?

Opponents of GM crops often describe them as “untested” and “unsafe.” This is simply untrue. In fact, many opponents of biotech or GM crops do not have any background in science or agriculture, and rely on something sensational they’ve seen on the Internet and forwarded on. Many opponents of GM also use scare tactics that unfairly attack this technology, and/or intentionally leave out key details, which can be very misleading.

Now, another key point: people have always had concerns about technological advancements – with communications, transportation, computers, medicine, and pharmaceuticals, for example.  The key to acceptance is understanding how the technology works, and the many benefits it can bring to society.  With food, however, it becomes a very emotional topic, and we understand that.

We encourage people to learn about biotechnology’s history of safe use, and recognize its role in the future.  Experts say that we must double global food production as the global population is expected to increase to approximately 9.3 billion people by 2050. The earth is not getting any bigger, yet we must ask so much more of it to sustain so many people. Advancements in plant yield and respect for water consumption and the environment will be key to providing for our future.

Our hope is that people will take the time to carefully consider the facts and also learn about the source of their information to ensure it is indeed accurate.  Aside from Monsanto, there are numerous other agencies like USDA, BIO and CropLife that produce scientifically based information on their Websites to keep consumers informed.

 

How is the process in GM plants different than what is happening in nature?

A plant’s DNA is like its own internal roadmap.  It naturally grows and develops as it has been programmed to by its previous generation.  With breeding, seed companies introduce the absolute best lines to each other to grow stronger plants with the best traits possible (farmers have been doing this for thousands of years with animals and crops). Breeding techniques provide plants with very good information on their maps.

With biotech, we’re able to take breeding a step farther and introduce genes to the plant that adds additional information to their roadmap.  For example, we have the technology to make it resistant to glyphosate (aka Roundup).  While it kills weeds throughout the field, the plant is immune to that herbicide application (when applied properly).  We also have introduced the Bt protein, which kills insect larvae before they destroy the plant or its root system. There are other options, too, such as drought-resistant technology and the ability to “stack” traits.

Is Roundup Ready safe?

In the past, combinations of horribly unsafe, harsh chemicals were required for weed control. Roundup has been used for many years. Other chemicals go into the soil, but Roundup is applied to the leaf and is non-leaching. As far as herbicides go, Roundup is one of the safest on the market.

Also, Monsanto is working with some of the best scientists in the world. If they foresee a problem, they can make adjustments. That is an issue with any herbicide treatment, but something easily managed.

What are the advantages or the Roundup Ready system?

It’s a quality of life issue for growers. It’s purchasing chemicals, storage and handling fees, the labor involved in spraying a dozen more times a year, compared to spraying Roundup once or twice a year. The time and energy spent is radically different with the Roundup Ready system.