Elena Kagan Goes to Bat for Monsanto, Sides With Conservativ
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
woot woot
http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-n ... tices59456
Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Goes to Bat for Monsanto, Sides With Conservative Justices
Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the United States and Monsanto wants to control it. On April 27, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could well write the future of alfalfa production in our country.
Fortunately, for those who are concerned about the potential environmental and health impacts of genetically engineered (GE) crops, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is not yet residing on the bench.
For the past four years, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), a Washington DC-based consumer protection group, and others have litigated against Monsanto and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the company's Roundup Ready alfalfa. The coalition has focused their fight against Monsanto's GE alfalfa, based on concerns that the plants could negatively impact biodiversity as well as other non-GE food crops.
In 2007, a California US District Court ruled in a landmark case that the USDA had illegally approved Monsanto's GE alfalfa without carrying out a proper and full Environmental Impact Statement. The plaintiffs argued that GE alfalfa could contaminate nearby crops with its genetically manipulated pollen. Geertson Seed Farm, with the help of CFS, claimed that the farm's non-GE crops could be damaged beyond repair by Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa.
Monsanto's well-paid legal team appealed the court's decision, but, in June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the previous ruling and placed a nationwide ban on Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa.
"USDA should start over and truly evaluate the contamination of non-GM alfalfa and the potential affects on seed growers, organic and natural meat producers, dairy producers, and conventional and organic honey producers," said farmer and anti-GE advocate Todd Leake shortly after the ruling.
Monsanto, however, didn't back down and appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the US Supreme Court. In stepped Elena Kagan, whose role as solicitor general is to look out for the welfare of American citizens in all matters that come before the high court.
Unfortunately, Kagan opted to ditch her duty and instead side with Monsanto. In March 2010, a month before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, the solicitor general's office released a legal brief despite the fact that the US government was not a defendant in the case.
As Kagan's office argued, "The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed, and the case should be remanded with instructions to vacate the permanent injunction entered by the district court."
Despite numerous examples of cross-pollination of GE crops, Monsanto argued during the April 27 court proceedings that this was highly unlikely to occur. CFS and other plaintiffs are concerned that a federal law could be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling. Courts in Oregon and California have already argued in previous cases that GE seeds must also be studied as to the potential impact on other conventional and organic crops.
Surprisingly, it seems that Kagan does not support a thorough study of GE seeds and their potential impact on environmental and human health. In doing so, Kagan has sided with conservative justices on the court who appeared skeptical that the lower courts had made the right decision in banning GE alfalfa.
During the Supreme Court hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the Ninth Circuit had the authority to issue a ban on GE alfalfa. Roberts contented that the court ought to have instead remanded the issue back to the USDA. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia took his defense of Monsanto even further, stating, "This isn't the contamination of the New York City water supply," he said. "This isn't the end of the world, it really isn't."
Apparently Scalia and Roberts aren't up on the latest scientific analysis that Monsanto's GE crops have, in fact, bred new voracious super-weeds, which have forced farmers to "spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand, and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing."
"Bowing to pressure from Monsanto and the other biotech companies, our federal agencies approved [GE] corn and cotton without requiring any mandatory testing for environmental impacts," Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the CFS recently wrote. "And the expected happened: a few years later, independent university researchers - again not the government - discovered that this [GE] pesticide was potentially fatal to Monarch butterflies and other pollinators ... Without mandatory government testing, we're clueless about the universe of keystone pollinators and other species that are being decimated as the [GE] plants continue to proliferate in our fields."
The Supreme Court's decision on Monsanto's alfalfa ban will likely come early this summer. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from the case because his brother Charles Breyer oversaw the lower court's decision against the company. Unsurprisingly, Justice Clarence Thomas, who once worked in the legal department for Monsanto, did not recuse himself from the matter.
While Elena Kagan has no experience on the bench and has provided the public with little to no information about where she stands on some of the most important issues of the day, the fact that she came to bat for Monsanto two months, at a time when the company is reeling from negative press, may shed some light on how she could rule in future GE cases if she's confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice.
http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-n ... tices59456
Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Goes to Bat for Monsanto, Sides With Conservative Justices
Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the United States and Monsanto wants to control it. On April 27, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could well write the future of alfalfa production in our country.
Fortunately, for those who are concerned about the potential environmental and health impacts of genetically engineered (GE) crops, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is not yet residing on the bench.
For the past four years, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), a Washington DC-based consumer protection group, and others have litigated against Monsanto and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the company's Roundup Ready alfalfa. The coalition has focused their fight against Monsanto's GE alfalfa, based on concerns that the plants could negatively impact biodiversity as well as other non-GE food crops.
In 2007, a California US District Court ruled in a landmark case that the USDA had illegally approved Monsanto's GE alfalfa without carrying out a proper and full Environmental Impact Statement. The plaintiffs argued that GE alfalfa could contaminate nearby crops with its genetically manipulated pollen. Geertson Seed Farm, with the help of CFS, claimed that the farm's non-GE crops could be damaged beyond repair by Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa.
Monsanto's well-paid legal team appealed the court's decision, but, in June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the previous ruling and placed a nationwide ban on Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa.
"USDA should start over and truly evaluate the contamination of non-GM alfalfa and the potential affects on seed growers, organic and natural meat producers, dairy producers, and conventional and organic honey producers," said farmer and anti-GE advocate Todd Leake shortly after the ruling.
Monsanto, however, didn't back down and appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the US Supreme Court. In stepped Elena Kagan, whose role as solicitor general is to look out for the welfare of American citizens in all matters that come before the high court.
Unfortunately, Kagan opted to ditch her duty and instead side with Monsanto. In March 2010, a month before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, the solicitor general's office released a legal brief despite the fact that the US government was not a defendant in the case.
As Kagan's office argued, "The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed, and the case should be remanded with instructions to vacate the permanent injunction entered by the district court."
Despite numerous examples of cross-pollination of GE crops, Monsanto argued during the April 27 court proceedings that this was highly unlikely to occur. CFS and other plaintiffs are concerned that a federal law could be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling. Courts in Oregon and California have already argued in previous cases that GE seeds must also be studied as to the potential impact on other conventional and organic crops.
Surprisingly, it seems that Kagan does not support a thorough study of GE seeds and their potential impact on environmental and human health. In doing so, Kagan has sided with conservative justices on the court who appeared skeptical that the lower courts had made the right decision in banning GE alfalfa.
During the Supreme Court hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the Ninth Circuit had the authority to issue a ban on GE alfalfa. Roberts contented that the court ought to have instead remanded the issue back to the USDA. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia took his defense of Monsanto even further, stating, "This isn't the contamination of the New York City water supply," he said. "This isn't the end of the world, it really isn't."
Apparently Scalia and Roberts aren't up on the latest scientific analysis that Monsanto's GE crops have, in fact, bred new voracious super-weeds, which have forced farmers to "spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand, and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing."
"Bowing to pressure from Monsanto and the other biotech companies, our federal agencies approved [GE] corn and cotton without requiring any mandatory testing for environmental impacts," Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the CFS recently wrote. "And the expected happened: a few years later, independent university researchers - again not the government - discovered that this [GE] pesticide was potentially fatal to Monarch butterflies and other pollinators ... Without mandatory government testing, we're clueless about the universe of keystone pollinators and other species that are being decimated as the [GE] plants continue to proliferate in our fields."
The Supreme Court's decision on Monsanto's alfalfa ban will likely come early this summer. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from the case because his brother Charles Breyer oversaw the lower court's decision against the company. Unsurprisingly, Justice Clarence Thomas, who once worked in the legal department for Monsanto, did not recuse himself from the matter.
While Elena Kagan has no experience on the bench and has provided the public with little to no information about where she stands on some of the most important issues of the day, the fact that she came to bat for Monsanto two months, at a time when the company is reeling from negative press, may shed some light on how she could rule in future GE cases if she's confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
do people understand the science or do they hear the word "Monsanto" and subconsciously hear "Fucking Apocalypse"???
My beef with Monsanto is that they are too big, not that the science is bad. They don't have patents on the Roundup (sold as generic glyposphate now) stuff anymore so its not just them selling the roundup ready crops... I think alfalfa is self-pollinated so I don't understand the risk here. Several other justices (at least Roberts and Scalia... others?) have had the same opinion and the USDA is ok with it. Sorry I just don't believe in the whole USDA conspiracy thing either.
Now, the thing I do not like is her supposed policy on guns... which is that she is not "sympathetic" to gun owners rights. I'm the founder of the Guns and Dope Party here in Pennsylvania and this disturbs me greatly!
monsanto are fuckers ... why is it they have approved shit that doesn't get approved anywhere else in the world? ... when our cdn health scientist asked for the backup to their made up science studies on rbst - they had him fired ... it's no secret they fraud all their studies ... the usda and fda have been exposed to be corporate lackeys ... the usda helped hide the presence of mad cow in the food system ... look what monsanto has done to indian agriculture ... these guys rank right up there with exxon when it comes to evil of evil ...
I need to read up! I come from a farm background so I'm naturally biased. I understand the science and I do NOT understand its dangers. All I know is GE crops have never killed anyone... not one person... But the long term effects need to be understood.
A lot of the EU bans this stuff as a technical barrier of trade to protect their own farmers. --- at least thats what I was taught and have read in agriculture textbooks.
What has Monsanto done to Indian agriculture?
we don't know GE hasn't killed anyone simply because like most environmental related illnesses - it's not necessarily one thing or another ... all you need to know is cancer is the second leading cause of death in the US ... it's probably related to a plethora of things ...
here is a brief history of monsanto ... granted it's biased but if you can find any lies in there - let me know ...
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms-mobile/ ... -a-history
indian farmer suicides
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeboa4TR5Qo
and you can watch the world according to monsanto for more ... these guys don't give a rats ass about humanity ...
Well, to say that GE crops is the cause of cancer is a huuuuuuge leap. You could pick out a million things, literally, (plastics, cell phones, radio waves, etc) and imply that they cause cancer but I would need to see some sort of proof.
But..................... my feeling.... is that it is probably right to a small degree.
And I'm too lazy to read that whole thing on GM crops, especially since I know it is going to be mostly propaganda. Sure some or even most of it is true but I don't want to waste my time filtering through the lies.
Why couldn't they continue using their own seeds and methods of agriculture?
Is there a seed czar going around checking people's crops???
firstly ... i never said GE crops caused cancer ... what i am saying is that cancer rates are up and that it is probably related to a lot of environmental factors ... beyond the science of GM - there are the pesticides that these crops HAVE to be used with ... Monsanto has already been convicted of trying to illegally dump toxic waste ...
secondly ... if you choose not to read up that is your perogative but i would suggest not defending them if you aren't ...
lastly ... do you side with scam artists that bilk investors of money and old people of their life savings? ... because your response to what they did to the agriculture in india appears that you think they deserved it ... oh and for the seed czar ... you should know that monsanto does in fact have a see czar ... try saving some seeds and see what happens to ya ...
if a company comes in a promises you this and that and then it failed - you are blaming the farmers? ... not only that - it's widely known that once you start planting monsanto seeds - they are gonna infest all the neighbouring farms and so on ... so, then some guy from monsanto shows up and charges the other farmers of stealing seed ...
Okay, so you're NOT saying that GE crops cause cancer... so thats not a problem. Good to eat...
Secondly, I don't need to read a single article to know about GE crops advantages/disadvantages... I've spent a lifetime in agriculture and have listened to both sides and one more article pointing out things that I already know or things that or suspect isn't going to make me more knowledgeable of the situation.
Lastly, I have no idea what you're talking about in re; bilk investors??? I don't think ANYONE deserves to be misled, mistreated, etc. I sympathize with these people greatly... if the story is true. My point was that these people claim that Monsanto FORCED farmers to use these seeds/pesticides and that sounds awfully suspicious to me. WHO exactly is forcing them to do so? Are there seed police going around stopping people from planting their heirloom seeds and using traditional practices? I'm just skeptical... thats all. I don't believe everything I see/hear on YouTube!!!
i'm NOT saying that either ... you can eat a diet soley of GM products and you may be fine or you may not ... we don't really know because Monsanto doesn't necessarily test their products for stuff because they aren't required to ...
it's beyond the science of GM foods - it is also about the practices of one of the world's largest corporation ... again - i'm not forcing you to read anything but if you're gonna defend what i consider one of the most evilest corporations to ever exist - i would like to hear more than what you've given me ...
who's saying the farmers were FORCED? ... it's fairly straightforward there ... Monsanto sold these farmers on a product that ultimately would not work in their agricultural zone ... then when it failed there was no option for farmers to go back ... all the while they went into more and more debt ... i'm not even going into the effects of the pesticides had on the farmers and children ... and it's not only on youtube ... just google farmer suicides india and you can read all you want about it ... again - you don't have to ... but to come on here and say stuff like who forced these farmers to buy the seeds is incredibly insensitive to what is a tragedy purpertrated by a corporation that is listed as one of the evilest by almost every major index ...
I'm not defending Monsanto I just see so much taken for granted on this board it sickens me. Lets look at the problem objectively... be the "cool observer." I think that Monsanto controls too much of the market but I still don't see any reason to not eat GE crops. There is much less pesticides that are used on GE crops... only an ounce or two PER ACRE. It is much less intensive, allowing for no-till and minimum tillage, reducing soil erosion and runoff. GE crops have literally SAVED millions of lives because it allows for dramatically increased yields, more food, and hence less hunger. Genetic engineering is demonized because it is misunderstood and it sounds scary (FRANKENFOODS), and the benefits are never discussed.
That being said, I'm all for increased research on long-term effects of eating foods with a protein spliced into the DNA.
as for your asssertions about GM foods ... they read like they are straight from the monsanto website ...
http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agric ... is-no.html
again - this corporation has already been exposed for their shady science and their influence in the the backroooms of the FDA and USDA ... look - Canada which is basically as american friendly country as it gets doesn't allow rbst ... why is that? ...
the notion that industrialized farming is saving the world is a myth ... there is no credible study proving this ... it is simply a mantra those that support it live by ... it's similar to soldiers in iraq saying they are there to save lives ...
hmm well there is really no debate over my "assertions" except for the yield part which I firmly believe to be true. One indicator is soybean yields in the US over the past 20 years (about 20 years ago there was almost zero roundup ready soybeans) About 90% of the soybeans in the US are "roundup ready" and the average yield has gone up from 30 bu/acre to 50 bu/acre in the same time frame, without any (or much, that I know of) changes in other variables.
My only point about the Indian farmers is: they have a choice. They can buy Monsanto products, others', or they can use their own seeds and grow organically. They made a bad choice and I am sympathetic, but Monsanto didn't force their technology on them. If they LIED to the farmers about the product and its characteristics, then yeah, Monsanto's reps who sold the product should have their hands cut off.
My final point is that I believe much more testing needs to be done to see if there are long term effects... "gene comingling" between species especially. I am no proponent of Monsanto, but I am no Alex Jones' conspiracist either. I need to see some evidence before I change my eating habits. And if you want to change things... stop eating GM food! You vote with your purchase at the supermarket!
monsanto has become what is has become because of lies ... that's the crux of it ... they lie to the farmers they sell stuff to and they lie to the FDA and to whoever ... it's why they pay their lawyers so much money ...
and i don't eat GM food when i can avoid it ... i buy most of my groceries from local farmers and my meat is naturally raised or organic ... but it's impossible to control those things when you eat out or traveling ... especially in the US where basically the entire food system has been corrupted simply because the gov't is more interested in curtailing to corporations desire for profits over the general welfare of the populace ...
also, no one is forcing anyone to buy monsanto seeds but if a neighbors farm uses their seed and nature cross polinates your crops then monsanto will and has several, several times gone after that farmer and sued them for infringing on their patent. they even go after people that clean seeds for farmers and run them out of business.
even in remotes of latin america scientists have found crops that cross polinated with gm crops by nature. maybe creating a seed that won't work unless it's spread with a chemical or a seed that will grow but won't produce any seeds isn't the smartest move we could be making, especially when it spreads on it's own.
monsanto acts like there's no complications with rbgh and thanks to their lackeys in the usda and fda you aren't allowed to state that or they can sue you but the reality is rbgh causes sores and wounds in cows which creates puss which depending on the farm may or may not remain in the milk. because of all these complications on the animals body from taking this hormone they have to pump them full of antibiotics which isn't good to have almost constantly in our diets.
if there's nothing wrong with rbgh why did monsanto fight so hard to prevent anyone from being able to label their milk rbgh free? did the sugar lobby fight to prevent 'sugar-free' labels?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I only refuse to read articles that are so biased that there is no information... only rhetoric. That means article you cited AND articles from Monsanto or other biotech companies... maybe even the USDA.
Here is a good article for you... keep in mind it is one scientist... but it is scary nonetheless: http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/n ... _foods.php
It is hard to find other information out there supported by science that exposes the dangers of GM foods. It is so easy to find gibberish... I'm only looking for the truth.
i appreciate the difficulty in finding objective information especially in this day and age of PR firms and media companies ...
it would appear your article is repeating pretty much what i've been saying ...