Comments on: No risk assessment for sugar beets?

By: scotti

scotti — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:20:30 +0000

US Federal Court Finds USDA Violated Federal Law by Allowing Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets on the Market
Center for Food Safety
September 22, 2009 US Government Failed To Evaluate Environmental and Economic Risks of Monsanto Product
San Francisco, CA – In a case brought by Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice representing a coalition of farmers and consumers, a Federal Court ruled yesterday that the Bush USDA’s approval of genetically engineered (GE) “RoundUp Ready” sugar beets was unlawful. The Court ordered the USDA to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment.

By: protein powder

protein powder — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:36:39 +0000

Risk assessment studies of herbicide resistant sugar beet have revealed no risks to human health or the environment. Indeed it appears that commercial growth of this crop mightsecure benefits such as decreased pesticide use and increased biodiversity.

By: Karl Haro von Mogel

Karl Haro von Mogel — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:46:21 +0000

I also find it interesting that some of the articles and press releases about this decision claim that over 100 major food companies have pledged not to use GE beet sugar. However, they are all small outfits, some of them are food co-ops that already avoid anything GE, and a few are small food producers that don’t even use sugar anyway. But I like the NY Times article because at the end, it tells the situation accurately – that GE sugar has been a huge ‘non-issue.’

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:20:39 +0000

Wow, that's an excellent examination of the issues. I wish I had this for a couple of blog posts from the GMO-phobes I saw after the decision was announced. It was easy for them to do a quick couple of paragraphs from a press release rather than actually understanding any aspect of it.

I'll be sure to link in subsequent situations! Thanks for this.

By: Anastasia Bodnar

Anastasia Bodnar — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:58:25 +0000

You’re welcome, Mary
I too am frustrated that people have just been clipping from the few press releases rather than looking deeper. Feel free to send anyone who wants to know more over here. I’m not an expert by any means, but I think I understand the situation here.

By: Karl Haro von Mogel

Karl Haro von Mogel — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:47 +0000

Marvelous post! I was quite puzzled and troubled by the Judge's statements when I read them yesterday. The way it has been reported by GE opponents, you would think that there was no assessment at all. The Judge's ruling follows some precedent, which likely influenced his decision. The Glyphosate tolerant alfalfa ran into the same issue - a judge ruled that the Environmental Assessment was not enough and that an Environmental Impact Statement was necessary.

Good catch on the judge's misunderstandings about pollen viability, too.

I get worried when GE opponents try to ban certain GE crops through the courts. They oppose all GE crops, regardless of relative risks, and if they influence policy or precedent it could result in excessive hurdles for harmless releases, or it could outright prevent good traits from coming to market. The USDA and other regulatory agencies involved, assess them on a case by case basis, with a framework for what is acceptable and what is questionable. If all GMOz are bad, there is no reason and evaluation, except for potential legal strategies to get what you want in court.