|
''Monsanto Co. vs. Geertson Seed Farms''〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf )〕 is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.〔〔(Monsanto Co. and Forage Genetics International; Availability Determination of Nonregulated Status for Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate ) Federal Register, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 27 June 2005, Retrieved 28 August 2012〕 In 2005 the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) deregulated Monsanto's Roundup-ready alfalfa (RRA) based on an Environmental Assessment (EA) of Monsanto's RRA.〔(USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment ) United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, October 2004, Retrieved 28 August 2012〕 In 2006, Geertson Seed Farm and others filed suit in a California district court against the APHIS' deregulation of RRA. The district court disallowed APHIS' deregulation of RRA and issued an injunction against any new planting of RRA pending the preparation of a much more extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).〔(0503.pdf Memorandum and Order Re: Permanent Injunction ) United States District Court for Northern California, Case No C 06-01075 CR, 3 May 2007, Retrieved 28 August 2012〕 The court also refused to allow a partial deregulation.〔 After losing an appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,〔McEowan, Roger (15 January 2010)(Roundup-Ready Alfalfa Injunction Upheld ) Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation, Retrieved 28 August 2012〕 Monsanto and others appealed against this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. In 2010 the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision to bar partial deregulation of RRA pending completion of the EIS. They stated that before a court disallows a partial deregulation, a plaintiff must show that it has suffered irreparable injury. "The District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency’s completion of its detailed environmental review."〔 The Supreme court did not consider the district court's ruling disallowing RRA's deregulation and consequently RRA was still a regulated crop waiting for APHIS's completion of an EIS.〔 At the time, both sides claimed victory. This was the first ruling of the United States Supreme Court on genetically engineered crops.〔Koons, Jennifer (21 June 2010) (Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Planting GM Alfalfa ) New York Times, Energy & Environment, Retrieved 28 August 2012〕 ==Background== As of 2010, alfalfa is the 4th largest cash crop and grows on approximately of land throughout the United States. This crop is grown for two primary purposes; hay for livestock consumption and seed for future stock.〔 Alfalfa undergoes open pollination, and many farmers that grow organic and commercial alfalfa were concerned about the potential of cross pollination occurring between the genetically modified alfalfa and non-genetically modified alfalfa. APHIS, a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture, has the right to regulate any organism and product that is altered or created by genetic engineering. They use the precautionary principle when addressing genetically modified organisms. They are considered to be plant pests under the Plant Protection Act (PPA) and are therefore regulated articles. Anyone can choose to petition the regulated status of a genetically modified organism. APHIS is then required to perform an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If in an Environmental Assessment (EA), no significant environmental impact is found, no EIS is required.〔 The petitioners, Monsanto, are the owners and licensee which have the intellectual property rights to RRA, and license the technology to Forage Genetics, who developed of the Roundup Ready alfalfa seed . Monsanto petitioned in April, 2004 for the deregulation RRA to APHIS. The APHIS has three options: # Take no action #Completely deregulate, needed a no significant impact report # Partially deregulate RRA, by imposing geographical restrictions In 2005, APHIS decided to prepare a draft Environmental Assessment and allowed for public comments. The APHIS received a total of 663 comments and only 137 were supportive of the APHIS decision to deregulate RRA. The opposers, all 537 of them, were mainly organic and conventional farmers who feared that cross pollination would occur and would have economic effects on the alfalfa market.〔 APHIS released its EA, finding that RRA would not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment. The APHIS stated how alfalfa is pollinated by bees and that pollination has been documented to occur up to from a pollen source.〔 Therefore, the EA concluded that it was highly unlikely RRA would have a significant impact on non-GMO/organic farms. In February 2006, the plaintiff's, see (parties) below, filed a suit stating that the APHIS violated NEPA. The district court told APHIS they had failed to take an in depth look of RRA and the potential for genetic contamination.〔 Monsanto and Forage Genetics argued that many famers have already purchased and planted RRA seeds for the new harvest. This led to a preliminary injunction of RRA of all seeds and sales would cease after March 30, 2007, pending a permanent injunction.〔 In April 2007 a permanent injunction was granted. In 2008, Monsanto and APHIS appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit came to the same conclusion as the district court. The defendants' appealed, and on April 27, 2010 this case was argued in front of the United States Supreme Court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|