Supreme Court reverses lower court's ban on genetically engineered alfalfa

In its first ruling on genetically modified crops, the U.S. Supreme Court this week overturned a lower court ruling that had prohibited the planting of alfalfa seeds to engineered to resist Monsanto's Roundup Ready herbicide. "The decision was a victory for Monsanto and others in the agricultural biotechnology industry, with potential implications for other cases, like one involving genetically engineered sugar beets," Andrew Pollack of The New York Times reports. "But in practice the decision is not likely to measurably speed up the resumption of planting of the genetically engineered alfalfa." The court reversed a lower-court ruling 7-1.

A San Francisco federal district judge ruled in 2007 that the Department of Agriculture had approved the genetically altered alfalfa without properly considering its environmental impact. The judge vacated USDA's approval and implemented a nationwide ban on planting those seeds. The court decided the lower court "national ban prevented the Agriculture Department from considering a partial approval," Pollack writes. "That avenue, the court said, would have allowed some of the alfalfa to be grown under certain conditions; for example, isolating it from conventional alfalfa."

"The district court barred the agency from pursuing any deregulation — no matter how limited the geographic area in which planting of RRA would be allowed," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in the opinion, referring to Roundup Ready alfalfa. The Supreme Court did not remove the lower court's rejection of approving the alfalfa crop, meaning USDA will have to fully or partially approve it before planting can resume. "Monsanto and farmers in the United States are thrilled with this decision, which is far-reaching in its look at the regulatory framework that should govern biotech crops," David F. Snively, Monsanto’s general counsel, said. George A. Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, one of the groups challenging the crop's approval, disagreed, saying "I think the practical impact is nil." (Read more)