US Supreme Court Rules Farmers May Sue Over Harms Caused by GMOs
On Monday, June 21, 2010, in its first ruling on genetically modified seeds, the US Supreme Court firmly established that farmers can seek injunctions or other forms of relief from federal courts when their crops are threatened with infection by these GMOs.
This lawsuit revolves around Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa. After the USDA approved use of the seed without conducting an environmental impact study, farmers and environmental groups sought an injunction in federal court, which was granted by a federal trial court in 2007.
The trial court based its injunction on its finding that, in approving the use of the alfalfa seed without conducting an EIS, USDA had failed to answer substantial questions concerning the extent to which deregulation would lead to the transmission of genetic traits to the crops of organic and conventional farmers and also whether the deregulation of the Roundup Ready Alfalfa would lead to the development of Roundup Ready Weeds.
The trial court’s injunction was overturned by today’s Supreme Court ruling, which found that the nationwide injunction was overbroad. However, the Supreme Court left in place the trial court’s ruling barring the USDA from completely deregulating Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa, and sent the case back down to the lower courts for further proceedings. What this means, as a practical matter, is that the Agriculture Department will have to complete the EIS process, including considering more than 200,000 public comments it has received since issuing a draft EIS in December of 2009.
While Monsanto’s PR machine is hailing today’s ruling as a victory, a close reading of the court’s decision makes it seem something quite different – a newly opened avenue for farmers and citizens to challenge the long-term real-world consequences of genetically modified seeds. In fact, as the majority opinion states quite explicitly, if USDA pursues a partial deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa that violates environmental law, “respondents may file a new suit challenging such action . . . .” This is the real news to take from today’s Supreme Court ruling – farmers and ordinary citizens concerned about the potential harms of GMOs have surmounted the essential threshold legal issue of whether they have standing to sue – a question the nation’s highest court answered today with a resounding “Yes!”
Learn more about: biotechnology, food contamination, genetically modified food, industrial agriculture, USDA


















thanks for reading and sharing!
Thanks Lonnie – we really appreciate your sharing the news! Regina
Thanks so much for this post. It’s the best news I’ve seen in ages, well written and helpful to us who don’t spend a lot of time digging through legalities. A link to your post will show up on chusonchow.com on July 1, and I’ve linked in FB and will ask my son to do the same – a good proportion of his 700 FB “friends” are graduates of the Culinary Institute of America.
Thanks Jeanne!
Actually, it’s the most accurate headline I’ve seen about this ruling – anyone who understands the jurisprudence involved and actually reads the court’s ruling knows that having established standing to sue for potential gene migration and other ill effects like the creation of super weeds is a huge step forward for farmers and sustainable agriculture. It may take another ten years in the courts, but the armor of GMO agriculture has just taken a big hit. The real shame is that news outlets like Reuters basically just reprinted Monsanto’s self-serving press release. Either Monsanto’s press secretaries didn’t talk to their lawyers or they’re just hoping no one will notice what really happened here.
Thanks for putting the ruling in lay terms. I linked you to my site holeinthefence.net
Very misleading and odd headline for this story.