Interesting article.
Quote:
“This court decision is a wakeup call for the Obama USDA that they will not be allowed to ignore the biological pollution and economic impacts of gene altered crops. The Courts have made it clear that USDA’s job is to protect America’s farmers and consumers, not the interests of Monsanto.â€
I don't think anyone has suggested that the Obama administration was intending to give Monsanto a "free ride," have they? I think this administration has probably allowed agencies like the USDA to breathe a sigh of relief and get moving again doing their jobs.
This week there was an interesting program on KERA-FM (and probably on PBS stations around the country) called "The Botany of Desire" (
http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/) that spoke to the process of plants and human cultivation interaction. One plant they discussed was the genetically modified "New Leaf" potato. It was grown and sold without notification of what it was for three years before various environmental groups and food producers got wind about just what it was.
Without arguing here the pros and cons of BT being genetically grafted into this plant, I will point out that once McDonald's restaurants got whiff of the growing complaints about these potatoes being served as their french fries, McDonald's backed away from the product. The next year the potato just went away, because the growers were depending on sending it to places like McDonald's.
Perhaps that is a parallel path these sugar beets will travel as well?