asks if the elevation of Elena Kagan (above) to the U.S. Supreme Court would promote genetically modified crops. His answer: “It’s a good thing for Elena Kagan that there’s no non-GMO litmus test for Supreme Court nominees,” Estabrook writes. “She’d flunk.” h

As Solicitor General, Kagan intervened on behalf of Monsanto in a case out of a California federal district court. Monsanto is trying to overturn a California court’s ruling in 2007 that imposed an injunction on planting GM alfalfa. The suit was brought by Geerston Seed Farms and environmental groups, who argued that the company’s RR alfalfa could contaminate non-GM crops nearby.

The judge sided with Geersten, saying the U.S. should not have approved Monsanto’s seed without further review.

This is the decision that Kagan decided should be overturned.

This case is likely to be decided this summer, but Estabrook notes that there are other GM cases on the way, on involving sugar beets. In that case, the Obama administration is taking the same position as the Bush administration — that the GM sugar beets had received adequate review from the USDA.

"> Supreme Court Nominee Backed Monsanto in GM Seed Case - Daily Yonder

Supreme Court Nominee Backed Monsanto in GM Seed Case

The Atlantic's Barry Estabrook asks if the elevation of Elena Kagan (above) to the U.S. Supreme Court would promote genetically modified crops. His answer: "It's a good thing for Elena Kagan that there's no non-GMO litmus test for Supreme Court nominees," Estabrook writes. "She'd flunk." h

As Solicitor General, Kagan intervened on behalf of Monsanto in a case out of a California federal district court. Monsanto is trying to overturn a California court's ruling in 2007 that imposed an injunction on planting GM alfalfa. The suit was brought by Geerston Seed Farms and environmental groups, who argued that the company's RR alfalfa could contaminate non-GM crops nearby.

The judge sided with Geersten, saying the U.S. should not have approved Monsanto's seed without further review.

This is the decision that Kagan decided should be overturned.

This case is likely to be decided this summer, but Estabrook notes that there are other GM cases on the way, on involving sugar beets. In that case, the Obama administration is taking the same position as the Bush administration — that the GM sugar beets had received adequate review from the USDA.

Share This:

The Atlantic’s Barry Estabrook asks if the elevation of Elena Kagan (above) to the U.S. Supreme Court would promote genetically modified crops. His answer: “It’s a good thing for Elena Kagan that there’s no non-GMO litmus test for Supreme Court nominees,” Estabrook writes. “She’d flunk.” h

As Solicitor General, Kagan intervened on behalf of Monsanto in a case out of a California federal district court. Monsanto is trying to overturn a California court’s ruling in 2007 that imposed an injunction on planting GM alfalfa. The suit was brought by Geerston Seed Farms and environmental groups, who argued that the company’s RR alfalfa could contaminate non-GM crops nearby.

The judge sided with Geersten, saying the U.S. should not have approved Monsanto’s seed without further review.

This is the decision that Kagan decided should be overturned.

This case is likely to be decided this summer, but Estabrook notes that there are other GM cases on the way, on involving sugar beets. In that case, the Obama administration is taking the same position as the Bush administration — that the GM sugar beets had received adequate review from the USDA.

 

Topics: Food
x

News Briefs