The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit issued its decisions Friday on whether federal and
Hawai'i state laws preempt Hawai'i counties' authority to regulate genetically engineered (GE) crops and pesticide
use. Of significance to state and local communities throughout the
U.S., the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal law—specifically, the Plant
Protection Act—does not prohibit states and counties from passing local
laws to regulate and ban commercially-grown GE crops.
"Today's decision to allow states and counties to ban or regulate GE crops is an important victory for GE-free seed sanctuaries and small communities and farmers around the country," George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety, said.
In granting its decision the court recognized potential harm to farmers and environment from the widespread planting of GE crops, asserting, "the cultivation and testing of GE plants raise several well-documented concerns." Notably, the court affirmed, "transgenic contamination has previously caused significant economic impacts on farmers of conventional, non-GE crops."
The court acknowledged as well that "the cultivation of GE crops also may raise environmental concerns, such as harm to beneficial plants and animals caused by the increased use of pesticides sometimes associated with testing and growing GE crops, the proliferation of 'superweeds' and other pests resistant to pesticides, and the reduction of biodiversity." The court went on to declare: "The regulation of commercialized crops, both of GE and traditional varieties, remains within the authority of state and local governments."
At the same time, however, the court ruled that under Hawai'i law, counties and municipalities do not have the authority to regulate GE crops (as some in other states do), and that Hawai'i state law places such authority in the hands of the State alone.
"We're disappointed that the court misinterpreted Hawai'i law and concluded the Hawai'i legislature decided Hawai'i counties lack any such authority," Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff said. "The legislature did not, and the decision leaves Hawai'i unprotected from the harms the Ninth Circuit acknowledged. We believe that when Hawai'i's state courts have an opportunity, they will reject the Ninth Circuit's conclusion on this point and allow Hawai'i's people to protect themselves, since the State certainly hasn't protected them."
The court also ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alone has the authority to regulate field trials and experimental GE crops; neither states nor local governments can ban or approve. This is particularly troubling to communities in Hawai'i, since the many field trials and associated pesticide use in Hawai'i poses significant risks to local citizens and the environment
"We are extremely disappointed with the ruling that some experimental GE field trials can only be regulated by USDA, and are considering all legal options. Most importantly, we continue to stand and fight with the people of Hawaiʻi against these chemical companies," Kimbrell said.
Attorneys with Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice, who represented local residents, conservation groups, and Hawai'i County in the proceedings, are analyzing the full scope of the court's decisions and will be considering options that would protect Hawai'i's people, farms and the environment.
"As a mother and a resident of Kekaha, Kauaʻi, I will continue to stand up and protect my family and my community," said Malia Kahale'ina Chun, a mother, educator and Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner. "It is our responsibility to insure that our keiki have access to clean air, clean water and to 'āina that sustains them."
"Today's decision to allow states and counties to ban or regulate GE crops is an important victory for GE-free seed sanctuaries and small communities and farmers around the country," George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety, said.
In granting its decision the court recognized potential harm to farmers and environment from the widespread planting of GE crops, asserting, "the cultivation and testing of GE plants raise several well-documented concerns." Notably, the court affirmed, "transgenic contamination has previously caused significant economic impacts on farmers of conventional, non-GE crops."
The court acknowledged as well that "the cultivation of GE crops also may raise environmental concerns, such as harm to beneficial plants and animals caused by the increased use of pesticides sometimes associated with testing and growing GE crops, the proliferation of 'superweeds' and other pests resistant to pesticides, and the reduction of biodiversity." The court went on to declare: "The regulation of commercialized crops, both of GE and traditional varieties, remains within the authority of state and local governments."
At the same time, however, the court ruled that under Hawai'i law, counties and municipalities do not have the authority to regulate GE crops (as some in other states do), and that Hawai'i state law places such authority in the hands of the State alone.
"We're disappointed that the court misinterpreted Hawai'i law and concluded the Hawai'i legislature decided Hawai'i counties lack any such authority," Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff said. "The legislature did not, and the decision leaves Hawai'i unprotected from the harms the Ninth Circuit acknowledged. We believe that when Hawai'i's state courts have an opportunity, they will reject the Ninth Circuit's conclusion on this point and allow Hawai'i's people to protect themselves, since the State certainly hasn't protected them."
The court also ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alone has the authority to regulate field trials and experimental GE crops; neither states nor local governments can ban or approve. This is particularly troubling to communities in Hawai'i, since the many field trials and associated pesticide use in Hawai'i poses significant risks to local citizens and the environment
"We are extremely disappointed with the ruling that some experimental GE field trials can only be regulated by USDA, and are considering all legal options. Most importantly, we continue to stand and fight with the people of Hawaiʻi against these chemical companies," Kimbrell said.
Attorneys with Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice, who represented local residents, conservation groups, and Hawai'i County in the proceedings, are analyzing the full scope of the court's decisions and will be considering options that would protect Hawai'i's people, farms and the environment.
"As a mother and a resident of Kekaha, Kauaʻi, I will continue to stand up and protect my family and my community," said Malia Kahale'ina Chun, a mother, educator and Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner. "It is our responsibility to insure that our keiki have access to clean air, clean water and to 'āina that sustains them."
Cat got everybody's tongue, these new rulings are in current trend politics rationale. Problem I have is where states cower to Fed's postinates. The USDA essentially should only be calling the shots where it's jurisdiction exist, in Washington, D.C. Get this folks, "regulate interstate commerce" back in the day meant "commerce between states" meaning to arbitrate in the interest of the states as a whole in the best interest of the union when/if conflicts arise in differences of economic activity pertaining to the States execution of authority involving the maintenance of the public service it is expected to provide in fair governance of it's citizens. Other than the rare opportunity to litigate a breach of "public trust" in the narrow context contesting a difference in salutation, for instance, Farmer John who's property borders the state line adjacent to a huge tract of cornfield co-op cornholed by Bill (Fred T.) Gates and states, Monsanto should not be allowed to plant it's genotoxic (GMO) cornstalk within a stone's throw or the equivalent to the distance Sureshot Johnny could throw a baseball in highschool heating it up for the Mount Missionary Muleriders, fielding on his days off of the mound could field a long shot at the wall and skip the shortstop and on a one-hopper get it to the catcher at homeplate in time to get the runner on second out, a distance he says of 300 ft., providing that precautionary protective barriers are put in place preventing cross-over contamination from Bill's GE viceroy cornfeed and a hedgefund established insuring financial compensation in case the wind started blowing real hard one day causing John to burn his now not organic harvest to the ground. Hillary's advice to the lead lawyer for Monsanto is to ignore the old man and proceed with planting using every square inch of acreage available. After Farmer John watches the million dollar tractors till the ground next to his freshly planted crop leaving dust in his face he goes to the courthouse and files suit. The local Judge agrees with the farmer and orders a hearing on the motion summoning Monsanto's perps to the hosts local venue. Billion dollar Bill gets the ball rolling on his side of the fence and counter sues; now might be the time for the USDA to start bumping its gums, but it's kind of funny how USDA officials get out of the same limo as Mosockos litigation team, you think?
ReplyDelete