General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Before you jump on Obama over the Monsanto amendment, take a minute and read this [View all]quaker bill
(8,225 posts)to figure out that it is a regulatory pis*ing match. Having been a government regulator for the last 20 years, I know one when I see one. The facts are decided and it has been determined that the crops are harmless in the way they are planted and managed. The judge had no issue there. The current argument has moved from fact to procedure, specifically the procedure used to prepare and approve an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The statement found no harm on all the parameters assessed. Those findings are now "findings of fact" in a court of competent jurisdiction. The challenge is that the EIS did not cosider market price impacts on organic growers of the same crop located in the vicinity (but at a court ruled safe distance) from the GMO. This social imact (not environmental, social impact, has been ruled for as a parameter that should have been considered) thus partially invalidating the EIS.
In short, there is no competent proof of actual harm or actual risk of harm. (Not my call, the findings of the judge) There is only speculation of economic harm coming from the scientifically unfounded fear that some GMO genes (from plants not allowed to bloom in this case) will drift into the organic crop destroying or diminishing its value. In that science has no grip on how to evaluate this (as science was use to the maximum extent to prevent it) the next move was to deregulate the crop, ending the legal requirement for further study. This has been challenged as well, again on procedural grounds. The farmers planted deregulated crops. The law prevents them from having to plow them under between now and september.
One thing is clear and it works in any legal case, "when you have lost on the facts, argue procedure". Been there and done that. When the procedure argument runs long enough, often legislatures will step in and change procedure.