Skip to main content

Lessons from the Legal Cases of GM Alfalfa and Sugar Beet Deregulation in the United States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Organic and Conventional Foods

Part of the book series: Natural Resource Management and Policy ((NRMP,volume 49))

Abstract

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) regulatory review process for the introduction of genetically modified (GM) plant events has been the subject of extraordinary judicial scrutiny for the past 7 years. The process began in 2007 with a decision from the District Court for the Northern District of California vacating the USDA’s deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) (the Geertson I litigation).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 2007 WL 518624 at *12 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 13, 2007).

  2. 2.

    Center for Food Safety et al. v. Vilsack, ____ F. 3d ____ (9th Cir., dec. May 17, 2013).

  3. 3.

    CFS v. Vilsack, dec. 9/21/09 and 8/13/10 (CFS I); CFS v. Vilsack, (CFS II) and Grant v. Vilsack (CFS III).

  4. 4.

    7 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq.

  5. 5.

    7 U.S.C § 7702(14).

  6. 6.

    7 C.F.R. Part 340.

  7. 7.

    7 C.F.R. Part 372.

  8. 8.

    16 U.S.C. § 1531.

  9. 9.

    5 U.S.C. Section 706.

  10. 10.

    APA Section 706 authorizes reviewing courts to inter alia set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” “without observance of procedure required by law,” and “unsupported by substantial evidence.”

  11. 11.

    Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 570 F. 3d 1130, 1133–34 (9th Cir. 2009).

  12. 12.

    Monsanto Co. et al. v. Geertson Seed Farms et al., 130 S. Ct. 2743 (2010).

  13. 13.

    Center for Food Safety, et al. v. Vilsack, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9920, 43 ELR 20111, 2013 WL 2128324 (9th Cir. Cal. 2013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bryson, N. (2016). Lessons from the Legal Cases of GM Alfalfa and Sugar Beet Deregulation in the United States. In: Kalaitzandonakes, N., Phillips, P., Wesseler, J., Smyth, S. (eds) The Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Organic and Conventional Foods. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 49. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3727-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3727-1_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3725-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-3727-1

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics