Incompetence Sets A Precedent- GE Alfalfa

By Cassandra Anderson
July 29, 2011

Cow-Eating-HayThe USDA, FDA and EPA favor corporations over human health and the environment, especially when it comes to genetically engineered (GE) organisms.

Contemporary law is no longer based on the Constitution and common law, but has been replaced by case law precedents.  The GE alfalfa case (Forage Genetics and Monsanto v Geertson Seed Farms) is disturbing because it appears that a dangerous precedent has been set.

Alfalfa is a perennial plant that lives more than 2 years, so it is especially prone to contamination.  The USDA deregulated or allowed open, restriction-free planting of of GE alfalfa on January 27, 2011.  The Center for Food Safety (the lawyers opposing Monsanto and Forage Genetics) filed  a lawsuit on March 19, 2011, and the case will not be heard until December 2011.

GE alfalfa has been allowed to be planted openly since Spring 2011 and will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa fields as well as polluting the organic dairy and meat markets because it is used primarily for animal feed. GE alfalfa is pointless because over 90% of alfalfa grown in the US needs no herbicide, so the purpose of GE alfalfa appears to be the contamination of natural alfalfa for profit and to create a monopoly as alfalfa is the 4th largest crop in the US.

An overwhelming amount of incompetence surrounds this case.



the USDA's sub-agency APHIS (Animal and Health Inspection Service) deregulated GE alfalfa, but the USDA/APHIS failed to perform an Environmental Impact Statement, in violation of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), so the Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit against the USDA/APHIS.

The Center for Food Safety could have challenged the authority of the USDA/APHIS under the 10th Amendment.  The States may also challenge the authority of the USDA/APHIS.


Judge Breyer of the US District Federal Court placed a blanket nationwide injunction against future planting of GE alfalfa, which was intended to remain in place until the USDA/APHIS completed the required Environmental Impact Statement.

However, the injunction was incomplete because Judge Breyer failed to hold an evidentiary hearing.  An evidentiary hearing would have resolved the disputes over risks to the environment that the USDA/APHIS would have to consider in their Environmental Impact Statement.  And it would have exposed information and entered it into the court record.

Judge Breyer determined that an evidentiary hearing was not required.  Judge Breyer received his law degree in 1966 and should have known that the Supreme court would overturn his injunction because there was no evidentiary hearing (page 68, footnote #17).  He also should have known that it would be temporary.

Monsanto and Forage Genetics requested an evidentiary hearing, but Judge Breyer rejected the request.

When we contacted the Center for food Safety a few weeks ago, we were advised that they did not believe that an evidentiary hearing was necessary.

We were advised by an insider that the intent was to quickly implement an injunction to stop the planting of GE alfalfa before the next planting season.

A legal expert advised that the Center for food Safety could have brought a suit against the USDA as an agency for failure to perform necessary duties, protection of public health and safety and the misuse of public office to benefit themselves and those whom they have contracted with, such as Monsanto, their business partner in the 'Terminator' seed patent.  This type of lawsuit could have made the temporary injunction permanent.


The Supreme Court bounced the case right back down to Breyer's court in its ruling on June 21, 2010.  The Supreme Court ruled that the blanket injunction was too broad.

The Center for Food Safety should have acted immediately and filed a Notice for Hearing on the injunction.  The Center for Food Safety failed to follow through on this action.

USDA/APHIS announced that they planned to complete the Environmental Impact Statement before the next Spring planting.  This implies their intent to deregulate GE alfalfa, otherwise, there would have been no rush.


USDA/APHIS completed its Environmental Impact Statement and then deregulated GE alfalfa on January 27, 2011.

The Center for Food Safety filed a new lawsuit on March 18, 2011 against the USDA.  Judge Breyer refused to take the case indicating that this new lawsuit is unrelated to the last one.

The new lawsuit won't be heard until December by Judge Conti, 89.  Conti has refused to impose an injunction against GE alfalfa.


After speaking with several attorneys, the consensus is that there were a number of errors and more effective actions that could have been taken as outlined below:

1.  Judge Breyer should have held an evidentiary hearing.

2.  The Center for Food Safety appears to have dropped the ball by failing to request an evidentiary hearing and then failing to follow up with a Notice for Hearing on the injunction that the Supreme Court lifted in their ruling in June 2010.

3.  The Center for Food Safety would have been more efficient if they had filed a civil lawsuit against the USDA/APHIS office holders for contracting against the state and its citizens for harm and damage.

4.  The Center for Food Safety or the farmers collectively could have filed a Constitutional tort against USDA/APHIS for intent to benefit economically.  The USDA/APHIS are knowingly allowing an uncontrollable invasive seed line to spread on behalf of corporate contractors that impedes free trade and harms farmers whose crops will become involuntarily contaminated.

5.  The authority of the USDA and APHIS should be challenged under the Tenth Amendment.

6.  The Supreme Court could have extended the injunction until litigation was complete, requiring evidence to be entered into the court records.

GE alfalfa has been openly planted across the US beginning in Spring 2011 and will be continued to be planted until there is follow up action on the original lawsuit or an injunction is obtained through the second lawsuit scheduled for hearing in December.  So, by the time a decision is reached, it will likely be too late and GE alfalfa may contaminate natural alfalfa crops across the US forever.


The Center for Food Safety appears to have a profound conflict-of-interest because they have received funding, year after year, from the Rockefellers who are longtime promoters and financiers of GE food.

Tax forms from show that the Center for Food Safety, a 'non-profit' organization (NPO), has received funding from the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Foundation for $75,000 in 2008 and and the Center for Food Safety's sister organization, the International Center for Technology Assessment received $147,000 from the Rockefeller Family Fund in 2008.  Both NPO organizations share funding and board members.  The Rockefellers have been the primary financiers of GE food.  The Rockefellers have also manipulated agriculture worldwide for profit and control over decades, as William F. Engdahl chronicles in his book "Seeds of Destruction".

The Center for Food Safety and its sister agency, the International Center for Technology Assessment, through shared funding, have received grants from the Turner Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and the Center for Deep Ecology that have supported depopulation.


The powder puff opposition to GE products may be a result of incompetence, but the financial support of the Center for Food Safety by the Rockefellers appears dubious.

What can be done now?  An independent law firm and farmers could file lawsuits against the USDA/APHIS for contracting against the state and citizens, a Constitutional tort against USDA/APHIS could be filed against their intent to benefit economically and a Notice for Hearing over the original case could go back to Breyer's court.  Lastly, the authority of USDA/APHIS could be challenged (see items 2-5 under "assessment").  The States also have the right to challenge the authority of USDA/APHIS under the Tenth.

Add this to your website


+2 #1 Barbara H. Peterson 2011-07-29 17:12
Excellent article, Cassandra. You connect the dots nicely. When actions are spelled out like this, it is hard to miss the implications.
0 #2 kala 2011-07-29 18:28
i am disgusted by this... so what you are saying that we cant even trust *organic* food because of this, all of our food is contaminated? what is the health affects of this?
0 #3 Cassandra 2011-07-29 19:04
Hi Kala:

I know that GE alfalfa was planted this Spring- I don't know if it has been harvested and sent to market yet. Here is a link to Farmwars 'USDA's Organic Deception' for more info on what organic means:

As far as the health effects go, the worst one that I know of is glyphosate (the herbicide that is liberally applied to GE crops) that causes problems including miscarriages to cancer. Here's a link to 'Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse':

GE foods have also been linked to organ damage and infertility.
0 #4 kala 2011-07-29 19:26
I just read the organic deception and i am appalled by this literally disgusted!! It is true from the comments below that people are blind to this, and its not that their blind but they have a set of goggles on that only see lies... A question i have tho is, how do i know what is organic what is healthy they are saying that even *organic* farms have the contaminated feed for the animals... so all in all the only safe way to eat is to grow your own food??? And thank you veryyy much for this info , i am 19 and trying to fight for my future and gain and much information on health as i can.
+2 #5 Tim 2011-07-29 22:25
I hope Monsanto's fields are either flooded or in the drought stricken area. If someone could just plow their fields..
+4 #6 Cassandra 2011-07-30 06:08
Hi Tim-

I think that one of the most effective ways to stop Monsanto is to educate farmers about how Monsanto negatively affects them. The Monsanto contract shifts ALL liability for EVERYTHING to the farmers. This means that if someone gets sick from GE foods (and RR glyphosate herbicide), the farmer is on the hook. If a GE farmer contaminates a natural field, the farmer is in the hook for those damages.

The contract also says that if the farmer/grower wants to sell his property, the buyer has to sign a Monsanto agreement. This appears to be a plot for Monsanto to continually reap royalties from its destructive products.

Here's a good video that explains it:

So, if you want to stop Monsanto, please help spread the word to farmers about the Monsanto's unfair contract by sharing the video and the article "Monsanto Shifts ALL Liability to Farmers."
+4 #7 Paul Herbison 2011-07-30 07:40
Remember...... the overall plan, according to agenda 21, is to reduce Earth's population to 1.5 billion people. This is all part of that goal. Could this be why they have built seed vaults in the Alp's. So there will be a source of uncontaminated seeds after they've cleansed the Earth of the human infestation????
-1 #8 Anthony 2011-07-30 21:21
Excellent article Cassandra. I don't do Alfalfa but I do cattle and other livestock, and a fairly large garden. It is about time someone exposes the "Organic" board and other fake advocate organizations. The Beef Council is no different. If people want real food then go to the farmer. With the Farmer's Market now demanding applications which allow government officials to intrude anytime they please, most no longer go there. Organic labeling is nothing more than a marketing ploy that costs (last time I checked) 25 bucks. If you don't pay them you can't use the word, they own the rights.
0 #9 joy 2011-08-01 19:58
And here we have a quote from a book, “Murder By Injection—The Story Of The Medical Conspiracy Against America” by Eustace Mullins
Chapter 4 extracts:
Another practitioner, Dr. W. B. Clarke of Indiana, finds that "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."
At last, we have the breakthrough for which the American Cancer Society has been searching, at such great expense and for so many years. Dr. Clarke has never seen a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person. Is not this a lead which should be explored?
-1 #10 Kelly 2011-08-03 13:32
Did they actually botch it, or was this "botch" planned from the beginning?

Spread the word

Facebook MySpace Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Google Bookmarks RSS Feed 

Why MORPHcity?

MORPHcity exists for the purpose of putting a spotlight on important issues rarely, if ever, covered by the Mainstream Media, and hopes to offer up solutions to create a better world.