Experts and industry groups say such an injunction could jeopardize U.S. sugar supplies, about half of which comes from the biotech beets planted on more than 1 million acres in 10 states stretching from Michigan to Oregon.

"It will be a big problem," if the injunction is granted, said Carol Mallory-Smith, professor of weed science at Oregon State University. "The industry really had converted to this."

The beets, engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup, comprise 95 percent of the crop after two seasons of planting. All the seed comes from Oregon's Willamette Valley.

Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups already have won a lawsuit forcing federal authorities to reconsider their 2005 approval of the Roundup Ready beets for unrestricted use, saying the government failed to take a hard look at cross-pollination risks.

If granted at a hearing scheduled for Friday in San Francisco, a requested injunction would halt planting of the altered beets until the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service does an environmental impact statement — a process that could take two or three years.

The farmers also want to bar the sale of any sugar made from genetically engineered beets.

"The sugar beets were unlawfully deregulated," said Paul Achitoff, an attorney for Earthjustice, the environmental public interest law firm representing plaintiffs. "The court has already found that. Legally, they shouldn't be on the market.

"Consumers should not be exposed to it," he said. "The environment should not be exposed to it."

In 2007, another lawsuit stopped planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa pending an environmental review, though at that point only a small percentage of farmers used it. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Monsanto's appeal.

The latest lawsuit's roots are in Frank Morton's small farm outside the small town of Philomath on the western edge of the Willamette Valley, where he grows seed for organic vegetables in fields surrounded by tall trees.

When he learned BetaSeed in nearby Tangent and other growers were producing genetically modified sugar beet seed for use elsewhere, he went to his local growers' association and tried to get them to push back.

"They told me if you don't like it you can sue USDA. So we did," he told The Associated Press last September. He has since stopped talking about the case.

The problem is not just the potential for cross pollination. Testing is so sensitive now that genetically engineered pollen could be detected on his crops, making them worthless, whether it pollinates them or not, Morton said.

The Center for Food Safety and the Organic Seed Alliance also worry Roundup Ready crops — which include corn, soybeans and cotton — are creating herbicide-resistant weeds and threaten food safety.

Sugar beet growers declined interview requests, referring questions to the American Sugar Beet Growers Association. Spokesman Luther Markwart characterized the injunction request as "radical."

"It would have disastrous impacts on the 10,000 growers, our processors, the seed companies, and the economies of 10 states," he said.

If the groups believed there was an immediate threat, he said, they should have filed for an injunction two years ago rather than wait until the biotech beets were being "widely and safely used," he added.

Agricultural extension educator Jim Gill in Worland, Wyo., said they are worried about the case, and already have invested in preparing for this year's crop. Planting starts in early April in the Big Horn Valley.

If the injunction is granted, there is not enough conventional seed and related herbicides to go around, and farmers will have to scramble to plant other crops, he said.

"It's a tough situation. There's a lot of money that's already been invested — put in the ground — to prepare for the 2010 crop," he said. "These are all things that these guys and gals are trying to figure out."

The court hearing will focus on whether allowing this year's crop to be planted is likely to cause irreparable harm.

Mallory-Smith said growers already take precautions to prevent cross-pollination between conventional crops, and the Roundup Ready seed growers are keeping their distance from Morton's farm.

Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper said the past two years have demonstrated the beets are safe.

Achitoff counters that there's already evidence in the ground in Oregon that growers are not heeding the precautions.

Last May, specklings — tiny roots planted to produce seed — for Roundup Ready sugar beets were found in a batch of compost being sold at a garden center in nearby Corvallis.

"People have these Roundup Ready sugar beets sprouting, whether they are in backyard farms or gardens," he said.

The starch of the Amflora potato can be utilised for industrial uses like making paper, and for animal feed - but not for human consumption.

Environmental groups have strongly opposed the introduction of GM crops.

But the Commission insisted its decision was based on "a considerable volume of sound science".

Planting this spring

The Amflora variety was developed by German chemical and biotechnology firm BASF, for the special qualities of its starch.

BASF says: "Amflora starch can be used in many different ways. It makes yarn stronger and paper glossier; it also makes spray concrete adhere better to the wall and keeps glue liquid for longer."

But it has been a political hot potato for seven years.

BASF applied to grow it in Sweden in 2003. Sweden agreed but was obliged to seek EU permission.

The Council of ministers - the committee of national governments - has been unable to agree a decision, passing the issue back into the hands of the Commission.

Even though it has now been cleared, individual countries still have the right to decide whether it should be grown on their territory.

The potato is expected to be planted in the Czech Republic and Germany this spring, and Sweden and the Netherlands in following years.

The only other GM product currently grown commercially in the EU is Monsanto's MON 810 maize, which was cleared back in 1998.

It is grown in five countries - Spain, the Czech Republic, Romania, Portugal and Slovakia.

On Tuesday, the EU Commission also allowed three GM maize products to be placed on the European market, though not grown in Europe.

'Bad day'

Some countries remain firmly opposed to the cultivation of GM crops, arguing that they could eventually reduce biodiversity and natural resistance to pests and disease, and that it is very hard to stop them cross-pollinating with non-GM crops.

Italy said it objected to the Commission's decision.

German Green MEP Martin Hausling said it "flies in the face of the 70% of consumers who are against GM food".

"This is a bad day for European citizens and the environment," Friends of the Earth told the AFP news agency.

It said the Amflora potato "carries a controversial antibiotic resistant gene which it cannot be guaranteed will not enter the food chain".

The Commission said it was imposing strict conditions on the cultivation of Amflora to address some of the environmental concerns.

For instance, the potato "will be cultivated and harvested before it produces seeds".

It said growing this form of potato "helps to optimise the production process and to save raw materials, energy, water and oil based chemicals".

State Rep. Chris Danou (D-Trempealeau) said Monday that regulators have subjected Midvalleyvu Family Farm, in Pepin County, to harassment and excessive requests for information.

The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection asked the farm's owners for bank records including signature cards, monthly statements, canceled checks and deposit tickets.

It asked the farm to identify by full name, address and telephone number all people who supply animal feed, supplements, medications, cleaning supplies and equipment used for milk production. It also asked for copies of all invoices for the purchase of glass milk containers.

The farm has "a long history" of raw milk sales, said Steve Ingham, administrator of the agency's food safety division.

With the exception of limited, incidental sales, state law prohibits selling unpasteurized milk to the public because it could carry bacteria that cause food borne illnesses.

To satisfy demand from customers, some farmers sell shares in their dairy herd and then provide raw milk to shareholders for a handling fee. That, farmers say, has allowed them to stay in business.

State regulators say the farm-share program does not allow widespread sales of unpasteurized milk to the public.

Midvalleyvu is one of many farms that state officials have investigated. But the farm, owned by Wayne and Janet Brunner, is one of only a few that the state has pressed for detailed documents through a process known as interrogatories.

"These were not typical situations," Ingham said. "These were not farms where somebody just showed up with a jug wanting some raw milk."

Yielding to pressure from regulators, Midvalleyvu no longer sells unpasteurized milk. Not long ago, the farm had more than 600 customers, said Janet Brunner.

"It started out with people coming to get dairy products and then wanting eggs, honey, maple syrup, beef and other things. Over the course of several years, a little store developed," she said.

The Brunners say their income dropped 90% after they quit selling raw milk last October. They have recently acquired a retail license for their on-farm store, but without raw milk, the store doesn't have much allure.

"We are really putting our time and attention into getting raw-milk legislation passed. Without it, our farm and others like us will be gone soon," Janet Brunner said.

The Brunners are chapter leaders for the Weston A. Price Foundation, a national organization that promotes raw milk as a safe product with many health benefits.

"Reports of individuals becoming ill after drinking raw milk do exist . . . but even these reports do not usually provide proof that raw milk caused the illness," Sally Fallon, foundation president said in a Journal Sentinel interview last year.

Danou has introduced legislation that would legalize the sale of raw milk in Wisconsin when done by permit under regulations. The legislator said he would not blame the Brunners if they ignored the state's request for documents.

"My blood started to boil when I heard about this," he said. "I almost felt as if these people were being punished for the legislation that I wrote."

Pepin County Sheriff John Andrews, a former dairy farmer, has sided with the Brunners.

"An arm of the state should not be trying to intimidate small businesses and family farms by demonizing their product and threatening their livelihood," he said. "I have watched for the last 25 years as politicians said they were concerned about small family farms and, while saying that, they were implementing policies" that put small farms out of business.

Last September, University of Wisconsin-Extension said at least 35 people, most of them children and teens, were sickened after consuming raw milk. State officials urged residents to discard any unpasteurized milk after individuals tested positive for campylobacter jejuni, a bacterial infection that causes gastro-intestinal symptoms and fever and occasionally leads to severe complications.

The illnesses were not connected to the Brunners' farm. Raw-milk advocates said it was impossible to prove that the illnesses were tied to any farm.

In January, state Agriculture Secretary Rod Nilsestuen put together a panel of dairy and health experts to consider legal and regulatory issues pertaining to the sale of unpasteurized milk, and to consider what conditions would be required to protect public health.

"In recent months, raw milk sales have been an increasingly contentious issue in Wisconsin and other states," Nilsestuen said in a written statement. "There is a clear demand among some consumers, and a clear desire on the part of some producers, to open this market. But we also have a clear duty to protect public health and the reputation of our vital dairy industry."

The Raw Milk Working Group Panel has scheduled its first meeting for March 15.

There are more positive reactions to last week’s announcement by USDA to pull back and regroup on its National Animal Identification System, NAIS. A farm policy research analyst says the USDA’s announcement that the NAIS will be replaced is a “victory of the nation’s family farmers over the political power of corporate agribusiness” that’s all too rare. Cornucopia Institute senior farm policy analyst Mark Kastel (in Wisconsin) says in this case, Secretary Vilsack “definitely listened to the will of the people.” He commends the secretary for addressing a variety of issues and says he’s proven himself to be a “a savvy and pragmatic political leader.”

Judith McGeary, executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance says they applaud Vilsack for listening to their concerns and deciding to “abandon the NAIS.” She says her group will urge the Secretary to involve a broad range of groups and people as it moves forward with developing a new framework for traceability.

The USDA’s new approach replaces NAIS with a focus on states and tribes setting up requirements for animal traceability for interstate commerce.

The Missouri Rural Crisis Center commends USDA for canceling the National Animal Identification System. Crisis center director Rhonda Perry says the decision to scrap the program is “a direct result of grassroots opposition by producers and concerned consumers across the country.” Perry says they knew all along that NAIS “was created by industrial livestock and meatpacking interests to shift the burden of animal disease and food safety onto the backs of family farmers.” Fifty-four of the 55 Missourians who testified during the USDA’s listening session in Jefferson City last year went on record opposed to NAIS.

Perry says the MRCC is grateful to Secretary Vilsack for listening and taking action and to Senator Claire McCaskill “for standing in opposition to NAIS” as the Senator urged Vilsack to hold a listening session in Missouri and expressed to him her concerns about the USDA’s proposed rule to fully implement NAIS.

Perry, a livestock and grain farmer in Howard County, Missouri, says it’s her group’s hope that moving forward the USDA will continue to consult with independent farmers.

However, farmers who sell raw milk will have to meet certain construction and sanitation standards to receive a state permit, standards that will be difficult to meet for some small farmers, according to a Black Hills milk producer.

The bill, HB 1057, was a compromise written with the help of the state Agriculture Department and Dakota Rural Action, a grassroots, family agriculture and conservation group. The House passed it 66-2. The bill had its first hearing in the Senate on Wednesday.

The Agriculture Department proposed a set of rules on raw milk last fall that drew a spate of protests from raw milk producers and consumers. State Agriculture Secretary Bill Even withdrew the proposed rules and opted to take the issue to the Legislature.

The original version of HB 1057 would have prevented farmers from delivering raw milk to their customers. That provision was dropped before final House action.

Rep. Tom Brunner, R-Nisland, said the bill also decriminalizes the statutes on raw milk, instead providing civil penalties for violations. However, those fines can be as much as $5,000 for each violation.

Brunner said that farmers who produce raw milk for their own use can still use it to barter with neighbors without getting a permit. "Family farms with a cow or two will be left alone," Brunner said.

Brunner, the House Ag Committee chairman, said raw milk producers who wish to sell their product will be required to get a Grade B permit. The permit costs $100 per year, which pays for an annual inspection, plus a monthly $15 milk testing fee.

The new bill does not include some provisions included in the proposed rules last fall. For example, according to the Agriculture Department, the bill does not require producers:

* To keep a customer list.
* To use expensive milking and bottling machines. (Farmers can milk and bottle by hand).
* To build expensive new facilities.
* To conduct expensive tests.

However, to receive a permit to sell raw milk, producers must milk their animals in an enclosed building on a concrete floor rather than dirt, and must have hot water under pressure, good lighting and ventilation, and a milking area separate from a milk room, according to Nathan Sanderson, director of policy for the department.

The restrictive rules proposed last fall would have forced many raw milk producers out of business, said Lila Streff, who milks about 20 goats on her farm south of Custer and sells the raw milk.

Streff said she was glad the Agriculture Department was willing to compromise after it received more than 200 comments protesting the rules. "It's nice to know they listened to the public," she said.

But Streff said the permit standards, especially the barn requirements, are still difficult to meet for many small farmers.

She has a permit and probably won't change her operation, Streff said.

Streff said that, besides the barter system, the only way for raw milk producers to avoid getting a permit is to use the "cow share" program, in which producers sell a share of the animal to consumers. The state interprets that as owners using the milk for their own consumption.

Sanderson said the permit standards are just basic sanitation requirements. "These are the types of things that consumers are looking for, too," he said.

The bill is a good compromise, Sanderson said. "I think we've heard from the raw milk producers, from consumers and we've crafted a bill that we think meets everybody's needs."

Streff and other raw milk producers argue that it contains good bacteria that kill pathogens. They say pasteurization kills both the good and bad bacteria. "It's safer than pasteurized milk," she said. Streff said more people get sick from pasteurized milk than from raw milk.

Sanderson said that's not a valid argument because the vast majority of milk consumed in this country is pasteurized and because most of the illness cases are due to milk that is improperly pasteurized.

"Raw milk has a far greater chance of leading to illness," he said.

On Feb. 9, though, India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh nixed the introduction of the Bt brinjal. Ramesh, who has come under huge public pressure to ban the genetically modified vegetable, said the scientific community was not agreed on the brinjal's safety, that public opinion was against cultivation of the vegetable, and that there was "no overriding urgency or food security argument" for its introduction. He said further tests were required on the new variety, and said India needed to ramp up its genetic engineering regulatory mechanism. (See the top 10 food trends of 2008.)

Ramesh's announcement raised the decibel level in an already shrill debate. Many of India's farmers say they oppose Bt brinjal because the seeds are expensive and would have to be purchased every year, rather than something they could harvest themselves from the previous year's crop.

But critics of the decision say it was taken because the minister is scared of annoying the powerful farmers' lobby. BT brinjal backers also question why Ramesh disregarded scientific evidence from field trials that indicated the brinjals are safe. That evidence had been approved by the government's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. "This decision is certainly a big setback for biotechnology and I am afraid it will thwart further investment in agri-biotech research," says Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, head of Indian biotech firm Biocon. (See the top 10 scientific discoveries of 2009.)

Advocates of GM crops have also been quick to point out that China last year announced it would allow genetically modified rice. Comparing India and China is a favorite pastime of Indian economists and commentators. The country's attempts to outdo its northern neighbor are a national obsession. But in its hurry to reach double-digit growth, India is confronting a dilemma that has entangled China for years: what's more important, economic growth or human rights and the environment?

India's answer to that question seems to be slightly different to China's. Just last week, India's Supreme Court ordered French cement firm Lafarge to halt limestone mining in the country's northeast. India's environment watchdog had granted Lafarge permission to mine in forestland there, but critics of the company's operations have alleged that the company misrepresented facts in their application. (Lafarge is due to respond to those allegations in a court hearing next month). Those opposed to the mining project also say that deforestation has led to a severe change in rainfall patterns in the region. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)

Last year, India's environment ministry had to take back a proposed bill on coastal management after villagers protested that a change to the legislation would disrupt coastal ecology and the livelihoods of local fishing communities. India's health ministry is currently reworking legislation on human clinical trials to introduce more stringent punishment for offences. That follows concerns that Indian research firms were cutting corners and risking subjects' health and lives in their hurry to attract international drug firms. And lobby groups and non-governmental organizations have been pressing the government to introduce new rules on electronic waste, ever larger quantities of which is making its way to India for recycling, or worse, dumping in landfills.

The Bt brinjal issue is yet another reminder of how difficult the government's balancing act is — and of the extra pressures that a democracy like India face compared to more authoritarian countries.

But could India be going too far?

Yes, say those impatient for double digit growth. Take agriculture. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and many farmers struggling against debt, rising expenses and stagnant yields, have called for a second Green Revolution. But for this, India will probably need the help of biotechnology, a discipline in which India has the potential to be a world leader. Because India allows protests and debate, though, pro-industry rulings are often overturned. (See a special report on the science of appetite.)

One of the problems, as Minister Ramesh conceded this week, is that the country's regulatory system lacks the expertise and autonomy required to put decisions beyond reproach. In the brinjal case, for instance, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee had a clear conflict of interest: it relied on data supplied by the seed developer and verified by panelists involved in genetic engineering research themselves. If a more autonomous panel had found in favor of the Bt brinjal, the government may have allowed its use. Ramesh says the moratorium period on the brinjal's introduction should be used to set up an independent regulator with the scientific capacity to take authoritative decisions on key issues.

Progress may be slow, but in India's case, the best rate of growth may not turn out to be the absolute fastest, but the one that takes into account long-term environmental and human costs. A slow-cooked brinjal decision may taste best.

The launch of Monsanto's new eight-trait, Smartstax transgenic corn seed line has been challenging, a Monsanto executive told Wall Street analysts Wednesday.

Monsanto is introducing the newest-generation biotech corn this year on about 4 million of the 85 million acres of corn planted in the United States, with a plan of expansion in 2011 and 2012.

Brett Begemann, executive vice president for seeds and traits, said the introduction of the relatively high-priced corn hasn't been easy. He said the new product is competing against Monsanto's other triple-stack corn lines sold primarily through its DeKalb, Kruger, Fontanelle's and Holden's subsidiaries.

"Has this been more challenging than we anticipated?" he said at Goldman Sachs' biotech seed forum in New York. "Yes, it has. But I still feel good about where we'll be in the next two years."

Monsanto is alone in the market with the reduced refuge corn seed lines. The Environmental Protection Agency requires farmers to set aside 20 percent of their fields as a pest refuge, planted with corn not genetically engineered to kill insects so that the insects won't mutate into a trait-resistant variety.

Monsanto's Smartstax has won approval for reduction to 5 percent refuge. Rival Pioneer Hi-Bred is awaiting approval for its Acremax corn seed, which would reduce refuge by an unspecified amount and also introduce a concept that eliminates the refuge altogether.

The companies together employ about 3,500 in Iowa.

"We're waiting patiently, or maybe not so patiently, for EPA approval," said Jim Borel, vice president of DuPont, which owns Pioneer Hi-Bred of Johnston.

Borel said he expects Pioneer to continue its momentum from last year, when it picked up corn and soybean market share from Monsanto for the first time in a decade.

He said that instead of emphasizing new biotech products, Pioneer is selling what he calls its superior germplasm, the basic stuff of the hybrid seed rather than its genetic traits.

Borel added, referring to Monsanto's Smartstax, "The 5 percent refuge is not a solution for farmers."

Borel also said "success isn't just one product or region, but farm productivity. Farmers are not interested in paying for something that doesn't give economic return."

Neither Borel nor Begemann discussed the pending antitrust investigation of the seed industry, the subject of a March 12 hearing in Ankeny and a federal lawsuit in St. Louis filed by Pioneer against Monsanto.