A day after supporters of a Maui County moratorium on genetically engineered crops went to court in support of the new law, Monsanto struck back with its own lawsuit hoping to invalidate the voter-approved ordinance.

The St. Louis-based agriculture corporation filed the suit in Honolulu federal court Thursday along with local individuals, groups and other businesses, including the Maui Farm Bureau and Dow AgroSciences.

The suit argues that the new ordinance conflicts with state and federal laws that support the lawful cultivation of GMO plants.

"We have full confidence in the merits of our legal claims and that a rational outcome will block the referendum from taking effect," said John P. Purcell, Monsanto of Hawaii’s vice president of business and technology.

On Wednesday the group responsible for getting the Maui initiative on the ballot filed suit in Maui Circuit Court asking for a ruling on the enforceability of the initiative. The suit by the Shaka Movement and five of its leaders also seeks to force the county to take "proper measures" to implement the new law, including adopting appropriate rules, obtaining the necessary funding and consulting with the plaintiffs.

In response, Monsanto issued a statement saying it appears the Maui suit is "inappropriate for the courts to decide as it seeks remedies that courts cannot provide," adding, "It is very likely we will promptly move to dismiss it. The legal validity of the ordinance under existing state and federal laws is the real issue; and that issue will be decided by a federal court in a different suit that actually reviews the merits of the ordinance."

Rod Antone, communications director for Maui County, named as a defendant in both lawsuits, declined to comment on the pending litigation.

Michael C. Carroll, attorney for the Shaka Movement, said his clients would intervene in the federal case and ask that it be dismissed. He said he expects the federal court to abstain once it sees the state court deliberating on the same matter.

"We think this should be determined on Maui, which has the biggest stake in the matter," Carroll said. "We feel Maui is the most appropriate place for it."

In its suit, Monsanto argues that the county has no authority to enact or enforce the ordinance, which should be invalidated just like Kauai’s anti-GMO law, which was struck down by a federal judge who ruled it was pre-empted by state laws regulating pesticides and cultivation of GMO crops.

In addition, the suit says the ordinance violates Maui County’s own charter by appropriating money despite limitations on using the initiative power for that purpose. The law also imposes penalties far beyond what the charter allows, places improper constraints on the Maui County Council, supplants the authority of the mayor and assesses "an invalid multimillion dollar tax on agricultural interests."

The 49-page suit claims the new law would cause traumatic harm on the local economy and to those who rely on GMO crops to support their families.

And although the ordinance is described as a moratorium, it’s actually a complete ban, according to the suit, which notes that "it can be repealed only after at least two years have passed, multimillion dollar studies funded entirely by private agricultural interests are completed and the council makes ‘findings’ about the health, safety and benefits of specific genetically engineered crops. The ban can only be lifted by a two-thirds supermajority vote of the council."

The action, the complaint says, will render valueless multimillion-dollar investments made by the seed companies and end up bankrupting Molokai, whose economy is more dependent on the seed industry and where voters rejected the measure by a 2-to-1 ratio.

In addition to Monsanto, the plaintiffs include Robert Ito Farm Inc. of Kula, Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation of Maui County, Molokai Chamber of Commerce and Agrigenetics Inc., which does business as Mycogen Seeds, a Dow AgroSciences subsidiary.

Honolulu attorney Margery Bronster, who is representing agriculture interests in GMO litigation on both Kauai and Hawaii, is also representing the plaintiffs in this case.

"We are confident in the safety of our products and practices, which have been reviewed and approved by both state and federal agencies in accordance with appropriate regulations that already govern our products," Monsanto’s Purcell said in a statement.