Following a Center for Food Safety lawsuit seeking information on requirements in the 2016 Federal Bioengineered Food Safety Disclosure Standards Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has released a study identifying potential challenges to implementation of electronic disclosure of genetically modified organism (GMO) content on food labels. The study considered whether consumers or retailers would have sufficient access to smartphones or broadband internet to easily obtain ingredient information, purportedly finding that about 85 percent of consumers experience technical challenges scanning digital links such as QR codes and less than 40 percent of small retailers provide in-store Wi-Fi access.
Tag Archives GMO
A consumer has filed a projected class action alleging Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc. misleadingly markets its cheeses as "natural" despite containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Forsher v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc., No. 17-4974 (N.D. Cal., filed August 25, 2017). The complaint asserts that GMOs are "not natural" and that "consumers do not expect [GMOs] to be present in foods labeled 'natural'"; further, "reasonable consumers do not believe there are any differences between foods that are labeled 'natural' and those that are labeled 'organic.' Reasonable consumers believe that 'organic' foods do not contain GMOs, and that foods labeled 'natural' are likewise free of such substances." The plaintiff seeks an injunction, restitution, damages and attorney's fees for alleged violations of state consumer-protection statutes as well as unjust enrichment and intentional misrepresentation.
The Center for Food Safety has filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to proceed with the studies and public comment required to implement the 2016 Federal Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standards Act. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Perdue, No. 17-4967 (N.D. Cal., filed August 25, 2017). Passed by Congress in 2016, the act will require food producers to disclose the presence of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The complaint contends that USDA has failed to conduct the studies required by the act to inform its rulemaking, including a specific Congressional mandate to study whether digital or electronic disclosures would be an acceptable alternative to package labeling. If the agency finds no significant barriers to consumer access, food manufacturers could provide a QR code, website link or toll-free number for disclosures. However, the complaint alleges that USDA missed the July 29, 2017, deadline for completion of…
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced a bill that would require labeling of genetically engineered (GE) salmon and independent scientific review of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's environmental assessment of GE fish produced for human consumption. “The primary purpose of this bill is to ensure that consumers have all the facts and can make an informed decision when they are purchasing salmon. There’s a huge difference between ‘Frankenfish’ and the wild, healthy, sustainably-caught, delicious real thing—and I want to make sure folks are aware of that," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in a July 14, 2017, press release. "I will not accept that this ‘fake fish’ will be sold in stores without clear labeling.” Issue 641
A complaint against the maker of Tabatchnick soups that alleged the company’s products could not be called “natural” because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been voluntarily dismissed. Ramsaran v. Tabatchnick Fine Foods, Inc., No. 17-60794 (S.D. Fla., dismissed June 9, 2017). The plaintiff had argued that he relied on the company’s “all natural” representations when he bought the company’s prepackaged soups but later learned that they contain GMO soy, corn or canola. Additional details appear in Issue 632 of this Update. Issue 638
A consumer has filed a proposed class action alleging Sargento Foods misleadingly advertises its cheese products as “natural” despite containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or animal growth hormones. Stanton v. Sargento Foods, Inc., No. 17-2881 (N.D. Cal., filed May 19, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that the cows providing milk for the production of Sargento cheeses are fed GMO corn and soybeans as well as a growth hormone. Alleging violations of state consumer protection acts and breach of warranty laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees. Issue 636
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will host public meetings to hear comments on proposed revisions to regulations governing importation, interstate movement and environmental release of certain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Public meetings will be held in Kansas City, Missouri; Davis, California; Riverdale, Maryland; and via webcast in June 2017. Written comments may also be submitted. Issue 635
The Canadian House of Commons has voted 216-67 against a proposal to require mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. The proposed bill would have amended Canada’s Food and Drug Act to state “No person shall sell any food that is genetically modified unless its label contains information . . . to prevent the purchaser or consumer of the food from being deceived or misled in respect of its composition.” Opponents argued that Bill C-291 did not contain a definition of the term “genetically modified” and that the wording was too vague. Issue 635
A budget plan passed to fund the U.S. government until September 2017 reportedly includes $3 million to pay for an information campaign about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. As a partnership between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture, the campaign will apparently seek to counter "misinformation about agricultural biotechnology." “It is not the responsibility of the FDA to mount a government-controlled propaganda campaign to convince the American public that genetically modified foods are safe,” Rep. Nita Lowey (DN.Y.) said. See The Washington Post, May 3, 2017. Issue 633
A Florida plaintiff has filed a putative class action against the maker of Tabatchnick soups, alleging its products cannot be called “natural” because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Ramsaran v. Tabatchnick Fine Foods, Inc., No. 1760794 (S.D. Fla., filed April 24, 2017). The complaint asserts that 19 Tabatchnick soups labeled or advertised as “all natural,” containing “highest quality, natural ingredients,” actually contain GMO soy, corn, canola or their derivatives. The plaintiff alleges that GMOs, which have “undergone sophisticated bioengineering,” cannot be described as “minimally processed” or natural and are therefore artificial. For alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation and breach of express and implied warranties, the plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 632
