The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling affirming the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) decision that genetically modified (GM) alfalfa is not a “plant pest” and thus that it lacked authority to stop its deregulation or to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential environmental impacts. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 12-15052 (9th Cir., decided May 17, 2013). The Center for Food Safety, an organization dedicated to environmental advocacy, has announced its determination to appeal the ruling and to pursue other legal options to stop the planting and cultivation of GM alfalfa. The gist of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is that while the plaintiffs’ environmental and economic concerns may be valid, they have no bearing, under the current statutory scheme, on APHIS’s authority vis-à-vis GM crops. The court’s opinion methodically explains how GM alfalfa is created…
Category Archives Issue 485
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published new guidance on ways of assessing the potential risks of producing genetically modified (GM) animals, including fish, insects, mammals, and birds. Although EFSA reports that it has not yet received any applications for GM animals, the European Commission evidently requested that the agency develop environmental risk assessment (ERA) guidance because scientific developments indicate that “future submissions may be made for a number of species.” According to EFSA, the guidance will provide a “clear framework” for evaluating potential adverse effects of living GM animals on the environment and on human and animal health. “The core of the guidance is that ERAs for GM animals must be carried out in a scientifically sound and transparent manner,” said Elisabeth Waigmann, head of EFSA’s GMO Unit. “They must be based on sufficient scientific and technical data that enable conclusions to be drawn on possible environmental risks posed by…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a notice about a collection of information titled “Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Nutrition Facts Labels with Various Footnote Formats and Declaration of Amount of Added Sugars” that the agency has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review. FDA reported that it plans to use the information to promote public health and explore consumer responses to various food label formats for the footnote section of the Nutrition Facts label, including “those that exhibit information such as a description of percent Daily Value, a succinct statement about daily caloric intake, a general guideline for interpreting percent Daily Values, or a footnote about nutrients whose daily intake should be limited.” This study will also reportedly explore “how declaring the added sugars content of foods might affect consumers’ attention to and understanding of the sugars and calorie contents and other information…
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have announced two public meetings of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) on June 13 and June 14, 2013, in Bethesda, Maryland. With an aim to create an updated version of its Dietary Guidelines for Americans report, required by HHS and USDA to be issued “at least every five years,” DGAC will reportedly evaluate new scientific evidence and resource documents to “develop a report to the Secretaries of HHS and USDA that outlines its science-based recommendations and rationale.” See Federal Register, May 30, 2013.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has issued a final rule amending the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) regulations to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) appellate ruling that certain provisions relating to muscle cut meat commodities were inconsistent the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), which includes an obligation “to accord imported products treatment no less favorable than that accorded to domestic products.” Effective May 23, 2013, the final rule requires origin designations for muscle cut covered commodities “to specify the production steps of birth, raising, and slaughter of the animal from which the meat is derived that took place in each country listed on the origin designation.” It also eliminates “the allowance for commingling of muscle cut covered commodities of different origins” and expands the definition for “retailer” “to include any person subject to be licensed as a retailer under…
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a modified 10-year review schedule that includes Fair Packaging and Labeling Act regulations among those for which the agency plans to request public input in 2013 as to their need, costs, benefits, and burdens. Specifically at issue are the regulations under sections 4 and 5(c), exemptions from requirements under 16 C.F.R. Part 500, and statements of general policy or interpretation (16 C.F.R. Part 503). FTC also intends to review and solicit public comments on its telemarketing sales rule. See Federal Register, May 23, 2013.
The U.S. Senate has reportedly rejected by a vote of 71 to 27 a Farm Bill amendment that would have clarified the right of states to enact laws requiring special labeling for food and beverages manufactured with genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Co-sponsored by Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the amendment apparently aimed to protect states against lawsuits filed by food and beverage industry interests opposed to GMO labeling. “An overwhelming majority of Americans favor GMO labeling but virtually all of the major biotech and food corporations in the country oppose it,” said Sanders in a May 23, 2013, press release. “Today’s vote is a step forward on an important issue that we are going to continue to work on. The people of Vermont and the people of America have a right to know what’s in the food that…
12
