Led by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), a group of independent researchers has released a joint statement in Environmental Sciences Europe that challenges “recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).” According to the January 20, 2015, statement, “the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or lack of safety, of GMOs.” In particular, the signatories not only argue that scientific agreement on the safety of GMOs is “an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora,” but suggest that the current regulatory approach to vetting GMOs case-by-case belies any purported consensus. As evidence, they cite “the different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data,” as well as unaddressed concerns raised by independent animal-feeding studies and other research.…
Tag Archives GMO
While laws mandating disclosure of the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on food labels are debated in statehouses, independent organizations such as the Non-GMO Project are offering certification for non-GMO products. NPR tracked how a food company earns the “Verified” label from the Non-GMO Project, beginning with an Iowa-based company called FoodChain ID that guides companies through the process of certification. FoodChain ID first identifies all of the ingredients in the product—including those not actually listed on the label—such as “all the processing aids, the carriers and all the inputs that go into a product.” It then determines the source of each ingredient and input and individually verifies its seclusion from GMOs. “If there’s honey in cookies, for example,” NPR notes, “the company will have to show that the bees that make the honey aren’t feeding near genetically modified corn. When there’s even the smallest risk that an ingredient…
Confirming a December 2014 “hand-shake” agreement, the European Parliament has reportedly approved a law giving member states the authority to regulate the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within their borders. Until the new rules take effect in spring 2015, EU member states can limit cultivation of approved GMOs only if they present new evidence to the European Food Safety Authority that demonstrates the crop is not safe for consumption. The new rules allow member states to prohibit GMO growth and cultivation on several grounds, including “town and country planning requirements, socio-economic impact, avoiding the unintended presence of GMOs in other products and farm policy objectives.” The legislation also creates a procedure allowing a GMO crop company to consent to proposed restrictions to avoid a unilateral ban on its product. Additional information about the 2014 political agreement appears in Issue 548 of this Update. See European Parliament Press Release, January 13,…
According to a January 1, 2015, New York Times article by Andrew Pollack, the advent of new technologies has created a loophole in federal regulations for companies looking to market genetically-engineered (GE) crops. Noting that new techniques do not involve the transfer of genetic material from other species, use bacterium to insert foreign materials or rely on viruses to manipulate plant DNA, Pollack writes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) lacks the authority to regulate these GE crops under its current mandate to protect against plant pests, including insects or pathogens. Although consumer watchdogs have warned that all GE crops could have unforeseen ecological consequences, proponents have argued that easing regulatory burdens will lower barriers to market entry and allow smaller companies to participate in product development. “Regulators around the world are now grappling with whether these techniques are even considered genetic engineering and how, if at all, they…
Shook, Hardy & Bacon Agribusiness & Food Safety Partner Jim Muehlberger and Associate Jara Settles discuss the modern consumer protection landscape in a January 2, 2015, expert analysis published in Law360. Noting that food lawsuits “tend to garner significant notoriety,” the authors focus on recent litigation against Whole Foods Market Inc. alleging that the health-food purveyor “benefited from misleading labeling claims on almond milk,” which a third-party certified as free of ingredients made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Richard v. Whole Foods Mkt. Cal. Inc., No. BC563304 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed Nov. 7, 2014). “In a long line of consumer protection putative class actions aimed at food companies, Richard is somewhat unique in targeting a retailer,” explain Muehlberger and Settles. “In most situations, plaintiffs have targeted the manufacturers of food and beverage products they deem to be improperly labeled… As a retailer, Whole Foods likely had no hand in…
Oregon farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa have filed a complaint seeking a declaration that a May 20, 2014, Jackson County ordinance banning GE crops in the county conflicts with state law, or, in the alternative, damages “as just compensation for the forced destruction of their property.” Schulz Family Farms LLC v. Jackson Cty., No. 14CV17636 (Jackson Cty. Cir. Ct., Ore., filed November 18, 2014). Claiming that (i) neighbors had never complained about its GE crops, which are allegedly “more convenient and profitable to grow than conventional alfalfa,” and (ii) the farm will have to tear out GE crops already planted and refrain from replanting conventional alfalfa for four years, the Schulz Family Farms alleges damages in excess of $2.2 million. Similarly, plaintiff James Frink alleges that he will have to tear out already-planted GE alfalfa and “lose the benefit of the ten-year crop life if forced to tear out…
A “hand-shake” agreement between the European Union’s Parliament and Council will reportedly end an ongoing dispute over member state control of internal food markets in relation to genetically modified organism (GMO) cultivation. European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Vytenis Adriukaitis reportedly said, “The agreement, if confirmed, would meet member states’ consistent calls since 2009, to have a final say on whether or not GMOs can be cultivated on their territory, in order to better take into account their national context and, above all, the views of their citizens.” Under the proposal, each EU country would have the authority to prohibit or restrict GMO cultivation for reasons other than food safety, including those involving socioeconomic effects, environmental concerns and agricultural policy goals. Current law allows member states to petition the European Food Safety Authority to limit such cultivation, but they must present scientific evidence showing the product is not safe to…
According to a news source, the organizations that supported an Oregon ballot initiative that would have required foods made with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients to be labeled as such have ended efforts to challenge a vote that narrowly defeated the measure. The groups apparently lost an emergency lawsuit seeking to include the ballots of some 4,600 voters who were rejected because the signatures on the vote-by-mail return envelopes did not match those on file. A court determined that the state’s rules on matching signatures were neither unreasonable nor illegal. An automatic recount had been triggered because the ballot proposal was defeated by slightly more than 800 votes out of 1.5 million cast. Of the initial 13,000 ballots with signature problems, 8,600 responded and matched their signatures. The remaining 4,600 were rejected. See Associated Press, December 11, 2014. Issue 548
A Florida resident has filed a putative statewide and nationwide class action against the Snack Factory, LLC, alleging that it deceptively represents that its Pretzel Crisps are “All Natural” despite including “unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients, including but not limited to maltodextrin and soybean oil.” Seidman v. Snack Factory, LLC, No. 14-62547 (S.D. Fla., filed November 7, 2014). The plaintiff asserts claims as to a number of flavor varieties, some of which also contain the “unnatural” ingredients dextrose and caramel color. The plaintiff contends that he and class members paid a price premium for the product “over and above other comparable products that do not claim to be ‘All Natural,’” relying on the product labels to their economic detriment. The complaint specifies in what way the ingredients are not natural, including that some are derived from genetically modified organisms. Alleging violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach…
Whole Foods Market Inc. is the target of two new putative nationwide class actions, one filed in a Texas federal court regarding the amount of sugar in the company’s plain Greek yogurt and the other filed in a California state court over alleged false advertising and sales of Blue Diamond almond milk products with a “Non-GMO Project Verified” label. Kubick v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., No. 14-1013 (W.D. Tex., filed November 10, 2014); Richard v. Whole Foods Mkt. Cal., Inc., No. BC563304 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed November 7, 2014). The Texas complaint alleges that Whole Foods 365 Everyday Plain Greek Yogurt represents that it contains 2 grams of sugar per serving, when testing shows that it actually contains more than 11 grams of sugar per serving, or “more than five and a half times the labeled amount.” According to the plaintiff, a California resident, this is particularly significant because…
