The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has determined that KK179 alfalfa, a genetically engineered (GE) crop that was created “to express reduced levels of guaiacyl lignin, a major subunit component of total lignin that slows the digestion of cellulose in livestock, as compared to conventional alfalfa at the same stage of growth,” is unlikely to constitute a plant pest, thus granting Monsanto Co. and Forage Genetics International’s petition for nonregulated status. APHIS found no significant impact following several opportunities for public comment on the petition and the preparation of an environmental assessment. See Federal Register, November 10, 2014. Issue 545
Tag Archives GMO
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has approved for commercial planting a new variety of potato genetically engineered (GE) for low acrylamide and reduced black spot bruise. The potatoes in question use a technique known as RNA interference to silence genes involved in bruising and the production of acrylamide, which USDA defines as “a human neurotoxicant and potential carcinogen that may form in potatoes and other starchy foods under certain cooking conditions.” Submitted by J. R. Simplot Co., the petition for Innate™ potatoes (E12, E24, F37, J3, J55, J78, G11, H37, and H50) underwent plant and environmental risk assessments as well as a review period that generated more than 40,000 public comments—many of them identical raising concerns about “potential effects on conventional potato production, export markets, and plant fitness.” After reviewing all available data, APHIS issued a final environmental assessment with a finding…
Food & Water Watch and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) have reported that AquaBounty Technologies has been fined $9,500 USD for violating environmental regulations in Panama and call for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is assessing the safety of the company’s genetically engineered (GE) salmon, to terminate its review and deny AquaBounty’s pending application to sell GE fish in the United States. The Panamanian National Environmental Authority apparently ruled on October 23, 2014, that AquaBounty failed to secure the permits needed for water use and water discharge before commencing operations. The decision came in response to a complaint filed in 2013 by the environmental organization Centro de Incidencia Ambiental. CFS senior attorney George Kimbrell said, “AquaBounty has not been able to follow the law, because it lacks the capacity, sophistication, will, or all of the above. This decision is also even further proof that FDA is…
Diamond Foods, Inc. has agreed to settle the consumer fraud class action suits filed by plaintiffs in California and Florida alleging that the company falsely labels its Kettle Brand® chip products as “All Natural,” when they contain artificial, synthetic or genetically modified ingredients, or as “Reduced Fat” while referencing non-comparable foods. Klacko v. Diamond Foods, Inc., No. 14-80005 (S.D. Fla., motion for preliminary approval filed October 22, 2014). Details about one of two similar California lawsuits appear in Issue 510 of this Update. Under the agreement, the company would establish a $2.75-million fund for class member claims, pay the costs of class notice and administration up to $300,000 and agree not to oppose attorney’s fees, expenses and costs of $775,000. Class members with proof of purchase would be able to recover up to $20, representing $1.00 for up to 20 purchases; those without proof of purchase would recover up to $10.…
Global Product Liability Partners Gregory Fowler and Marc Shelley have co-authored an article titled “Food and beverage labelling and advertising in the United States: Regulatory and litigation landmines,” appearing in the September 2014 issue of the International Bar Association’s Product Law and Advertising Newsletter. The article considers the public and private challenges facing U.S. food and beverage companies that promote their products as beneficial to health, “natural” or “all natural,” or include in their products genetically modified ingredients, high-fructose corn syrup or “evaporated cane juice.” The authors address trends in consumer-fraud lawsuits and settlements, competitor litigation and suits brought by morality and decency watchdogs. The article concludes by recommending the inclusion of a legal team in marketing strategies to enhance the likelihood that companies will successfully navigate these risks while distinguishing themselves in the marketplace. Issue 542
California Governor Jerry Brown (D) recently signed a bill (A.B. 504) extending the prohibition of spawning, incubating or cultivating of genetically engineered (GE) salmon in the Pacific Ocean to all state waters. Hatchery production and stocking of transgenic fish is also prohibited. The legislation was sponsored by Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata), who asserts that the specter of “frankenfish” escaping into California waters “could destroy our native salmonid populations through interbreeding, competition for food and the introduction of parasites and disease.” The new law also restricts medical or scientific research to that performed by “accredited California academic institutions or private entities for research only and not for commercial production,” provided such activities are conducted in closed systems that reduce the “risk of escape of transgenic finfish species and any potential disease they may transmit.” See Press Release of Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro, September 29, 2014. Issue 541
Vermont Attorney General (AG) William Sorrell is inviting public comments on a draft rule intended to enforce the state’s new law requiring the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products. The proposed rule defines relevant terms such as “food,” “genetic engineering” and “in vitro nucleic acid techniques,” providing standards for retailers and food manufacturers about how to label and display the foods. In addition, the draft rule lists exemptions from the GMO-labeling requirement, including alcoholic beverages, food prepared for immediate consumption, medical food, and processed foods containing less than 1 percent genetically engineered materials. The AG’s office is accepting comments by email and at hearings set for October 21, 22 and 24, 2014, in Burlington, Montpelier and Brattleboro, Vermont. Additional information about the law appears in Issue 521 of this Update, and a recent development on the lawsuit challenging the law appears in Issue 540 of this Update. See Office…
The Consumer Reports (CR) Food Safety and Sustainability Center has reportedly tested more than 80 processed foods for genetically engineered (GE) corn or soy, concluding that products labeled “natural” contained GE ingredients in levels comparable to those of their conventional counterparts. After analyzing breakfast cereals, bars, corn chips and tortillas, baking mixes and flour, meat and dairy substitutes, and tofu/tempeh, CR reported that (i) the majority of corn and soy identified in conventional products was genetically modified; (ii) products deemed “no GMO” by the manufacturer were less than 0.9 percent GE corn or soy; and (iii) products bearing third-party “Organic” or “Non GMO Product Verified” claims also contained negligible amounts of GE corn or soy. Based on these findings, CR has dubbed “Natural” labels “not meaningful,” as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not enforce any formal definition for this label. In addition, CR Food Safety and Sustainability Center…
A federal court has denied Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and the Center for Food Safety’s (CFS’s) motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging Vermont’s statute requiring food manufacturers to label their products if they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, No. 14-0117 (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Vt., order entered October 7, 2014). In their motion to intervene, the consumer groups argued that they had a right to be involved in the litigation because if Act 120 were held to be unconstitutional, it would “injure their organizational missions, their advocacy efforts, and the personal interests of their members.” In addition, they asserted that the state’s financial and human resources were insufficient to defend the law. In response, the court cited a Sixth Circuit decision holding that, according to the district court’s summary, “a public interest group does not have a separate interest sufficient to intervene…
Costa Rica’s Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court has reportedly struck down the country’s approval process for projects using genetically modified organisms (GMOs), finding it violates the constitutional rights to a healthy environment and—because of the confidentiality of the process— freedom of information. Environmental groups challenged the process in late 2012, and the Ombudsman’s Office represented their views in court, arguing that the GMO approval process prevented Costa Ricans from accessing information that could potentially affect their health and well-being. The ruling affects the Fitosanitary Law, but it does not ban GMOs or affect GMO projects that have already been approved. See Tico Times, September 11 and 16, 2014. Issue 538
