At the request of 13 member states, the Council of the European Union (EU) has adopted a draft directive granting its member states “more flexibility to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on their territory.” In a July 23, 2014, press release, the council states that it sought “to provide a sound legal basis in the related EU legal framework in order to allow member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation, in all or part of their territory, of GMOs that have been authorised or are under authorisation at the EU level.” The measure was originally proposed in 2009 but stalled after a 2011 draft; in June 2014, the EU Environmental Council reached a political agreement that led to this draft directive, which the council projects will be adopted in 2015. See Law360, July 23, 2014. Issue 531
Tag Archives GMO
Tufts University Senior Research Scientist Guangwen Tang has reportedly accused the American Society for Nutrition (ASN) of defaming her with its plan to retract her 2012 article—“β-carotene in Golden Rice is as good as p-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children”—for allegedly prob- lematic research protocols. Filing in Middlesex County Court, Tang has also accused Tufts of interference in business relations because, she argues, the university barred her from doing human research for two years and told her she would be subject to disciplinary actions regarding future research and would be required to undergo human subject training—actions that Tufts disclosed to ASN and led to the organization’s decision to retract her article, she claims. Tang’s studies examined the effects of golden rice, genetically engineered rice enriched with β-carotene, in China through a 2008 field trial that involved feeding the rice to Chinese children. Chinese media reports and Greenpeace…
A Hawaii state court has reportedly ordered Hawaii County not to publicly disclose the identity and specific location of farms that grow genetically modified (GM) papayas. While the order apparently allows the county to maintain registration information under a December 2013 law that also prohibited open-air use and testing of GM crops, the court agreed with two GM papaya growers that the registration program lacked clear rules as to information that could be released to the public. According to a news source, the growers are concerned about vandalism or other economic harms. The court’s preliminary injunction states that releasing information about specific farm locations would not “protect farmers of nongenetically engineered crops” due to a “limited” cross-pollination risk and because GM papayas are not prohibited. A Kohala councilwoman reportedly expressed satisfaction with the ruling and contended that the general location of farms could still be made public under the injunction.…
According to a Harvard microbiologist, 80 to 90 percent of the hard cheese produced in the United States uses, as part of the curd-separation process, rennet made with a genetically modified (GMO) ingredient—chymosin. Noting that “chymosin produced by E. coli was the first enzyme made with recombinant DNA technology approved for use in food. . . all the way back in 1991,” Kevin Bonham asks whether GMO technology opponents would object to eating cheese made with this type of chymosin, which is also naturally occurring in calf stomachs and chemically indistinguishable from its animal-derived counterpart, and whether companies, such as Whole Foods, promising to label their GMO products will use the label on cheese products. Apparently, “[m]ost regulatory agencies don’t consider chymosin an ingredient.” Bonham also reports that “the problem goes way beyond cheese,” because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “has approved over 30 recombinant enzymes for use in…
Four food, beverage and business trade organizations have filed a constitutionally based challenge to Vermont’s recently enacted law that would require food and beverage manufacturers to disclose on product labels that their products are “produced with genetic engineering” (GE), or “may be” or are “partially” so produced and to prohibit the use of terms such as “natural” in the labeling, signage and advertising of GE products. Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, No. 14-0117 (D. Vt., filed June 12, 2014). According to the complaint, it will be difficult or impossible to comply with the law’s July 1, 2016, effective date, because members must “revise hundreds of thousands of product packages,” “establish Vermont-only distribution channels” or “revise the labels for all of their products, no matter where they might be sold in the United States.” The plaintiffs claim that the law’s proscriptions “are beyond Vermont’s power to enact” by “compelling manufacturers to…
A California bill requiring labels to disclose genetically modified (GM) ingredients in food recently failed to pass after a close vote in the state senate. Opponents argued that it would cost the average consumer as much as $400 per year for labeling a category of food that presents no risk to the public. Vermont became the first state to enact a GM ingredient-labeling law in May 2014. Additional information about that statute appears in Issue 521 of this Update. See Reuters, May 29, 2014.
Vermont lawmakers have reportedly passed the nation’s first state bill (H.B. 112) to require mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Passed in the Vermont House of Representatives, 114-30, and in the state Senate, 28-2, the bill would require foods containing GM ingredients sold in retail outlets to be labeled as either “partially produced with genetic engineering,” “produced with genetic engineering,” or “may be produced with genetic engineering.” The legislation would also make it illegal to describe any food product containing GM ingredients as “natural” or “all natural.” Backers of the legislation reportedly expect Governor Peter Shumlin (D) to sign it within the next few weeks, with the law taking effect July 1, 2016. “I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food,” Shumlin was quoted as saying. “The even more thrilling…
U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) has introduced legislation (H.R. 4432) that would prohibit states from implementing labeling laws for foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Titled the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,” the bill would (i) require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to mandate GM labeling only if those foods “are found to be unsafe or materially different from foods produced without biotech ingredients”; and (ii) establish a federal labeling standard for foods with GM ingredients, giving FDA sole authority to require labeling on such foods if they are ever deemed unsafe or materially different from foods produced without GM ingredients. According to news sources, Pompeo contends that state campaigns to label foods containing GM ingredients are intended to scare consumers, not inform them. GM crops have made “food safer and more abundant,” Pompeo said. “It has been an enormous boon to all of humanity.” GM…
A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action against H.J. Heinz Co. alleging that its Distilled White Vinegar is falsely advertised as “all natural” because it is made with genetically modified (GM) crops. Banafsheha v. H.J. Heinz Co., No. 14-2023 (C.D. Cal., filed March 17, 2014). Alleging that she paid more for the product due to the “all natural” labeling and would not have purchased the product had she known that it contains GM ingredients, the plaintiff claims, “Over 70% of U.S. corn crops are GM. Defendant sources its ingredients from U.S. commodity suppliers who supply GM crops. Large volume food manufacturers who wish to use non-GM ingredients must specifically source their crops, typically from Europe, or undertake the additional step and expense of verifying the supply from non-GM growers through identity preservation programs. In most instances, manufacturers who purchase only non-GM crops for their products specifically label the…
Wheat farmers who sued Monsanto Co. over losses they allegedly sustained after genetically modified (GM) wheat was discovered in an Oregon farmer’s field have reportedly decided to attempt to mediate the dispute. In re Monsanto Co. GE Wheat Litig., MDL No. 2473 (D. Kan.). Details about the consolidation of a number of related cases before a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court appear in Issue 500 of this Update. The GM wheat discovery prompted Japan and South Korea to suspend imports of soft white wheat from the United States, and the farmers contend that they lost money as a result. Monsanto denies any wrongdoing—it field tested GM wheat more than 10 years ago in Oregon—and calls the event an isolated incident. The MDL court had scheduled a March 10, 2014, status conference, but canceled the hearing and has stayed the litigation. See The National Law Journal, March 7, 2014. Issue 517
