Snack maker Snyder’s Lance, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss an amended class complaint filed by representative plaintiffs alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its products as “natural” when they contain genetically modified ingredients. Barron v. Snyder’s Lance, Inc., No. 13-62496 (S.D. Fla., Miami Div., motion filed March 10, 2014). Among other matters, the company argues that the plaintiffs’ “premium price” theory of harm is not plausible, they lack standing to seek injunctive relief and their failure to address their understanding of the term “natural” is fatal to their claims. As to the price theory, Snyder’s-Lance contends that the plaintiffs’ claims require the court to assume that price differences between its products and those of “rival brands” are based solely on the “natural” labeling. According to the company, the alleged price differential could be due to any number of other factors, such as better taste, more appealing…
Tag Archives GMO
According to a news source, the Hilo, Hawaii, Circuit Court has granted the request of an anonymous papaya farmer to stay the March 5, 2014, deadline imposed by Hawaii County for growers of genetically engineered (GE) crops to register or face a $1,000 penalty per day. Doe v. Cty. Of Hawaii, No. 14-1-0094 (Hawaii Cir. Ct., order entered March 7, 2014). According to the farmer, who is among those raising GE papaya, which resists a devastating ringspot virus, the registration requirement “provides a roadmap for extremists who wish to target GE growers, identifying exactly who to target and where to target them.” The farmer contends that he and other GE farmers in Hawaii County “have been the target of a highly disturbing pattern of vandalism, intimidation, and extremism” and that the perpetrators “have destroyed hundreds of thousands of dollars of GE crops.” See Law360, March 10, 2014. Issue 517
The company that has developed a genetically modified (GM) salmon has reportedly filed an application with Health Canada seeking its approval to market the fish for human consumption. AquaBounty received the approval of Environment Canada in November 2013 to produce GM salmon fish eggs at its Prince Edward Island hatchery—a decision that has been challenged by three environmental groups—and is still awaiting U.S. approval before its fish and eggs can be sold there. The company said that it “currently expects to market AquAdvantage Salmon in the United States, Canada, Argentina, Chile, and China following receipt of required regulatory approvals in the applicable jurisdiction.” See The Canadian Press, March 11, 2014. Issue 517
The nation’s two largest grocery stores, Kroger and Safeway, have pledged not to sell genetically engineered (GE) salmon, joining a growing group of stores, including Target, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Aldi, H-E-B, Meijer, Hy-Vee, Marsh, and Giant Eagle, that have already rejected the GE salmon currently under final review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nearly 2 million people, including scientists, fishermen, business owners, and consumers, have written to FDA opposing its approval of GE salmon, reportedly the first of some 30 other species of GE fish under development. If approved, the salmon would be the first GE animal in the U.S. food supply, and FDA has indicated that it will likely not be labeled as a product of genetic engineering. See Friends of the Earth News Release, March 3, 2014.
California Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) has introduced legislation (S.B. 1381) that would require labeling for genetically engineered (GE) foods but also place limits on potential litigation arising from the failure to label such products. Under the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, “any raw agricultural commodity or packaged food that is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering” would need to bear labels stating that the product in question was “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” The bill would allow the state attorney general or an injured resident “to bring an action for injunctive relief against a violation of these provisions, as specified.” Unlike previous efforts, however, the current proposal would “authorize a court to award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and would prohibit a court from awarding monetary damages in an action brought under the bill’s provisions.” It would…
A recent article published in Wired magazine has highlighted how Monsanto Co. is using its experience with transgenic crops “to create vegetables that have all the advantages of genetically modified organisms [GMOs] without any of the Frankenfoods ick factor.” According to author Ben Paynter, the agribusiness company has started investing in its own “novel strains of familiar food crops, invented at Monsanto and endowed by their creators with powers and abilities far beyond what you usually see in the produce section.” To this end, Paynter recounts how Monsanto scientists have extended the shelf-life of lettuce, created sweeter melons and endowed broccoli with three times the usual amount of glucoraphanin using techniques such as genetic marking as well as powerful computer models to accelerate the “good old-fashioned crossbreeding” process. “Monsanto computer models can actually predict inheritance patterns, meaning they can tell which desired traits will successfully be passed on,” explains Paynter.…
According to a coalition of environmental organizations, service has been effected on the defendants to their court application challenging the legality of the Canadian government’s decision to allow AquaBounty Technologies to commercially produce genetically engineered (GE) salmon. Ecology Action Centre v. Minister of the Env’t, No. T-2114-13 (Fed. Ct., filed December 23, 2014). They contend that Minister of the Environment Leona Aglukkaq and Minister of Health Rona Ambrose failed to assess under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act whether GE salmon “could become invasive, potentially putting ecosystems and species such as wild salmon at risk.” Alleging several statutory and regulatory violations, the organizations seek a declaration that the ministers acted unlawfully and without jurisdiction, their toxicity assessment is invalid and unlawful, or they unlawfully or unreasonably failed to conduct a lawful and complete toxicity assessment. AquaBounty CEO Ron Stotish has reportedly indicated that the legal action is without merit. See Ecology Action Centre…
According to a news source, the Russian Supreme Court has denied a challenge filed by environmental groups to government Decree No. 839, which will allow the registration of genetically modified (GM) crops and products containing GM ingredients beginning July 1, 2014. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed the decree in late September 2013, and the groups filed their court challenge in December. They also wrote to President Vladimir Putin, asking for him to prohibit the cultivation of GM crops in the country. The Russian Supreme Court press service reportedly indicated that under the Code of Civil Procedure government actions “can only be contested if they are in effect and . . . give some rights and duties to citizens and legal entities at the time they are contested.” National Association of Genetic Safety Director Yelena Sharoikina reportedly said, “It turns out that the Supreme Court suggests that we should wait for…
In response to a court order requiring the parties to respond to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) refusal at the court’s request to determine whether foods with genetically modified (GM) ingredients may be labeled “natural” or “all natural,” the parties to litigation involving tortilla chips have filed their pleadings. Cox v. Gruma Corp., No. 12-6502 (N.D. Cal., filed January 24, 2014). Information about FDA’s January 6 letter appears in Issue 509 of this Update. Gruma argues that the case continues to meet “all the factors for invoking primary jurisdiction. . . . The FDA’s response is simply that for its own procedural and budgetary reasons it does not intend to consider the referred issue at the current time in this particular posture. The FDA response, if anything, reinforces why the FDA should be the one to resolve this issue. This is particularly true because the same issue of…
New Hampshire lawmakers reportedly voted 185-162 against legislation (H.B. 660) that would have required food distributors to label foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. According to news sources, the vote not only puts a damper on the labeling fight in New Hampshire, but also sets back similar campaigns in Maine and Connecticut. Both states passed legislation requiring GM food labeling in 2013, but their laws cannot be enacted until at least four other Northeastern states enact similar statutes. Details about Maine’s GM bill appear in Issue 504 of this Update. See ConcordMonitor. com, January 23, 2014. Issue 511
