More than 200 organizations, farms, grocers, individuals, and consumer and environmental rights organizations have submitted a letter to President Barack Obama (D) reminding him of his 2007 pledge “to give consumers the right to know if their food is genetically engineered (GE).” Claiming that 93 percent of Americans share his view, they call on the president to fulfill his commitment and establish a mandatory national labeling system. Among those signing the letter are the Center for Food Safety, As You Sow, Consumers Union, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and food companies including Eden Foods, Rudi’s, Amy’s Kitchen, Ben & Jerry’s, and Stonyfield Farm. See Center for Food Safety Press Release, January 16, 2014.
Tag Archives GMO
In a January 6, 2014, letter, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to three federal courts that stayed litigation involving whether food companies deceive consumers by labeling products with genetically modified (GM) ingredients as “natural,” stating that it would not make a determination on the issue to resolve a private litigation-related request. Cox v. Gruma Corp., No. 12-6502 (N.D. Cal.); Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-5185 (N.D. Cal.); In re General Mills, Inc. Kix Cereal Litig., No. 12-0249 (D.N.J.). Describing the complexities of determining what “natural” means in both a broad and narrow context and the variety of stakeholder interests involved, FDA stated that if it “were inclined to revoke, amend, or add to [current] policy, we would likely embark on a public process” and would have to involve other agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Because the agency is devoting significant resources to Food Safety Modernization Act…
Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) has signed a bill (L.D. 718) that will require labeling for foods containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients if at least five other states or a state with a population of at least 20 million passes similar legislation. Restaurants will be exempt from the disclosure requirements, and alcoholic beverages and medical foods would not be required to carry the required labels. Those products subject to the law’s provisions would be required to contain “a conspicuous disclosure that states ‘Produced with Genetic Engineering,’” and such products could not described or identified as “natural.” Issue 509
While Connecticut enacted legislation (H.B. 6527) in June 2013 requiring that foods containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients be labeled as such, once neighboring states have adopted similar laws, Governor Daniel Malloy (D) held a ceremonial bill signing in a health food café in Fairfield on December 11, 2013. Now known as Public Act 13-183, the bill’s provisions are summarized in Issue 486 of this Update. The governor said, “I am proud that leaders from each of the legislative caucuses can come together to make our state the first in the nation to require the labeling of GMOs. The end result is a law that shows our commitment to consumers’ right to know while catalyzing other states to take similar action.” See Press Release of Governor Daniel Malloy, December 11, 2013.
The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has announced the retraction of a controversial study purportedly linking genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to mammary tumors in rats. Led by University of Caen Molecular Biology Professor Gilles-Éric Séralin, the November 2012 study garnered public attention for reporting that female rats fed GM maize developed more mammary tumors than a control group raised on conventional feed. After further review, however, the journal’s editor-in-chief concluded that “both the low number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected” were cause for concern. “A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence,” notes the journal’s retraction statement. “Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the…
Texas and California residents have filed a putative class action against Whole Foods Market Services, Inc. in a Texas federal court, alleging that the company’s private label lines include falsely labeled additive-laden and genetically modified (GM) foods, despite promises that its products contain “nothing artificial” and that it enforces “strict quality standards.” Gedalia v. Whole Foods Mkt. Servs., Inc., No. 13-3517 (S.D. Tex., filed November 28, 2013). Among purported transgressions are (i) organic infant formula containing 25 ingredients “prohibited from being in organic foods” as well as 30 artificial ingredients, and (ii) organic soy and almond milk containing “ingredients not permitted in organic foods.” The complaint also alleges that the company reneges on its promise to avoid ingredients grown from genetically engineered seed and relies on a Cornucopia Institute study purportedly showing that Whole Foods’ 365 Everyday Value® products “were contaminated with high levels of genetically engineered ingredients,” citing, in particular,…
Environment Canada has published a significant new activity notice that will allow AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. to produce genetically modified (GM) salmon eggs. According to the company, the agency determined that GM salmon “is not harmful to the environment or human health when produced in contained facilities.” AquaBounty CEO Ron Stotish said, “This is a significant milestone in our efforts to make AquAdvantage® Salmon available for commercial production. However, our eggs and fish will not be available for sale until they are approved by the relevant national regulatory bodies.” The company notes that Environment Canada reached its conclusion “following a risk assessment conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada involving a panel of independent scientific experts knowledgeable in the fields of transgenics and fish containment technology.” See Canada Gazette, November 23, 2013; AquaBounty Technologies News Release, November 25, 2013.
Two Hawaiian counties have reportedly passed legislation designed to tighten regulations on biotech companies and the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops. After delaying the ballot to appoint a new member as a replacement for Nadine Nakamura, who vacated her seat to become Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s managing director, the Kauai County Council apparently voted 5-2 to override the mayor’s veto of a bill requiring agricultural companies to disclose information about their pesticide use and establishing no-spray zones around schools, residences, medical facilities, roads, and waterways. Slated to take effect in August 2014, the initiative has drawn criticism from seed and biotech companies, which have already considered taking the matter to court. Carvalho has also purportedly warned that the law could be open to challenge under state and federal preemption rules, the state’s Right to Farm Act and provisions in the County Charter. Additional details about the legislation appear in Issue…
Legislation (H.B. 660) in Maine that would require food manufacturers to label products containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients is reportedly in jeopardy after New Hampshire lawmakers voted 12-8 against a similar labeling bill. Although Maine’s law passed earlier this year with broad bipartisan support, it can take effect only if five contiguous states pass similar laws. “I was not surprised,” said the New Hampshire bill’s sponsor Maureen Mann (D-Deerfield) in a news article. Evidently, while a subcommittee that spent the summer working on the bill recommended its approval, members of New Hampshire’s House Environment and Agriculture Committee expressed reservations about the measure, citing difficulties with enforcement because food labeling is a federal matter. According to sources, unlike in Maine, the vote in New Hampshire broke along party lines, with Republican committee members largely opposing it. Democrats have a 42-vote majority in the New Hampshire House, while Republicans have a two-seat…
According to Wall Street Journal reporter Mike Esterl, products with the “natural” or “all natural” label represented $40 billion in retail sales in the United States in the preceding 12 months and market researchers have found that more than 50 percent of Americans seek the “all natural” label when they shop for food. Still, food and beverage companies have begun “quietly removing” these words from their product labels under pressure from dozens of lawsuits filed during the past two years challenging the terminology as false and deceptive. Esterl notes that the litigation is complicated due to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) decision not to define the terms. He observes that courts have, in recent months, stayed several of these lawsuits and referred questions to FDA about whether the “natural” designation can be used on products containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Details about the latest referral by a federal court…
