The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling affirming the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) decision that genetically modified (GM) alfalfa is not a “plant pest” and thus that it lacked authority to stop its deregulation or to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential environmental impacts. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 12-15052 (9th Cir., decided May 17, 2013). The Center for Food Safety, an organization dedicated to environmental advocacy, has announced its determination to appeal the ruling and to pursue other legal options to stop the planting and cultivation of GM alfalfa. The gist of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is that while the plaintiffs’ environmental and economic concerns may be valid, they have no bearing, under the current statutory scheme, on APHIS’s authority vis-à-vis GM crops. The court’s opinion methodically explains how GM alfalfa is created…
Tag Archives GMO
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published new guidance on ways of assessing the potential risks of producing genetically modified (GM) animals, including fish, insects, mammals, and birds. Although EFSA reports that it has not yet received any applications for GM animals, the European Commission evidently requested that the agency develop environmental risk assessment (ERA) guidance because scientific developments indicate that “future submissions may be made for a number of species.” According to EFSA, the guidance will provide a “clear framework” for evaluating potential adverse effects of living GM animals on the environment and on human and animal health. “The core of the guidance is that ERAs for GM animals must be carried out in a scientifically sound and transparent manner,” said Elisabeth Waigmann, head of EFSA’s GMO Unit. “They must be based on sufficient scientific and technical data that enable conclusions to be drawn on possible environmental risks posed by…
The U.S. Senate has reportedly rejected by a vote of 71 to 27 a Farm Bill amendment that would have clarified the right of states to enact laws requiring special labeling for food and beverages manufactured with genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Co-sponsored by Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the amendment apparently aimed to protect states against lawsuits filed by food and beverage industry interests opposed to GMO labeling. “An overwhelming majority of Americans favor GMO labeling but virtually all of the major biotech and food corporations in the country oppose it,” said Sanders in a May 23, 2013, press release. “Today’s vote is a step forward on an important issue that we are going to continue to work on. The people of Vermont and the people of America have a right to know what’s in the food that…
Public interest advocacy organization the Center for Food Safety has issued a report titled “Best Public Relations Money Can Buy: A Guide to Food Industry Front Groups,” authored by food activist and attorney Michele Simon. The report describes what front groups are and how they purportedly function, drawing parallels with a cigarette industry trade group, which, according to Simon, by distorting science “effectively delayed public policy on tobacco for decades. The food industry’s current effort to distort science is similar, but somewhat more subtle, operating through less obvious front groups.” Among the groups mentioned are (i) the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance— “[t]he group calls itself ‘farmers and ranchers’ because that sounds better than Monsanto and the Pork Board”; (ii) No on 37—a group fighting a ballot initiative in California that would have required labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients; it allegedly “claimed to be a ‘coalition of family…
The Vermont House of Representatives has passed a bill (H. 112) that would require labeling of foods with genetically modified (GM) ingredients. According to the legislative findings recited in the proposal, “There is a lack of consensus regarding the validity of the research and science surrounding the safety of genetically engineered foods, as indicated by the fact that there are peer-reviewed studies published in international scientific literature showing negative, neutral, and positive health results.” The findings also suggest that GM crops pose environmental hazards. The measure, which requires Senate approval, would define what constitutes genetic engineering, prohibit any GM food from bearing a “natural” label and require placement of the term “‘genetically engineered’ immediately preceding any common name or primary product descriptor of a food.” If enacted, the proposal would take effect on the first of two dates: “18 months after two other states enact legislation with requirements substantially comparable to…
U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Or.) have introduced companion bills (S. 809; H.R. 1699) that would amend the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the makers of genetically engineered (GE) foods and foods with GE ingredients to include this information on their labels. Noting that the Food and Drug Administration stated in 1992 that such labels were unnecessary because GE foods were not “materially” different from other foods, Boxer characterized this approach as antiquated and said, “Common sense would indicate that GE corn that produces its own insecticide—or is engineered to survive being doused by herbicides—is materially different from traditional corn that does not. Even the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has recognized that these foods are materially different and novel for patent purposes.” One Republican representative has agreed to co-sponsor the legislation; the remaining support is from Democratic senators and representatives. According to…
A federal court in California has issued a tentative rejection of a settlement reached in a putative class action alleging that Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. falsely claims that its ice cream is all natural despite containing genetically modified ingredients. Tobin v. Conopco Inc., No. 12-5881 (N.D. Cal., notice filed April 15, 2013). The court’s notice of tentative ruling also raises questions for hearing including (i) “what is the parties’ best argument that venue is proper in this district,” (ii) are the plaintiff’s claims typical of the class claims in light of the defendants’ contention that she lacks standing to bring her claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (iii) is the parties’ proposed notice the best practicable, (iv) do the proposed cy pres charities have any nexus to the claims, and (iv) is it appropriate to reduce the funds available for settlement purposes to cover fees and administrative…
In a recent paper, a member of European Food Safety Authority and Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety genetically modified organism (GMO) panels has explored whether biosafety data provided to regulatory authorities by companies developing GMOs should be protected from disclosure. K.M. Nielsen, “Biosafety Data as Confidential Business Information,” PLOS Biology, 2013. Noting that standards or criteria as to what constitutes “legitimate” confidential business information (CBI) in GM product applications are lacking, the author argues that CBI claims are used indiscriminately and prevent independent research and monitoring. The article concludes with the author’s suggested criteria for “warranted CBI claims.” Among other things, the criteria would exclude from protection “information present in patent documents or for information not considered to be or not under confidentiality agreements in other companies/locations/countries.”
Among other measures added to the six-month Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 signed into law by President Barack Obama (D) on March 26, 2013, are a number of provisions—or “riders”—that apparently either override previously adopted laws or require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ignore judicial rulings on challenges to the deregulation of genetically engineered (GE) crops. The riders reportedly include (i) cuts to a school breakfast program to avoid disruptions to food safety inspections which would have affected meat processing operations; (ii) an order that the USDA secretary rescind regulations adopted in 2012 protecting growers under contract with large chicken processors; (iii) the removal of funds from USDA’s budget to implement 2008 farm bill reforms protecting small ranchers and farmers that raise animals for slaughter; and (iv) a requirement that the USDA secretary “immediately grant” temporary permits to farmers, growers or producers on request to…
Vermont’s House Agriculture Committee has reportedly passed by an 8-3 vote legislation (H.112) that would require producers to label raw agricultural and processed food products that are genetically engineered. Milk, meat and ready-to-eat foods would be exempt from the labeling. The bill now moves to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. If passed, the legislation would evidently take effect 18 months after at least two other states adopt similar proposals, or 24 months after its passage in Vermont—whichever comes first. Previous versions of GMO labeling bills introduced in Vermont in 2011 and 2012 were defeated. See Addison County Independent, March 4, 2013.
