The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued a proposed rule that would update regulations regarding genetically engineered (GE) organisms “by adding provisions for sharing certain business information with state and tribal government agencies.” According to USDA, the proposed provisions would govern the sharing of certain information contained in permit applications and notifications for importations, interstate movements or releases into the environment of GE organisms. The agency also says that the provisions “would allow the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to share certain business information with state and tribal governments without impairing [USDA’s] ability to protect confidential business information from disclosure.” Apparently, APHIS currently withholds such information when it shares applications with non-federal government agencies. USDA says that the action would improve collaborative and cooperative efforts with state and tribal governments and improve effectiveness of its notification and permitting procedures as APHIS continues to regulate certain GE organisms. See Federal…
Tag Archives GMO
In a 7–2 vote, lawmakers in Colorado have rejected a bill (H.B.1192) that would have defined “genetically engineered” and required a person selling, distributing or offering food for sale in Colorado to identify genetically engineered (GE) food with the following label: “This product contains genetically engineered material or was produced with genetically engineered material.” The bill was sponsored by Rep. Jeanne Labuda (D-Denver), who, according to a news source, says that consumers deserve to know more about how their food is produced and argues that food producers already have to label foods containing certain additives or allergens. Opponents of the bill, including many farmers and food retailers, reportedly claim that requiring labels for GE foods would significantly affect family farmers and increase the cost of food for all Colorado citizens. “Much of the dialogue surrounding this topic seems to be filled with fear and innuendo, as opposed to being well researched,…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has extended until April 26, 2013, the comment period for two draft environmental assessments of the proposed conditions of use submitted by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., in support of a new animal drug application concerning a genetically engineered (GE) Atlantic salmon and a preliminary finding of no significant impact for those specific conditions of use. FDA has pushed back the deadline in response to “a request for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.” Additional details about the proposed rule appear in Issue 466 of this Update. See Federal Register, February 14, 2013.
The European biotech firm EuropaBio has published a new report titled “Science Not Fiction: Time to think again about GM” that provides an overview of the debate in Europe over genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). The report urges Europeans to take a new look at evidence for GM safety, to confront some of the “misleading tactics” used by some anti-GM-science campaign groups and to “think again about GM and to discuss how Europe can play its part in reducing the immediate and future stresses facing our life support system—the food chain.” According to a EuropaBio news release, the report “provides insights into the acceptance challenges of the past, the process of re-establishing ‘fact over fear,’ and the role of scientists, policymakers, the food chain, media and other stakeholders over the last 20 years.” Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, director of Agricultural Biotechnology at EuropaBio said, “The scientific consensus on GM crops is even greater than…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc. alleging that two of its frozen vegetable “steamers” products are falsely advertised as “100% Natural” because they contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Cox v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-6377 (N.D. Cal., filed December 17, 2012). According to the complaint, the products contain GM corn, soy, corn derivatives, and/or soy derivatives. Seeking to certify a statewide class of those who have purchased Green Giant Valley Fresh Steamers®, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; actual, statutory and punitive damages; attorney’s fees; costs; and interest.
New Mexico has joined Washington and California in considering GM (genetically modified) labeling on food products. Sponsored by state Senator Peter Wirth (D), the proposal (S.B. 18) seeks to amend the New Mexico Food Act and Commercial Feed Law to require the labeling of any food or commercial animal feed containing more than 1 percent of GM material. It would also require the label to be “conspicuous and easily understandable to consumers.” The bill is the latest in a series of state-based initiatives aiming to force companies to label foods containing GM ingredients and follows California’s Proposition 37—which was narrowly defeated in November 2012—and Washington’s I-522, a citizen-backed initiative which recently secured enough signatures to go be submitted to the secretary of state.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently drawn criticism over the delayed release of documents evaluating the environmental impact of genetically engineered (GE) salmon. Created by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies, the GE salmon in question evidently contain genes from Chinook salmon as well as ocean pout that allow the company to bring the fish to market in half the normal time. After a publicly contentious review process, FDA released the May 4, 2012, draft assessment and a preliminary finding of no significant impact in late December, raising questions among groups such as the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) about whether the agency froze the application to avoid political turmoil during the election season. “The delay, sources within the government say, came after meeting with the White House, which was debating the political implications of approving the [GE] salmon, a move likely to infuriate a portion of its base,” GLP Executive Director…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has requested an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the introduction of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering. The regulations set forth “the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of a regulated article and necessitate certain information and recordkeeping requirements, including APHIS issued permits, applicants’ field testing records, and the submission of protocols to ensure compliance.” APHIS is asking the Office of Management and Budget to approve its use of these information collection activities for an additional three years. The agency will consider comments received by February 11, 2013. See Federal Register, December 11, 2012.
Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman claims in his U.S. Supreme Court merits brief that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that he infringed patents by planting second-generation genetically modified (GM) seeds, has “significantly curtailed the patent-exhaustion defense” by refusing to “hold Monsanto’s patent rights exhausted with respect to the seeds Bowman purchased from [a] grain elevator.” Bowman v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-796 (U.S., petitioner’s brief filed December 3, 2012). The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether “the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion in patented seeds even after an authorized sale, and by (2) creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.” Additional information about the dispute appears in Issue 434 of this Update. The allegedly infringing seeds that Bowman planted as a second crop were purchased in a commodity grain mix from a grain elevator. Such mixes can, according to…
Peru has passed a law that prohibits genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from being imported, produced or used anywhere within the country for the next 10 years. The law, which was approved by President Ollanta Humala last year and took effect last week, is aimed at preserving Peru’s agricultural diversity, preventing cross-pollination and supporting local farmers. According to news sources, GMOs threaten the country’s heritage plant species, including several varieties of colorful corn, which are becoming increasingly popular export commodities. Violating the law will result in a maximum fine of 10,000 UIT tax units, which is about 36.5 million soles ($14 million). The goods can also be seized and destroyed. See Andean Air Mail & Peruvian Times, November 17, 2012.
