The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published an inventory of its activities on bees and bee health as part of a forthcoming report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Spurred by a worldwide decline in the bee population, the agency created a task force with expertise in pesticides, animal health and welfare, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and plant health “to provide risk managers with comprehensive advice in the area of bee health.” In compiling the inventory, the task force identified 355 bee-related scientific outputs that EFSA has already published or developed, with the majority of these outputs involving applications for regulatory products such as pesticides and GMOs. “With its mandate to improve EU food safety and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, EFSA has a responsibility to protect bees and the ecosystem services they provide to humans,” stated the agency in a November 20,…
Tag Archives GMO
Organic growers and food safety advocates, including the National Organic Coalition (NOC), have condemned recommendations contained in the final report of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), a group appointed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address transgenic contamination of organic and non-genetically engineered (GE) crops. GE crops make up the majority of corn and soybeans produced in the United States. According to news sources, of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay to self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination. In a press release NOC stated that “This proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing GE contamination while making the victims of GE pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination.” “The AC21 report takes responsibility for GE contamination prevention out of the hands of USDA and the biotech industry…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has asked members of the U.S. House of Representatives to exclude certain provisions in the Farm Bill that would limit the government’s authority to conduct environmental analyses of genetically engineered (GE) crops. According to CSPI, “the bill language at issue would specifically limit the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s regulatory review to specific issues, such as whether the engineered crops could act as ‘plant pests’—a scenario CSPI says is not supported by science. Instead, Congress should write stand-alone legislation that would give USDA specific regulatory authority over genetically engineered crops and consider the full range of actual potential problems with such crops, such as the development of weeds or insects that were resistant to the crops’ technology, and the impact of gene flow to weedy relatives.” CSPI Biotechnology Director Greg Jaffe asks, “Why would Congress add to the public’s skepticism of genetically engineered crops by…
University of Arkansas School of Law LL.M. Candidate Lauren Handel has considered whether food-labeling provisions, such as those that would have been required under California’s Proposition 37 (Prop. 37), which voters defeated this week, are vulnerable to constitutional or preemption challenges. Had it been enacted, Prop. 37 would have required most food companies to label their products with a statement indicating that they contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients and would have prohibited the use of the term “natural” on processed food products as inherently misleading to consumers. In her article titled “Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods: A Constitutional Analysis of California’s Proposition 37,” Handel explores the First Amendment standards applied to commercial speech and concludes that the state would not have been able to justify a ban on “natural” claims, and that whether consumers’ “right to know” about GE ingredients trumps food companies’ commercial speech rights is debatable. She also concludes that…
A Colorado resident has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative nationwide class against Pepperidge Farm, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Cheddar Goldfish crackers “natural,” because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “in the form of soy and/or soy derivatives.” Bolerjack v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 12-2918 (D. Colo., filed November 6, 2012). Claiming damages in excess of $5 million, the plaintiff claims that she “purchased the Product believing it to be ‘Natural’ because he [sic] read and relied on Pepperidge Farm’s material statement that the Product is ‘Natural,’ prominently displayed on the Product’s front labeling/packaging. Plaintiff has been damaged by her purchase of the Product because the labeling and advertising for the Product was and is false and/or misleading under Colorado law; therefore, the Product is worth less than what Plaintiff paid for it and/ or Plaintiff did not receive what he [sic]…
According to University of Oklahoma College of Law Professor Drew Kershen, writing for the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics publication Agricultural and Resource Economics, if California voters approve Proposition 37 (Prop. 37) in November 2012, it could be vulnerable to challenge under World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. As Kershen notes, the ballot proposition would “impose mandatory labeling on a broad range of raw and processed foods.” Those produced “entirely or partially” through genetic engineering would be required to state that fact on product labels, and no processed food could be marketed as “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” or “all natural.” Kershen focuses on the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). While the United States, but not California, is a member state under the agreements, Kershen argues that they nevertheless apply to California’s Prop. 37. He contends that…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Campbell Soup Co. alleging that it falsely represents that some of its products are “100% Natural” when they in fact contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “in the form of soy, corn, soy derivatives, and or corn derivatives.” Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-05185 (N.D. Cal., filed October 5, 2012). Specifically targeted in the complaint are the company’s “100% Natural Southwest-Style White Chicken Chili” and “100% Natural Healthy Request® Mexican-Style Chicken Tortilla Soup.” The plaintiff alleges that he “would not have purchased the Products if he had known that the Defendant’s Products are not ‘100% Natural’ because they contain GMOs.” Seeking to certify a statewide class of product purchasers, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. He requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; attorney’s fees; actual, statutory and punitive damages; costs; and interest.…
According to a recent report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists have successfully engineered a transgenic dairy cow that produces milk with decreased levels of β-lactoglobulin (BLG), a major allergen which is not present in human milk. Anower Jabed, et al., “Targeted microRNA expression in dairy cattle directs production of β-lactoglobulin-free, high-casein milk,” PNAS, October 2012. After testing their hypothesis in a mouse model, New Zealand researchers apparently used a technique called RNA interference to effectively silence the gene responsible for expressing the BLG protein in cow’s milk. The resulting transgenic calf reportedly yielded milk with “no detectable BLG protein” but “more than twice the level of the casein proteins that also normally occur in cow’s milk.” “People have long looked into reducing this enigmatic protein, or completely knocking it out, because there has been no definitive function able to be assigned to it. So, we developed…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc., alleging that its “100% Natural” labeling and advertising for products such as Nature Valley® Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Crunchy Granola Bars are misleading because the products contain ingredients grown from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rojas v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-5099 (N.D. Cal., filed October 1, 2012). Contending that the soy, yellow corn flour, soy flour, and soy lecithin in the granola bars are GMO ingredients, the plaintiff does not request that the defendant provide a GMO disclosure; rather, he “only requests Defendant to remove the ‘100% NATURAL’ labeling from its Product.” While the plaintiff’s alleged harm is purely economic, i.e., he did not get the benefit of his bargain, he alleges that GMOs “pose a potential threat to consumers because medical research and scientific studies have yet to determine the long-term health effects of genetically engineered foods.”…
A Florida resident has filed a putative statewide class action alleging that Frito-Lay falsely labels its snacks, including “Bean Dip products,” as “ALL NATURAL” despite the use of ingredients—particularly soy—containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Altman v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-61803 (S.D. Fla., filed September 13, 2012). The gist of the complaint is that products containing GMOs should not be labeled “all natural” unless they also disclose that the products contain GMOs. The plaintiff contends that she would not have purchased the company’s bean dip if she had known the company “could not support its claim that the Product is all natural.” Seeking to represent a class of Florida consumers who purchased Frito-Lay “All Natural” products over the past four years, the plaintiff alleges violations of the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. She requests injunctive relief, restitution, actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs,…
