A recently published study involving transgenic rice has reportedly drawn criticism from Greenpeace China, which has accused U.S. researchers of using Chinese children “as guinea pigs in [a] genetically engineered ‘Golden Rice’ trial.” According to media sources, the advocacy group has cited a joint Chinese-U.S. study appearing in the August 2012 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition as evidence that scientists sidestepped authorities by allegedly feeding vitamin-enriched Golden Rice to 24 children without the required approvals. “It was actually back in 2008 that we first heard of this experiment and immediately informed the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture,” opined a August 31, 2012, Greenpeace China blog post that has since sparked a government investigation into the trial. “The Ministry came back and assured us no Golden Rice had been imported and the trial had been stopped—something that unfortunately appears not to be the case.” The study in question apparently examined…
Tag Archives GMO
According to a news source, a Brazilian court has determined that Nestlé’s strawberry-flavored Bono Cookies® contain genetically modified (GM) soybeans at levels in excess of a 1 percent limit and that the company must thus place a yellow triangle with a “T” in the middle along with the word “transgenic” on its product labels. Failure to do so will apparently result in a fine of nearly $2,500 USD per product found in the market to contravene the order. The European Union and Japan also reportedly require GM foods to be labeled, and California voters will vote on a GM labeling referendum this fall. See Food World News, August 27, 2012.
Following the Irish Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) decision to allow genetically modified (GM) potato trials in County Carlow, a group of environmentalists and organic producers reportedly mounted a legal challenge under the Aarhus Convention which allows environmental legal issues to be pursued under a “non-prohibitively expensive order.” According to a press report, Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan indicated that he lacked jurisdiction to make such an order, but gave the group leave to provide short notice to the EPA of its intention to challenge the costs issue. Ratified in June 2012 and not yet evidently part of Irish law, article 9 of the convention apparently gives those challenging “critical environmental decisions” the ability to be heard in court without the threat of large legal costs if they lose. EPA’s consent to the GM trials is reportedly subject to eight conditions that include reporting requirements and trial management, and the land will be…
The Center for Food Safety has issued a paper critical of the draft report prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), which was scheduled to meet August 27-28, 2012, to discuss the draft. According to the advocacy organization, USDA “has increasingly strayed from its role as ‘enhanc[er of] economic opportunities for US farmers and ranchers,’ by continuing to allow genetically engineered (GE) seeds, pollen, and plants to contaminate our nation’s farms without restraint.” In particular, the center calls AC21’s “co-existence” approach to organic, conventional and GE farming “a thinly veiled attempt to sanction allowable amounts of GE contamination in food by establishing a universal GE contamination threshold.” The paper contends that compensating conventional and organic farmers whose crops are contaminated by drifting GE pollen will not address the losses sustained when other countries ban all U.S. seed and crop imports. “Even…
The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) has released a new documentary, Genetic Roulette: The Game of Our Lives, that accuses the U.S. government of permitting “untested genetically modified (GM) crops into our environment and food supply.” Based on IRT founder Jeffrey Smith’s book of the same title, the film alleges that “the same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the U.S. population.” “Gastrointestinal disorders, allergies, inflammatory disease, and infertility are just some of the problems implicated in humans, pets, livestock, and lab animals that eat [GM] soybeans and corn,” opines IRT, which ultimately urges consumers to refrain from eating GM ingredients in an effort to ward off “the deteriorating health of Americans, especially among children.”
A nonprofit family farming organization, the Center for Food Safety and several seed companies have sued the Oregon Department of Agriculture seeking court review and a stay of a temporary rule that would open 1.7 million acres to genetically modified (GM) canola plants. Friends of Family Farmers v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., No. ___ (Or. Ct. App., filed August 15, 2012). The plaintiffs claim that opening formerly protected acreage to GM crops in the Willamette Valley without imposing appropriate buffers would harm them through cross pollination, seed crop contamination, increased pests and disease, and escaped canola weeds. They claim that the rule was adopted under the agency’s temporary rulemaking authority which does not include opportunity for public notice, review and comment. “The critical prerequisite for adopting a temporary rule is the requirement to demonstrate that an agency’s failure to act promptly will result in ‘serious prejudice’ to the public interest or the…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced an August 27-28, 2012, meeting of its Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) in Washington, D.C. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has specifically asked the committee to report on the types of compensation mechanisms that could be used “to address economic losses by farmers in which the value of their crop is reduced by the presence of GE [genetically engineered] material(s).” The committee will also discuss eligibility standards for triggering these mechanisms as well as other actions that may be appropriate “to bolster or facilitate coexistence among different agricultural systems in the United States.” According to USDA, “AC21 consists of members representing the biotechnology industry, the organic food industry, farming communities, the seed industry, consumer and community development groups, as well as academic researchers and a medical doctor.” Members of the public who wish to the attend the meeting must register…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has determined that genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets are “no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms.” According to the agency, the crop, which is engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate and is known as “Roundup Ready®, is “unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, in fact, is not a plant pest.” Thus, the crop is no longer subject to federal GE regulation. The determination ends a lengthy dispute that began when organic farmers claimed that APHIS failed, when deregulating the crop in 2005, to properly consider the crop’s propensity to cross-pollinate nearby fields of conventional sugar beets and the likelihood that herbicide resistant weeds would also result from planting the GE crop. A federal court agreed and ordered the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).…
The American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources will hold a teleconference on July 31, 2012, titled “California’s Proposed GM Food Labeling Law: Pros, Cons, and Legal Issues.” A panel of speakers, including the Center for Food Safety’s George Kimbrell and the Global Environmental Ethics Counsel’s Thomas Redick, will consider the latest information on this ballot proposal, the current status of genetically modified (GM) food labeling laws elsewhere and information about pending federal initiatives relating to the labeling of biotech food products. See The U.S. Agricultural & Food Law & Policy Blog, July 12, 2012.
University of Kansas School of Law Professor Andrew Torrance discusses in this article the promises of synthetic biology, which takes genetic engineering (GE) one step further by designing organisms from scratch, and its potential perils. Dubbed “synagriculture,” the new technology is apparently being developed by those dedicated to sharing, spreading and pooling innovative biotechnologies and eschewing patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrecy to protect inventions. Part of the Do-It-Yourself biology movement, synagriculture, according to the author, represents a democratization of GE crop and livestock development, which some contend has given agricultural companies too much control over farmers. After reviewing an array of GE legal issues, Torrance concludes, “it would be well and wise for the law to prepare itself to reexamine the brave new world of synagriculture with brand new eyes.”
