A federal court in New York has reportedly consolidated three putative class actions against Frito-Lay North America Inc. involving claims that the company falsely advertised its chips as “all natural” despite using genetically modified corn and oil in the products. In re: Frito-Lay N. Am. Inc. “All-Natural” Litig., No. 12-00408 (E.D.N.Y., order entered March 20, 2012). Two of the suits were filed in December 2011 in California, and the plaintiffs agreed to transfer the claims to New York where a similar action had been filed in January 2012. The parties reportedly stipulated to the consolidation “to streamline the litigation and conserve judicial resources.” See Law 360, March 21, 2012.
Tag Archives GMO
Fifty-five members of Congress have sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of a legal petition demanding the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. Signed by 10 senators and 45 representatives, the March 12, 2012, letter urges FDA “to protect a consumer’s right to know, the freedom to choose what we feed our families, and the integrity of our free and open markets.” Filed in October 2011 by the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, the petition reportedly has the support of more than 400 health and consumer agencies and has received nearly a million comments in favor of GE labeling, the lawmakers said. They assert that FDA’s 1992 policy statement allowing GE foods to be marketed without labeling is inadequate and outdated because it merely covers foods changed “materially” by taste, smell or other senses. “The use of novel food technologies like genetic engineering on…
A federal court in New York has dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the claims filed by numerous organic farming interests seeking a declaration that they are not infringing Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seed patents, the patents are invalid and unenforceable and the company would not be entitled to remedies against them. Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-2163 (S.D.N.Y., decided February 24, 2012). According to the court, because Monsanto has an express policy not to bring infringement actions against a farmer whose fields have trace amounts of its seed or traits “as a result of inadvertent means,” such as seed drift, cross-pollination or commingling with tainted equipment, the plaintiffs are unable to establish a substantial controversy or an injury traceable to the defendant. While Monsanto has brought 144 infringement actions against farmers over a 13-year period, the court found this insignificant given the 2 million farms currently…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has published its semiannual regulatory agenda outlining measures currently under development for 2012. Among the agenda items are proposed revisions to the rules that govern “certain genetically engineered organisms [GMOs] in order to bring the regulations into alignment with provisions of the Plant Protection Act.” Billed as the first comprehensive review of these regulations since 1987, the undertaking would apparently take into account the agency’s accumulated rulemaking experience as well as “advances in genetic science and technology.” USDA thus anticipates that any rule changes will affect “persons involved with the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of genetically engineered plants and certain other [GMOs].” In addition, the agenda includes modifications to the rules governing the importation of livestock and poultry at risk of transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or highly pathogenic avian influenza. In particular, USDA has suggested (i) amending BSE regulations…
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has released its annual report on the global status of genetically modified (GM) crops, claiming that in 2011 “a record of 16.7 million farmers, up 1.3 million or 8 percent from 2010, grew biotech crops.” According to ISAAA, these gains reflected increased plantings by developing countries, which apparently grew “close to 50 percent” of all global biotech crops, and among “small resource-poor farmers,” who constituted 90 percent or 15 million of those planting GM crops. “Developing countries… for the first time are expected to exceed industrial countries hectarage in 2012,” notes the report. “[T]his is contrary to the prediction of critics who, prior to the commercialization of the technology in 1996, prematurely declared that biotech crops were only for industrial countries and would never be accepted and adopted by developing countries.” Meanwhile, Food & Water Watch (FWW) Europe has issued…
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has filed a complaint in a New York federal court seeking an order that would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to respond to the organization’s request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for documents on “the agency’s proposed deregulation of herbicide-resistant crops.” NRDC v. USDA, No. 12-0795 (S.D.N.Y., filed February 6, 2012). According to the complaint, USDA “is currently considering petitions to deregulate several herbicide-resistant varieties of corn and soybeans, which, if granted, would significantly increase usage of the herbicides to which those genetically modified [GM] crops are resistant.” NRDC apparently submitted a FOIA request to USDA in October 2011, seeking records concerning the proposed agency action, as well as a “fee waiver on the grounds that disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest.” The deadline for a response, according to NRDC, was November 15, but USDA has…
Three consumer advocacy organizations have filed a petition with the Office of Food Additive Safety of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition requesting that ABT Technologies’ application to approve genetically engineered (GE) salmon be reviewed under the food additive provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The company’s new animal drug application for the GE salmon is currently pending before the agency’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. According to Food & Water Watch, Consumers Union and the Center for Food Safety, the company’s GE process “significantly alters the salmon’s composition . . . in a way that is reasonably expected to alter its nutritive value or concentration of constituents, and the new substance raises safety concerns. Under the Agency’s regulations and guidelines, such a substance must be treated as a food additive and the Agency must make a closer inquiry into the safety…
This article considers how those marketing honey in the European Union (EU) may proceed after the European Court of Justice in September 2011 determined that honey with trace amounts of pollen from genetically modified (GM) corn must undergo a full safety authorization before it can be sold to consumers. Highly critical of the court’s opinion, the author suggests that because it is based on a faulty factual premise involving how honey is produced and harvested, other courts would not necessarily be bound by its interpretation of Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003, because a proper factual background would present a different case. He calls for amendments to the relevant regulations that would exempt honey from their requirements or establish an upper limit for pollen from GM crops in honey. The author also suggests that honey will be subject to authorization and labeling requirements only if GM-pollen is present and detected. But he…
A New York resident has reportedly filed a putative class action in federal court, alleging that Frito-Lay misleads consumers by promoting its snack products as “all natural” when they actually contain corn and oils made from genetically engineered (GE) plants. Shake v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-408 (E.D.N.Y., filed January 30, 2012). Similar litigation was filed in December 2011 in California. Details about that case appear in Issue 421 of this Update. According to a news source, plaintiff Chris Shake alleges that he paid an additional 10 cents per ounce of Tostitos® and SunChips® over other comparable products and would not have done so had he known that the defendant’s products are not made with “all-natural ingredients.” A company spokesperson was quoted as saying that the product labeling “complies with all regulatory requirements.” Shake reportedly alleges damages in excess of $5 million. See Reuters, January 30, 2012.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it will share with other federal agencies confidential business information relating to genetically engineered (GE) plants submitted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. EPA has entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to this effect with the Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to the notice, the MOU “will support and encourage cooperation and communication between USDA, FDA, and EPA in the regulatory oversight over genetically engineered plants and foods derived from such plants. Under the MOU, USDA’s Office of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/ Biotechnology Regulatory Services (APHIS/BRS) and EPA agree to share with each other information about genetically engineered plants and the foods derived from such plants, including non-public information exempt from public disclosure usually referred to as ‘confidential business…
