A Slate.com science writer has penned a January 17, 2012, “Medical Examiner” blog post criticizing media coverage that used recent microRNA (miRNA) research to erroneously suggest a link between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and human health. According to biologist Emily Willingham, Nanjing University scientists reportedly identified miRNA from rice and other plant foods in human blood and tissues, raising questions about whether the foreign genetic material could inhibit normal protein functions. “The rice results, simply stated, show an effect of one miRNA from one non-GM plant on one protein in live mice and in cultured human liver cancer cells,” recounts Willingham, who singles out a January 9 Atlantic article by Ari LeVaux for mischaracterizing these findings as evidence of GMO health risks and igniting “a social-media chain reaction” in the process. In particular, Willingham refutes LeVaux’s implication that GM foods contain modified miRNA and thus should come under more stringent…
Tag Archives GMO
A group of environmentalists is reportedly seeking to qualify a voter initiative in California that would require special labels on foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. With 504,760 signatures needed by June 4, 2012, to be eligible for the November 6 ballot, the environmentalists claim that the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies have not adequately regulated GE material. “After 20 years of biotech bullying and force-feeding unlabeled and hazardous genetically modified foods to animals and humans—aided and abetted by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations—a critical mass of food and health activists have decided it’s time to move beyond small skirmishes and losing battles and go on the offensive,” asserted Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, one of the organizations supporting the petition. Cummins evidently hopes the initiative will mimic California’s Proposition 65, a 1986 voter initiative that requires consumer warnings about exposures to chemicals known…
According to news sources, the Center for Food Safety, which lost its challenge to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) decision to deregulate without restriction genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, plans to appeal the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A federal court in California determined on January 5, 2012, that the law does not require the agency to “account for the effects of cross-pollination on other commercial crops” in assessing whether a new crop poses risks. U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti also reportedly said that USDA lacks the authority to require a buffer zone between GE crops and conventional or organic crops. Noting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the use of glyphosate on Roundup Ready® alfalfa, Conti further observed, “If plaintiffs’ allegations are true, then it is disturbing that EPA has yet to assess the effects of glyphosate on most of the species found near…
A California resident who claims economic injury from purchasing Frito-Lay snack and chip products advertised as “All Natural” while allegedly containing genetically engineered (GE) corn and vegetable oil seeks to certify a nationwide class in a consumer fraud action filed in a California federal court. Gengo v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 11-10322 (C.D. Cal., filed December 14, 2011). According to the complaint, the company’s tortilla chips, sun chips and multigrain snacks are prominently labeled as “made with ALL NATURAL ingredients.” Because they are instead purportedly made with corn, soybean and canola oils “made from genetically modified plants and organisms,” the plaintiff contends that “she did not get the ‘all natural’ Tostito's and SunChip’s products that were advertised and she paid for.” Alleging violations of the California Business & Professions Code (misleading advertising and unfair competition) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss…
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has introduced a package of bills that would require foods with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients to provide that information on product labels (H.R. 3553); affect how GE pharmaceutical and industrial crops are grown, while establishing a tracking system from cultivation to disposal (H.R. 3554); and protect farmers and ranchers from economic harm purportedly caused by GE seeds, plants or animals (H.R. 3555). Introduced on December 2, 2011, the bills were referred to a number of committees; the co-sponsors are mainly Democrats, although Republican Representative Don Young (Alaska) signed onto the “Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act.” In a December 9 statement, Kucinich referred to examples of cross-contamination, stating “We must take steps to prevent genetically engineered organisms from being grown in a way that could do irreversible damage to our food supply. Under pressure from profit-minded industry, we have already allowed the spread of genetically…
A federal court in California has dismissed without prejudice a proposed class action alleging that ConAgra Foods misrepresented its Wesson cooking oils as “100% Natural” when they contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Briseño v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 11 05379 (C.D. Cal., order entered June 28, 2011). Seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorney’s fees, and costs, as well as an order requiring ConAgra to disclose the presence of GM ingredients and/or remove the “100% Natural” marketing claims from its products. Additional details about the complaint appear in Issue 400 of this Update. Ruling that the complaint failed to satisfy procedural rule requirements, the court found that the plaintiff’s general allegations “about when he purchased the product, where he purchased it, and how he was made aware of ConAgra’s representations about [sic] do not afford ConAgra adequate opportunity…
The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has written a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supporting a legal petition that demands required labeling of all genetically engineered (GE) food. Information about the October 4, 2011, petition filed by the Center for Food Safety appear in Issue 412 of this Update. Representing nearly 300 nonprofit consumer organizations concerned with food safety, agricultural biotechnology, food and agricultural policy, and nutrition, CFA claims that current FDA regulations fail to provide consumers with information about GE food despite growing public interest in food content. “Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in the 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries around the world,” the November 23 letter states. “U.S. consumers should be provided the same basic information about GE foods as consumers in these other countries.”
A federal court in California has entered an order granting the motion of conventional alfalfa farmers and environmental groups for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in litigation that successfully challenged a U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) decision to de-regulate genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa without conducting an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, No. 06-01075 (N.D. Cal., decided November 8, 2011). While the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately reversed lower court rulings in the case as to the scope of relief granted, the core determination that APHIS had violated NEPA survived the appeal. Due to the “limited” nature of the plaintiffs’ success, the court imposed a 10-percent reduction on their request and ordered a total award of $1.6 million. The defendant had argued that the plaintiffs were entitled to $829,422 only.
A recent article published in Nature Nanotechnology examines how governments, scientists and food companies can better anticipate the public reaction to nanofoods based on lessons learned from the commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Timothy V. Duncan, “The communication challenges presented by nanofoods,” Nature Nanotechnology, October 2011. Authored by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) research chemist Timothy Duncan, the article argues that individual receptiveness to nanotechnology applications depend, not just on scientific evidence, but on myriad factors such as “cultural worldview, religiosity, governance philosophy, knowledge and familiarity level, trust (in government, scientists or industry), emotion, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, general knowledge of/attitude towards science, and awareness of previous technology-based controversies.” In particular, Duncan warns that the failure of governments and industry to account for these factors in the past has left consumers even more wary of processes like genetic engineering which are seen, however erroneously, as “tampering with nature.” “Attitudes…
Contending that the genetically modified (GM) corn in General Mills’ Kix Crispy Corn Puffs® and Honey Kix Crispy Corn Puffs® cereals renders their “All Natural Corn” representations false and misleading, a California resident has filed a putative class action against the company in state court. Lewis v. General Mills, Inc., No. BC472451 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed October 28, 2011). Citing the Cornucopia Institute’s “Cereal Crimes” report, and testing purportedly showing that Kix contains GM corn, the plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly relied on the “All Natural” representations, as well as other company indicia of wholesomeness, to purchase products at a premium price and were denied the benefit of their bargain. According to the plaintiff, companies that produce GM crops note that that their genetic makeup has been “altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs,” and the World Health Organization…
