The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) recent decision to exempt genetically engineered (GE) Kentucky bluegrass from federal approval has reportedly stirred debate over how the agency regulates biotech crops, with some critics calling the outcome “a blatant end-run around regulatory oversight.” According to a July 1, 2011, press release, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) dismissed a petition from the Center for Food Safety and International Center for Technology Assessment claiming that GE bluegrass developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro for golf courses should be regulated as a “noxious weed” under the Plant Protection Act. After conducting its assessment, APHIS apparently declined to regulate “Kentucky bluegrass, GE or traditional,” as a federal noxious weed because it does not contain plant pest components. As a July 7 New York Times article further explained, GE crops “are regulated under rules pertaining to plant pests” that “are really meant for pathogens and parasites,…
Tag Archives GMO
The parents of a 29-year-old who died after he fell into a vat of chocolate have filed a wrongful death action in a Pennsylvania state court against the company that owned the plant where he worked and a number of other defendants involved in manufacturing the allegedly faulty equipment that purportedly led to the accident. Smith v. Lyons & Sons, Inc., No. __ (Pa. Ct. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., filed July 1, 2011). The decedent allegedly slipped on a cardboard-covered platform made slippery with chocolate and other materials and fell into the vat through unguarded holes. The vat was “processing, mixing and melting chocolate at extremely high temperatures at the time.” Co-workers were allegedly unable to stop the vat from operating because the switch was not located on the platform. Alleging negligence, strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties, the plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $50,000. The…
According to news sources, the Codex Alimentarius Commission concluded its meeting in Geneva by reaching an agreement on labeling foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. While the guidance is not mandatory, it would allow countries to label GM foods without risking a legal challenge before the World Trade Organization. National laws based on Codex guidance or standards cannot apparently be challenged as trade barriers. The matter has been debated before the commission, which consists of food safety regulatory agencies and organizations from around the world, for some two decades. Consumer interest organizations were apparently pleased with the agreement, but had urged the commission to adopt mandatory labeling. Still, a Consumers Union scientist reportedly said, “We are particularly pleased that the new guidance recognizes that GM labeling is justified as a tool for post-market monitoring. This is one of the key reasons we want all GM foods to be required…
A federal court in Arkansas has determined that Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. has a duty to defend an agricultural cooperative in more than 170 civil lawsuits filed by rice farmers over the contamination of their conventional crops with a genetically engineered (GE) variety. Riceland Foods, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 10-00091 (E.D. Ark., decided June 8, 2011). The court found that while the relevant commercial general liability policies precluded coverage for cross-pollination, they were silent as to liability for the physical mixing of a contaminating crop “with conventional rice during harvest, processing, transportation, or storage,” which the plaintiffs alleged in addition to cross-pollination as an independent cause of their injury. The court held that “the duty to defend remains when cross-pollination is presented as one of several potentially independent causes of the damage.” The court also determined Liberty had no obligation to defend a European rice distributor that was sued in…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Office of Inspector General (IG) has issued an audit report criticizing USDA agencies for lacking coordinated oversight of regulations behind research and development of genetically engineered (GE) animals and insects. The agencies conduct and fund research into how GE animals can enhance the productivity of food animals and how GE insects can reduce problems posed by agricultural pests, according to the report. Among its criticisms, the report faults the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for not developing regulations for GE animals and insects that pertain specifically to their introduction for “import, interstate movement, or field release.” Noting that “APHIS program units focusing on biotechnology and animal health, respectively, had not coordinated with one another to prioritize the development of a regulatory framework for GE animals and insects,” the report states that consequently “the requirements that apply to these organisms were not clear…
Canadian researchers have allegedly detected the presence of Cry1Ab toxin in human blood, raising questions about whether “pesticides associated to genetically modified [GM] foods (PAGMF)” break down during digestion as previously claimed. Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc, “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada,” Reproductive Toxicology, 2011. The study apparently focused on 30 pregnant and 39 non-pregnant women with no direct or indirect contact with pesticides. The findings evidently showed Cry1Ab toxin—“an insecticidal protein produced by the naturally occurring soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis [bt]” and used in GM maize—“in 93% and 80% of maternal and fetal blood samples, respectively and in 69% of tested blood samples from non-pregnant women.” According to the study’s authors, these results suggest “(1) that these toxins may not be effectively eliminated in humans and (2) there may be a high risk of exposure through consumption…
A coalition of more than 50 trade organizations, seed businesses, farms, and farmers has filed a lawsuit in a federal court in New York, to stop Monsanto Co. from enforcing its genetically engineered (GE) seed patents against farmers whose fields become contaminated with the GE seeds. Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-2163 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 29, 2011). Among other matters, the plaintiffs claim that the seed patents are invalid, because “only technology with a beneficial societal use may be patented,” they violate “the prohibition against double patenting, each is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, and each fails to satisfy the requirements of written description, enablement and best mode.” The plaintiffs also allege that the patents are not infringed by farmers whose fields become contaminated with GE seeds, because the farmers do not intend to use them, “and Monsanto’s patent rights in transgenic seed exhaust…
An advocate general to the European Court of Justice has reportedly issued an opinion stating that French authorities violated European Union (EU) law by suspending the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) maize on French soil without first asking the European Commission to adopt emergency measures. While such opinions do not bind the court, sources indicate that they are generally adopted. The opinion is apparently expected to affect policies in other member nations, such as Austria and Greece, that turned to the court for guidance after GM crop companies filed suit challenging national restrictions. According to Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi, the EU authorized cultivation of the GM seed at issue for animal feed in 1998, and when Monsanto sought reauthorization of the 10-year license in 2007, France outlawed the seed’s cultivation. The country invoked an EU law safeguard provision, adopted in 2004, that provides where “new or additional information” emerging after original…
The Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice and a number of other public interest groups have sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging its decision to deregulate genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 11-1310 (N.D. Cal., filed March 18, 2011). Other plaintiffs include the Cornucopia Institute, Geertson Seed Farms, which successfully challenged a previous agency decision to deregulate GE alfalfa, the Sierra Club, and organizations representing the interests of organic and family farmers. The complaint alleges that the environmental impact statement (EIS) that USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prepared to support its deregulation decision violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Plant Protection Act (PPA) and Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs note that the court-ordered EIS “is the first (and only) EIS APHIS has ever completed for any GE crop, in over fifteen years of approving GE crops for commercial use.” Seeking…
Mexico has reportedly approved its first pilot program to grow genetically modified (GM) corn. Noting that “it is necessary to advance the use of biotechnology to reduce imports and promote national production,” the Ministry of Agriculture approved the planting of GM yellow corn on approximately 2.5 acres in the northern state of Tamaulipas. Since 2009 when it began allowing GM corn on small experimental fields, the Mexican government has evidently received 121 requests for permits and allowed approximately 170 acres. According to the ministry, a pilot program is granted after an experimental field has been deemed safe by government inspectors. Although large commercial farms in northern Mexico have welcomed the GM corn to compete with U.S. imports, smaller farms in southern Mexico have expressed concern that the biotech crops could contaminate native red, blue and yellow corn varieties. See Reuters, March 8, 2011.
