Friends of the Earth (FOE) International has published a February 2011 report claiming that “the biotech industry and its sponsors generate considerable hyperbole about the benefits that GMOs [genetically modified organisms] provide to farmers, consumers and the environment.” Titled Who Benefits from GM Crops?, the report criticizes data released by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), alleging that, contrary to ISAAA’s findings, “GM crops do not generate increased yields or help to solve hunger but are actually increasing pesticide use, contaminating seeds and food, and destroying poor farmers’ livelihoods because of high costs and monopolies.” In particular, FOE asserts that “public opposition to GMOs is rising and the area of agricultural land dedicated to GM crops is declining” in Europe, while regulatory and legal actions in the United States, India, Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina purportedly reflect an increased willingness to curb the use of GMOs. The…
Tag Archives GMO
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that would have required those who had planted genetically engineered (GE) sugar beet seedlings to destroy the crop. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, Nos. 10-17719, -17722 (9th Cir., decided February 25, 2011). The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had issued permits allowing the GE sugar beet seedlings to be planted in select, remote areas and imposing conditions prohibiting flowering or pollination before the permits expired on February 28, 2011. The plaintiffs challenged those permits because they were issued before APHIS had completed an environmental impact statement, which was required by a previous court order, and the district court concluded that they were likely to prevail on the merits. Additional details about the case appear in Issues 366 and 374 of this Update. While the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court that…
The Center for Food Safety has returned to a federal court in California charging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) with violations of the law in partially deregulating genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets. Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 11-0831 (N.D. Cal., filed February 23, 2011). Details about the agency’s action are included in Issue 381 of this Update. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the group and several other organizations concerned about the safety of GE crops and their alleged potential to contaminate conventional and organic crops, challenge the February 4, 2011, APHIS decision to approve an environmental assessment prepared in connection with the agency’s decision to issue an interim partial deregulation of Roundup Ready® sugar beets. According to the complaint, “The partial deregulation decision purports to allow planting and use of [GE sugar beets] pending the completion by APHIS of an…
European Union (EU) member states have reportedly endorsed a draft regulation aiming to “harmonize the implementation of the zero tolerance policy on non-authorized genetically modified (GM) material in feed.” According to a February 23, 2011, Europa press release, the proposal put forth by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH) would allow imported feed to contain up to 0.1 percent unauthorized GM seed, a limit that reflects the lowest level of GM presence considered by the EU GMO Reference Laboratory when validating detection methods. If adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in the next three months, the draft regulation would apply only to GM feed material “authorized for commercialization in a third country and for which an authorization procedure is pending in the EU or of which the EU authorization has expired.” Under these rules, “feed will be considered non-compliant with EU legislation when…
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has announced a preliminary program for a consultative workshop on draft guidance on the selection of comparators, or controls, for the risk assessment of genetically modified organism (GMO) plants. Scientists and risk assessors from European Union (EU) member states, industry and non-governmental organizations are expected to attend the March 31, 2011, workshop in Brussels. According to EFSA’s website, agenda items include (i) “Principles of risk assessment in the EU legal framework”; (ii) “GMO risk assessment: pros and cons of different approaches”; (iii) “Specific food and feed/molecular characterization and environmental needs for selection comparator”; and (iv) “Risk assessment when no comparator is available.” Meanwhile, EU’s Standing Committee on the Food Chain has reportedly “returned no definitive opinion” on whether to approve or veto the use of three GMOs for maize and cotton. According to a news source, the inconclusive vote could thwart other forms of…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued a determination of nonregulated status for a corn variety genetically engineered (GE) to facilitate ethanol production. Developed by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Event 3272 or Enogen™ corn produces a microbial enzyme that, according to the petition for deregulation, is “unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under APHIS’ regulations in 7 CFR part 340.” After reviewing the scientific data and soliciting public feedback on a draft environmental assessment, APHIS has agreed that this variety of GE corn “should be granted nonregulated status” as of February 15, 2011. See Federal Register, February 15, 2011. Meanwhile, corn millers and other food industry interests have reportedly criticized the decision, telling The New York Times that cross-pollination with food-grade corn “could lead to crumbly corn chips, soggy cereal, loaves of bread with soupy…
According to an advocate general opinion, which is not binding on the European Union (EU) Court of Justice, honey that contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs) due to the proximity of the hives to experimental GMO maize fields is considered a food produced from a GMO and therefore cannot be marketed unless authorized. Heinz Bablock v. Freistaat Bayern, No. C-442/09 (Advocate General’s Opinion, issued February 9, 2011). The case was referred from a German administrative court considering the claim of a beekeeper who alleged that the state of Bavaria had rendered his apicultural products unfit for marketing or consumption by growing the experimental GMO maize near his hives. The maize DNA was apparently detected in samples of his honey. While the advocate general determined that pollen from GMO maize is “no longer viable and is thus infertile” and as such “cannot be regarded as a GMO,” still its presence renders the…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has announced its decision to partially deregulate the Roundup Ready® sugar beets developed by the Monsanto Co. These genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets resist the company’s Roundup Ready® herbicide. A court previously determined that APHIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act by deregulating the sugar beets without conducting an environmental impact statement (EIS). APHIS’s interim action was taken on the basis of its finding of no significant impact on human health or the environment by the GE sugar beet root crops and will remain in effect until its EIS is completed in 2012. The agency’s action means that farmers can continue planting GE sugar beets under mandatory conditions that will restrict their movement and environmental release. According to APHIS, these conditions will ensure “that the implementation of this interim regulatory action will not result in any environmental impacts…
A federal court in Missouri has denied in part and granted in part the summary judgment motions filed by Texas and Louisiana rice farmers as well as the company they sued in the first group of cases in this multidistrict litigation (MDL) to be remanded to their transferor courts for trial. In re: Genetically Modified Rice Litig., MDL No. 1811 (E.D. Mo., decided February 1, 2011). The litigation involves claims that conventional U.S. rice farmers sustained market losses when other countries learned that the U.S. rice supply had been contaminated with a genetically modified (GM) rice variety and then prohibited all U.S. imports. To date, the company has lost a number of bellwether trials and has entered settlements with some purportedly affected farmers. Relying on previous dispositive rulings, the court dismissed the Louisiana plaintiffs’ claims under the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act and their claims for punitive damages. The court allowed…
U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have spearheaded a bill (S. 230) that would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prevent the approval of genetically engineered (GE) fish. Companion legislation (S. 229) would require labeling of any genetically engineered fish should such fish get approved. Noting that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering a proposal by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., to produce GE salmon as the first such food hybrid safe for human consumption, the senators reintroduced legislation they co-sponsored in the last congressional session in hopes of implementing a quick ban of GE fish. Calling GE fish “Frankenfish ” that is “risky, unprecedented and unnecessary,” Begich said in a statement that such fish “threatens our wild stocks, their habitat, our food safety, and would bring economic harm to Alaska’s wild salmon fishermen.” Citing strong opposition to GE salmon, Begich added that “it…
