The European Union (EU) and Argentina have apparently reached an agreement in a dispute before the World Trade Organization (WTO) involving genetically engineered products and the application of biotechnology to agriculture. The agreement, which provides for the establishment of a regular dialogue on these issues, follows a similar agreement the EU struck with Canada, which, along with Argentina and the United States, challenged the EU’s legislation on biotech products. The WTO dispute settlement body previously found that the EU violated international agreements by applying a general de facto moratorium on the approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from 1999 to 2003 and imposing undue delays on the approval of 23 product specific applications. The WTO also found that six member states failed to base their national safeguard measures on appropriate risk assessment. According to EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, “This is the second settlement regarding the WTO case on…
Tag Archives GMO
A federal court in California has denied a request for preliminary injunction to halt the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets while the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) completes its court-ordered environmental impact statement (EIS) for the crop under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Ctr. for Food Safety v. Schafer, No. 08-00484 (N.D. Cal., decided March 16, 2010). Because the court already determined that APHIS improperly deregulated Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® sugar beet seed without preparing an EIS, the judge noted that the plaintiffs have established the initial element for obtaining injunctive relief, that is, a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. The judge also found that they have demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm, given evidence that the GE crop is capable of contaminating conventional and organic corps. Still, he refused to issue a preliminary injunction to immediately halt the sale, planting, cultivation, and harvesting…
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted comments to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) indicating that it “does not object” to APHIS’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, prepared by court order after a successful court challenge to USDA’s decision to deregulate the bioengineered seed. Environmentalists convinced the court that APHIS erred in allowing GE alfalfa to be grown without conducting a detailed environmental review; they claimed that it would have deleterious effects on the environment and affect the livelihood of farmers who grow conventional or organic alfalfa. An injunction has been in place preventing the sale of GE alfalfa seed or its cultivation until the EIS is finalized. EPA did call for clarification to the EIS Surface Water discussion, which indicates that “glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethyphosphonate can be removed through standard water purification and disinfection processes such as ozonation and…
A European Court of Justice adviser has determined that Monsanto Co. cannot seek royalties from a company that imported from Argentina soy meal containing residues of Monsanto’s patented gene. Case C-428/08, Monsanto Tech. LLC v. Cefetra BV (Op. of Advocate Gen. Mengozzi, delivered March 9, 2010). Monsanto has no patent on its Roundup Ready® soybeans in Argentina. In 2005 and 2006, the company had shipments of soy meal from Argentina impounded in Amsterdam harbor, and testing showed that it contained some of the seed traits that Monsanto has patented in the European Union (EU). The company then sued the importers for infringement, and a Dutch court hearing the dispute sought guidance from the EU tribunal. Disagreeing with Monsanto, which argued that its EU patent covers the DNA sequence, the adviser opined that under Directive 98/44, “a DNA sequence must be regarded as protected, even as a self-standing product, only where it…
Three advocacy organizations have sued Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), charging them with violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for failing to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) before entering into contracts that allow farmers to cultivate genetically engineered (GE) crops at the Bombay Hook refuge in Delaware. Delaware Audubon Soc’y v. Salazar, No. 99-9999 (D. Del., filed March 1, 2010). The refuge reportedly spans 16,000 acres of mainly tidal marshes that provide habitat for many waterfowl species that attract birdwatchers. Claiming that GE crops harm the environment by increasing the use of herbicides with adverse effects on soil, water, amphibians, and birds, and with the development of “superweeds” resistant to certain herbicide ingredients, the plaintiffs allege that defendants have repeatedly ignored legal obligations under NEPA to provide an environmental assessment or an EIS. The refuge has leased some…
The European Commission (EC) has reportedly approved for the first time in 12 years a genetically modified (GM) crop to be grown solely for industrial or animal feed purposes in the European Union. EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy John Dalli told reporters that the GM Amflora potato produced by the German company BASF could be planted in Europe as soon as April 2010. The potato is purportedly engineered to be unusually rich in a starch suitable for making glossy paper and other products as well as for feeding animals. Some EU member states, however, reportedly oppose the certification, claiming that the biotech potato could pose health risks to humans if its antibiotic-resistant gene enters the food chain when livestock is fed its industrial pulp or harm the environment if its seeds accidentally spread. “Not only are we against this decision, but we want to underscore that we will not…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has extended until March 3, 2010, the comment period for a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for genetically modified (GM) alfalfa. APHIS made an EIS available on January 12, 2010, after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency violated the National Environmental Protection Act by failing to prepare an EIS in connection with its recommendation to deregulate the crop. See Federal Register, February 24, 2010.
The Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests has apparently imposed an indefinite moratorium on the commercial introduction of genetically modified (GM) eggplant, or brinjal, while the agency considers the recommendations of its Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). In announcing the decision, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh cited negative public reactions to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) brinjal, as well as the objections of state governments, unknown safety and environmental issues, and concerns about foreign influence in the domestic agricultural market. Ramesh has also called for the creation of an independent genetic engineering regulator and further research to examine “the chronic effects of Bt brinjal on human health.” As he stated in his remarks, the ministry has adopted “a cautious, precautionary principle-based approach” to Bt brinjal that “does not, in any way, mean conditional acceptance.” Meanwhile, advocacy groups have reportedly welcomed the ban, which GM Watch has hailed as “a groundbreaking victory for citizens, farmers,…
The state government of Western Australia (WA) recently announced its decisionto allow the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) canola within the region as of this year. State Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman reportedly signed the exemption order under the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act of 2003, thus permitting WA farmers to grow GM canola varieties approved by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Redman noted that, according to a government report, commercial trials have proven the feasibility of segregating GM canola “from paddock to port,” a requirement of the Act meant to preserve the state’s “markets and reputation by preventing the introduction of GM crops before adequate segregation and identity preservation systems are in place.” As WA Premier Colin Barnett stated, “This decision brings WA in line with other major grain growing states in New South Wales and Victoria, where growers have been able to grow GM canola…
In a development only recently noticed in the United States, New Zealand’s Commerce Commission took action in late 2009 against a poultry producer that claimed its chickens contained no genetically modified (GM) ingredients. According to a November 18, 2009, commission news release, Inghams Enterprises (NZ) Pty. Limited was warned that it risked breaching the Fair Trading Act by stating that its chicken products contained “No . . . GM ingredients” and “have no added hormones, GM ingredients or artificial colours,” when the company’s chickens were fed with a product that contained 13 percent GM soy. The commission based its action on a report issued by a Canterbury University genetics and molecular biology professor who concluded that “GM plant material can transfer to animals exposed to GM feeds in their diets or environment, and that there can be a residual difference in animals or animal-products as a result of exposure to GM…
