The third in a five-part series about genetically modified (GM) crops, this article focuses on the frustrations of importers and exporters over stringent European rules about even trace amounts of GM material in conventional crops. Apparently, European regulators have stopped more than 10 soybean or soy meal shipments from the United States this year because they contained GM corn dust, which had not been cleared for import in Europe. The cross-contamination apparently occurs when silos, trains and ships are not cleaned after GM crops are stored or transported in them. With pressure from European farmers who need the soy products to feed their cattle and pigs, the EU reportedly approved the GM corn on November 2, 2009. Agricultural trade will apparently face new strains as GM traits used worldwide quadruple in the next five years. According to European Agriculture Minister Mariann Fischer Boel, “The result is that a growing number…
Tag Archives GMO
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently published a report titled “Complacency on the Farm: Significant Noncompliance With EPA’s Refuge Requirements Threatens the Future Effectiveness of Genetically Engineered Pest-Protected Corn,” which maintains that “one out of every four farmers who plants genetically engineered (GE) corn is failing to comply with at least one important insect-resistance management requirement.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) apparently requires farmers to plant a conventional corn refuge in or adjacent to corn crops engineered with Bacillus thuringeiensis (Bt), a toxin fatal to rootworms and corn borers. The refuge reduces the risk that pests which survive the Bt corn will breed only with their own kind, thus producing Bt-resistant pest variants. “Resistant offspring would not only reduce crop yields of the Bt crops, but could also threaten organic or conventional farmers who use natural Bt-based pesticides on non-GE crops,” stated a November 5, 2009, CSPI…
The New York Times invited several agriculture experts and activists to participate in its October 26, 2009, “Room For Debate” column, which addressed the potential of genetically modified (GM) crops to alleviate world hunger and protect the environment. Although essays by both Raj Patel of the Institute for Food and Development Policy and North Carolina State University Professor Michael Roberts underscored the political challenges facing the next Green Revolution, Cornell University Professor and 2001 World Food Prize Laureate Per Pinstrup-Andersen remained cautiously optimistic about bioengineering. “While new technology must be tested before it is commercially released, we should be mindful of the risks of not releasing it at all,” he wrote. Oxford University economist Paul Collier echoed this response, describing the GM crop debate as “contaminated by political and aesthetic prejudices: hostility to U.S. corporations, fear of big science and romanticism about local, organic production.” But Vandana Shiva, founder of…
Monsanto Co. and farmers who grow genetically modified (GM) alfalfa have reportedly filed a petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision barring them from selling or using Roundup Ready® alfalfa seed until the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) completes an environmental impact statement (EIS). Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed October 22, 2009). The petitioners apparently argue that the lower court ruling “threatens to make blanket injunctions all but automatic in [National Environmental Policy Act] cases arising in that circuit.” Additional details about the litigation appear in issues 274 and 309 of this Update. Environmental groups, farmers and consumers filed the litigation against the USDA in 2006 challenging its decision to approve the Monsanto seed. The Ninth Circuit determined that the agency erred by not completing an EIS, given evidence that GM crops could contaminate…
The second of a five-part series, this article examines in some depth how a number of European countries came to turn their backs on genetically modified (GM) crops. Belgian scientists apparently experimented with GM plants in the 1980s and instituted 50 different field trials, positioning Europe to be a world leader in plant biotechnology. A public backlash, fueled by fears over mad cow disease and food safety, followed the European Union’s approval of a pesticide-resistant corn, and no GM crop has since been approved. European scientists, concerned about the politicization of science, are apparently considering ways to restore public confidence in scientific integrity and the safety of GM crops. The Dutch have apparently proposed that the EU allow each member nation to make its own decision about whether to allow GM crops after giving consideration to a broad range of issues, including human safety, biodiversity, “cultural heritage,” and economics. The Dutch…
A recent episode of CSI: Miami has reportedly drawn criticism from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and other trade groups for the show’s portrayal of a foodborne illness investigation. Titled “Bad Seed,” the October 20, 2009, installment of the popular CBS drama focused on a fictional outbreak that eventually led the crime scene investigators to discover, not only the origin of a deadly new E. coli strain, but a feedlot using genetically modified (GM) corn. According to the Agricultural Law blog, the plot also covered a wide range of legal issues such as Veggie Libel laws, organic standards, pollen drift and genetic contamination, farmer liability for unauthorized GM crops, undocumented farm workers, farm consolidation, and crop contamination via irrigation water. Plaintiffs’ attorney Bill Marler reportedly provided CBS producers background information for the episode. See Agricultural Law, October 20, 2009 Both the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)…
The Royal Society has issued an October 2009 report, Reaping the Benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture, that calls for “a £2 billion ‘Grand Challenge’ research program on global food security.” According an October 21 press release, the world must increase food crop production by at least 50 percent by 2050 to meet global demands without damaging the environment. The “Grand Challenge” program should thus aim to support public research and policies designed to explore “new methods of crop management to increase yields and minimize environmental impact. It should also support the development of improved crop varieties by both conventional breeding and genetic modification.” The report assesses “science-based technologies and developments in biological science that are seen to have potential benefits for increasing crop yields.” It specifically examines the consequences and complications of food crop innovation stemming from short-term (less than eight years), medium-term (nine to16 years) and…
The Irish government reportedly plans to prohibit the cultivation of all genetically modified (GM) crops and will introduce a voluntary GM-free label for meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy products made without the use of GM animal feed. Echoing a similar move by Germany, the policy specifies that the government will “declare the Republic of Ireland a GM-Free Zone, free from the cultivation of all GM plants,” according to a press release, which called the policy “a new dawn for Irish farmers and food producers.” The GM-crop ban and voluntary GM-free label “makes obvious business sense for our agri-food and eco-tourism sectors,” said a spokesperson for GM-Free Ireland, a multi-stakeholder network of social, political and legal-action groups. “Everyone knows that U.S. and EU consumers, food brands and retailers want safe GM-free food, and Ireland is ideally positioned to deliver the safest, most credible GM-free food ban in Europe, if…
In the first of a series of reports, this article discusses the sugar beet growers from Oregon’s Willamette Valley involved in litigation that has, to date, successfully challenged U.S. Department of Agriculture decisions to deregulate genetically modified (GM) sugar beets without conducting appropriate environmental impact assessments. Organic farmers risk the loss of their EU markets if their crops become contaminated with GM strains, and GM farmers have apparently been unwilling to flag the location of their fields, fearing ecoterrorism and burned crops. The standoff reportedly led to the litigation which was brought by the Center for Food Safety, whose executive director is quoted as saying, “Every farmer should have the right to grow non-GMO crops and not fear contamination. Farmers shouldn’t be out there in constant fear that they’re going to be contaminated.” The article notes that while Europeans have been resistant to GM crops, U.S. consumers are largely unaware…
A federal court in California has determined that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) erred when it deregulated a genetically engineered (GE) sugar beet without preparing an environmental impact statement. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 08-00484 (N.D. Cal., decided September 21, 2009). Thus, the court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the Center for Food Safety and other environmental interest groups and scheduled a hearing for October 30, 2009, to decide what remedies will be appropriate. A court in the same federal district ruled in 2007 that APHIS erred in deregulating GE alfalfa, and this court based its ruling on that decision, which resulted in an effective halt to the use of GE alfalfa. According to the court, which discussed at length how sugar beets are grown and how cross-pollination can occur with non-GE sugar beets and related Swiss chard and…
