The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has issued a correction to a proposed rule regarding the “importation, interstate movement and release into the environment of certain genetically engineered [GE] organisms.” Where the October 9, 2008, notice indicated that the rule would preempt “no State or local laws or regulations,” the correction substitutes “All State and local laws or regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted.” Comments on the entire proposal must be submitted on or before November 24, 2008. The original proposal represents the “first comprehensive review and revision of the regulations since they were established in 1987,” bringing the rules “into alignment with provisions of the Plant Protection Act” and updating the rules “in response to advances in genetic science and technology.” Among the changes proposed are provisions to revise the rules’ scope “to make it clear that decisions regarding which organisms are regulated…
Tag Archives GMO
The Office of U.S. Trade Representative has issued a request for comments about potential alternative products imported from the European Union (EU) that are under consideration for the imposition of increased duties. The action arises from an ongoing dispute with the EU over its refusal to allow imports of U.S. meat and meat products produced from animals treated with artificial growth hormones. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, “The [World Trade Organization] found over 10 years ago that the EU’s ban on U.S. beef was not supported by science and was thus inconsistent with WTO rules. When the EU failed to bring its measures into compliance with its WTO obligations, the United States imposed tariffs on certain imports from the EU, as authorized by the WTO. Since that time, we have been trying to resolve this dispute with the EU without changing the composition of tariffs. It is now time…
The Soil Association, a British environmental group dedicated to sustainable, organic farming, has released a report, titled “Land of the GM-Free? How the American public are starting to turn against GM food,” that contends American consumers, farmers and politicians are losing their enthusiasm for genetically modified (GM) crops. Thus, “it is not surprising that the GM industry has scaled up its efforts to find a new market in the EU.” The report specifically addresses how “genetically engineered bovine growth hormone” and GM crops such as rice, wheat and alfalfa are facing opposition from consumers and others in the United States in the form of lawsuits and regulatory pressures. According to the report, “The Irish Republic, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all committed to GM-free policies. This has left just the present English government ministers on an increasingly lonely and desperate pro-GM quest, as consumers in their main pro-GM ally,…
A Swiss study of factors that consumers consider when deciding whether to accept or reject innovative food technologies suggests that nanotechnology would be more acceptable than genetic modification (GM). Michael Siegrist, “Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Innovative Food Technologies and Products,” Trends in Food Science and Technology (forthcoming 2008). Reviewing the literature on the subject, researcher Michael Siegrist found that the processes used to make food are significant considerations for modern consumers. For example, chemical changes involving the addition of an ingredient are viewed as reducing a product’s naturalness, an “all-important” factor, while physical processes, such as grinding, are not. Thus, Siegrist reportedly concludes, “This reasoning suggests that consumers may be more willing to accept nanotechnology food than GM food. Since the former most likely will not be perceived as tampering with nature, few people will have a moral impetus to oppose this technology now.” While trust in the food industry…
“Americans are largely unaware of GM foods, both of its presence in their lives and of its wide application in food production,” according to a survey conducted by the Rutgers Food Policy Institute. Less than one-half of survey respondents (48 percent) knew that GM foods are available in supermarkets, and less than one-third of them (31 percent) believed they had ever eaten GM products. Other survey findings showed that participants want food labeling to clearly indicate pesticide use, GM status and country of origin. See Associated Press, March 24, 2005.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has introduced a bill (S. 3095) that would amend the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to “require premarket consultation and approval with respect to genetically engineered foods.” The Genetically Engineered Foods Act, which has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, defines genetic engineering as “a transformation event,” i.e., one that involves “the introduction into an organism of genetic material that has been manipulated in vitro,” “to derive food from a plant or animal or to produce an animal.” Any producer of a genetically engineered food would be required to obtain FDA approval before introducing such food into interstate commerce. Such approval would require a determination that the food is (i) safe, (ii) safe under specified conditions of use, or (iii) not safe because the food “contains genes that confer antibiotic resistance,” “contains an allergen,” or “presents 1 or more other safety…
