An Oregon state court has invalidated a local ban on cultivating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), holding that the ordinance contradicts state law preventing local anti-GMO rules. White v. Josephine Cty., No. 15-23592 (Ore. Cir. Ct., Josephine Cty., order entered May 16, 2016). The plaintiff challenged the law after he rented land within Josephine County then learned he could not grow his crops there under a May 2014 ordinance prohibiting GMO-crop cultivation. Intervenors in the case challenged the standing of the plaintiff, who described himself as a GMO sugar-beet farmer. According to the court, the intervenors argued that “the plaintiffs are posing as GMO farmers so that large chemical companies through them can attack the local ordinance.” The court disagreed, finding ample evidence to grant the plaintiff standing. Turning to the content of the ordinance, the court held that the state statute preempted the local law. “[T]he conflict could not be…
Tag Archives GMO
Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have determined that AquAdvantage Salmon “is as safe and nutritious for humans and livestock as conventional salmon.” Approving the genetically engineered (GE) salmon for sale in Canada, the two agencies cited a similar decision issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2015. “Health Canada requires labelling for food products, including genetically modified foods, where clear, scientifically established health risks or significant changes to the nutritional qualities of the food have been identified and can be mitigated through labelling,” concludes the agency. “In this case, given that no health and safety concerns were identified, there are no special labeling requirements for AquAdvantage Salmon.” See Health Canada News Release, May 19, 2016. Issue 605
A Florida federal court has denied Chipotle’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging the company misrepresents its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite selling meat produced from animals fed GMOs. Reilly v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-23425 (S.D. Fla., order entered April 20, 2016). Chipotle argued that the plaintiff had no standing to sue because she did not specify which products she purchased; the court found she had sufficiently pleaded her claims to support standing for her consumer-protection claims, but not her request for an injunction. Chipotle also challenged the plaintiff’s understanding of “non-GMO” as “nonsensical,” but the “reasonableness of her definition, upon which her interpretation of Chipotle’s advertisements is based, is a question better decided upon examination of the evidence,” the court held. Accordingly, it granted Chipotle’s motion to dismiss the request for injunctive relief but denied it as to the rest of…
France’s highest administrative court, the Conseil d’État, has reportedly invalidated a 2014 decree banning Monsanto’s MON810 maize, a genetically modified organism (GMO), because the decree did not demonstrate that the maize would cause serious health or environmental risks, a standard determined by EU rules. The ruling will not allow GMO maize to be cultivated in the country; in 2015, an EU directive allowed member nations to prohibit GMO crops, and France passed legislation complying with the directive’s standards. The later law bans cultivation of all GMO maize in France. The French maize seed federation sought to appeal the earlier rule despite the symbolic nature of the action to argue that the ban was not based on sound science. “It was more a matter of principle that we conduct this appeal to show there was no scientific basis to the ban,” the organization’s managing director told Reuters. “In concrete terms, it…
Food and Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth and other consumer and environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) arguing the agency approved the use of genetically engineered (GE) salmon AquaBounty for human consumption without properly investigating related environmental risks. Inst. for Fisheries Res. v. Burwell, No. 13-1574 (N.D. Cal., filed March 30, 2016). The complaint alleges that AquaBounty received approval for two facilities only but has told its investors that it will expand in 2016; the organizations assert that FDA should have investigated the environmental effects of AquaBounty’s “necessary outgrowth” rather than limiting its analysis to the effects of two facilities. The complaint further alleges that FDA “failed to consult with the federal fish and wildlife agencies to insure that its approval for AquaBounty’s application was not likely to jeopardize endangered and threatened species or adversely modify…
A consumer has filed a lawsuit alleging that Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. falsely advertised its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite serving meat products from animals fed GMOs and soft drinks that contain GMO corn syrup. Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 16-0612 (S.D. Cal., filed March 10, 2016). The plaintiff alleges violations of California's consumer-protection law and seeks class certification, damages, an injunction, and attorney's fees. The complaint echoes the arguments in a similar California case dismissed without prejudice in February 2016 finding that the plaintiff's definition of GMO was inconsistent. The plaintiff has filed an amended complaint arguing that consumers "reasonably understand today that such claims would mean that Chipotle's menu is 100% free of GMOs and that Chipotle does not serve food sourced from animals that have been raised on GMOs or genetically engineered food." Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-3952…
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. alleging the company falsely advertises its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite selling meat and dairy produced from animals fed GMO products as well as soft drinks manufactured with GMO corn syrup. Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-3952 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 5, 2016). The plaintiff had failed to plausibly plead her allegations, the court found, because she failed to specify which products she purchased. Accordingly, the court granted Chipotle’s motion to dismiss but allowed the plaintiff leave to amend. Additional information about the complaint appears in Issue 577 of this Update. Meanwhile, a jury ordered Chipotle to pay $351,936 in back pay and $255,000 in punitive damages to three female former managers at restaurants near Cincinnati, Ohio, over allegations of gender discrimination. Rogers v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 13-0146…
Cumberland Packing Corp. and a group of consumers have reached a settlement agreement in a lawsuit alleging that Cumberland Packing Corp. misrepresents its Stevia in the Raw® sweetener products as all natural despite containing genetically modified organisms. Frohberg v. Cumberland Packing Corp., No. 14-0748 (E.D.N.Y., motion filed February 22, 2016). Under the agreement, Cumberland will pay up to $1,547,000 to reimburse class members with $2.00—or 40 percent of the average purchase price—per purchase of Stevia in the Raw®, to a maximum of $16 per person. In addition, Cumberland will remove “100% Natural” or “All Natural” label claims. Issue 595
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned the import of genetically engineered (GE) salmon just two months after deeming AquaBounty Technologies, Inc.’s AquAdvantage® salmon safe for human consumption. Issued in compliance with the Fiscal Year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act, the January 29, 2016, import alert directs that “any shipment of suspected or known GE salmon or product composed in whole or in part of GE salmon should be promptly forwarded to the District Compliance Branch.” Although AquaBounty Technologies produces GE salmon at fish farms based in Canada and Panama, the company has not yet sold its product in the United States. But after FDA ruled that the salmon posed no environmental or human health risks, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) moved to block confirmation proceedings for the next FDA commissioner until the agency required labeling for all products containing GE salmon. “This is a huge step in our…
The Philippine Supreme Court has reportedly invalidated a 2002 governmental regulation allowing the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) after Greenpeace and a farmer's group challenged the field testing of a GMO eggplant (talong). The ruling affirms a lower court's 2013 decision finding "no full scientific certainty yet as to the effects of Bt talong field trials to the environment and to the health of the people" and noting that existing regulations did not do enough to protect Philippine environment and health. "This decision builds on a wave of countries in Europe rejecting [genetically engineered (GE)] crops, and is a major setback for the GE industry,” said a Greenpeace Philippines spokesperson in a December 11, 2015, press release. "The Philippines has been used as a model for GE regulatory policy around the world, but now we are finally making progress to give people a right to choose the food they…
