Archive for the ‘GM Foods’ Category

9 Oct

Featured Law Firm Memo: Alston + Bird on California’s Proposition 37

Posted by Hester Serebrin in GM Foods.

Photo by by Dennis Mojado. Some rights reserved.

Yesterday, law firm Alston + Bird published a memo discussing Proposition 37, which would require labels on all genetically modified foods (and products containing GM foods) sold in California.

While the memo discusses the details of the proposition itself, most interesting are the parallels drawn between Prop 37 and Proposition 65, which passed in California in 1986, and requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects, and further requires businesses to notify consumers of the presences of such chemicals in products they may purchase.

Prop 65 has had a legendary and lasting effect on California businesses – the law firm memo notes that Prop 65 “has led to 16,000 lawsuits and close to $500 million in settlements, much of which has gone directly to plaintiffs’ lawyers for fees and costs” – and Alston + Bird estimates that Prop 37 will similarly “cover a vast array of food products and…elicit many citizen enforcement suits.”

The LA Times has already recommended a NO vote on Prop 37, claiming that the initiative is sloppily written. However, plenty of folks are saying YES.

If it passes, Prop 37 will go into effect July 1, 2014. For more details, don’t forget to check out the Alston + Bird memo.

3 Jul

Monsanto Plants Seeds in Congress

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Agriculture, GM Foods.

Photo by thrig. Some rights reserved.

Monsanto’s dollars are doing more than just paying Hugh Grant’s hefty salary (No, not that one. This one.) According to Mother Jones, lobbying by the agricultural giant has recently won some significant legislative victories.

Mother Jones ties the company’s millions of dollars in annual lobbying expenses to two major events in Congress: 1) The defeat of an amendment requiring labeling of foods containing GM ingredients; and 2) A provision added to the 2013 ag spending bill that would allow farmers to plant GM crops even during legal appeals of the USDA’s approval process – even if a federal court orders that the crops not be planted (see Sec. 733 of the bill).

Food for thought.

On a related note, did you know that Knowledge Mosaic now has lobbying data? You can draw your own conclusions by checking out our search page. To whet your appetite, here is a report of Monsanto’s lobbying expenses from last year – it includes the lobbying firm, agencies lobbied, amount spent, and more.

16 Feb

Monsanto’s Shiny New Corn, or, Losing Faith in the Democratic Process

Posted by Hester Serebrin in GM Foods, Pipelines, USDA.

Photo via photozou.jp. Some rights reserved.

Facebook, my email inbox, and the internet generally are awash today with pleas to “Tell Walmart to Reject Monsanto’s GE Sweet Corn!”

The questionable healthfulness of genetically engineered foods aside, this tactic made me a little sad. Despite 250 comments submitted directly to Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (part of the USDA), 229 of which begged the agency not to approve the corn, APHIS went ahead and granted Monsanto’s petition for nonregulated status for “MON 87460,” Corn Genetically Engineered for Drought Tolerance.

It’s sad, but true, I guess: the democratic process works most effectively when putting your money where your mouth is. “Whether you shop at Walmart or not, they are the largest U.S. food retailer, and if they won’t sell genetically engineered sweet corn, it’s likely that farmers won’t plant it,” points out Food & Water Watch, organizer of the most vocal campaign against the corn.

These kinds of campaigns use short, succinct summaries of the issues to grab attention and inform consumers, but if you’re interested in the details of process – how did we get here? – you can find a lot of the background information on Knowledge Mosaic.

A search for Monsanto corn on the Federal Register in Knowledge Mosaic’s Laws, Rules, and Agency Materials page gives you more than 100 documents to sift through. If you sort them to show the newest documents first, two parallel, but related, proceedings become clear.

The first is the aforementioned petition to grant MON 87460 nonregulated status: the initial notice of Monsanto’s petition came in early May of 2011, with a call for comments. It was seven months later that APHIS published their determination “that a corn line developed by the Monsanto Co. […], which has been genetically engineered for drought tolerance, is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations .”

The second, perhaps scarier, thread shows how EPA regulations were changed to increase “the established tolerance for residues of glyphosate in or on corn.” Why? The Federal Register final rule says it plain as day: “Monsanto Company requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

Are we, as consumers, not being loud enough, at the right time? If APHIS had received 62,364 comments expressing discontent (the number of e-signatures on Food & Water Watches petition at the time of writing) instead of only 229*, could we have nipped GE corn in the bud? APHIS did extend the comment period on the Monsanto petition, after all. Or does APHIS only answer to Monsanto?

Food for thought.

 

* To be fair: Three of the submitted comments opposing a determination of nonregulated status included electronic attachments that consisted either of: (1) A single letter signed by numerous people (6,335 signatures), (2) many letters containing identical material (16,742 letters), or (3) a consolidated document of comments (22,500 comments).

31 Aug

More Dirt on Monsanto

Posted by Kyle Hargus in GM Foods.

Photo by Peter Blanchard. Some rights reserved.

American biotechnology giant Monsanto has taken a lot of slack in recent years for their controversial industrialization of genetically modified food and artificial growth hormones. In the last decade, a handful of critically acclaimed documentaries have taken on Monsanto for all different types of malpractice: Food, Inc. criticized Monsanto for unfairly pursuing legal action against international farmers accused of saving and reselling or replanting Monsanto-patented seeds. The Corporation featured a doctor attempting to expose the criminality of Monsanto-sanctioned Posilac, a growth hormone used by Monsanto for producing extra milk in dairy cattle. 2004’s The Future of Food took on Monsanto directly and frequently for their international stranglehold on farms and farmers, and for their influence over the US government.

With all the bad press, then, it comes as little surprise that the Atlantic called Monsanto “the worst-performing stock of 2010,” a claim that is supported by a bullet-point list of bad news the company received over a period of just a few weeks, a list which includes a halved income, plummeting herbicide sales, and a Justice Department investigation for antitrust violations. Yet even still, Monsanto, along with Dupont, Syngenta, and Groupe Limagrain (“the big four” of food production) is responsible for 75% of seeds sold internationally. Pretty crazy!

Well, a series of WikiLeak cables released last week are sure to cause further commotion, as they show evidence that the US government funded “biotechnology outreach programs” in a number of developing countries, while it is also suggested that Craig Stapleton, former US ambassador to France, recommended pressuring European countries not already supporting the sale of GMO foods.Food Whistleblower has links to these WikiLeaks documents.

17 Jun

Congressional Support for Modified Salmon May Get Stuck in the Ladder

Posted by Kyle Hargus in GM Foods.

Photo by Angela. Some rights reserved.

Arguments on the subject of genetically modified food aren’t difficult to find in places like Seattle. We take our organic produce very seriously, and the idea of consuming tomatoes the size of basketballs doesn’t appeal to a lot of Seattle foodies. I’ll tip my hand up front and say that, while I’m not evangelical on the subject, I do tend to come down on the Non-GMO side of the fence (especially after watching documentaries like The Future of Food, which is very well done and on Netflix Instant Watch right now! I need to stop plugging Netflix here, but they have so many great films to watch, ack it’s so difficult!).

Well, those opposed to GMO foods are looking at a potential victory in the coming week, as a handful of lawmakers in the House of Representatives voted yesterday to attach a staunchly anti-GMO amendment, which would ban the FDA from deeming genetically modified salmon as safe to eat to an agricultural spending bill that will most likely pass through the House later this week.

The amendment was authored by Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Don Young (R-Alaska), with support from several other Pacific Northwest representatives. It takes specific aim at AquaBounty Technologies (which, let’s be honest, not a great name), the leading cultivators of genetically-modified salmon that apparently grow twice as fast and twice as big as naturally occurring salmon. Young has long taken issue with AquaBounty, labeling these mutants “frankenfish,” which coincidentally is an actual film that I have seen with my actual eyeballs.

A fairly alarming (and fairly dated) article from the Guardian examines the dangers of genetically modified salmon escaping into the wild, which is another compelling, non-dietary reason to just let things be. Conversely, AquaBounty CEO Ronald L. Stotish released a statement today condemning Young and co. and defending his industry.

7 Apr

Public Patent Foundation Sues Monsanto on Behalf of Organic Farmers

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Agriculture, GM Foods, Patents and Innovation.

On March 29th, 2011, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed a complaint on behalf of organic farmers, seed businesses, and organic agricultural organizations seeking to invalidate Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seeds.

Photo by bloomsberries. Some rights reserved.

One of the primary concerns of organic farmers regarding GM seeds has always been the threat of contamination – “Coexistence between transgenic seed and organic seed is impossible because transgenic seed contaminates and eventually overcomes organic seed,” argues the complaint. However, the plaintiffs take the clever route of preemptively suing Monsanto “to protect themselves” in the event of such contamination, pointing out that they might “perversely” be accused of patent infringement “by the company responsible for the transgenic seed that contaminates them.”

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs ask the court for the following:

A. Declare that each claim of each patent in suit is invalid;

B. Declare that Plaintiffs cannot be held to infringe any claim of any patent in suit;

C. Declare that each patent in suit is unenforceable;

D. Declare that Monsanto is not entitled to any relief if any Plaintiff is held to infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any patent;

E. Enjoin Monsanto from taking any action to enforce any patent in suit;

F. Issue an order requiring Monsanto to pay Plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action; and

G. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

Law firm Faegre & Benson has published a very thorough article on the topic, discussing the arguments of the case as well as Monsanto’s rebuttals to date. You can also follow PUBPAT’s coverage of the case here.

4 Apr

Clones: Safe to Eat?

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Agriculture, Cloning, FDA, Food & Beverage, Food Labeling, GM Foods.

Although this document was released more than 3 years ago, it was recently modified so that it popped up in my Google reader. It is the USDA’s Statement in response to the FDA’s Risk Assessment on Animal Clones.

Photo of Dolly by Toni Barros. Some rights reserved.

And should you be wondering, the USDA’s response was positive:

“USDA fully supports and agrees with FDA’s final assessment that meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones pose no safety concerns, and these products are no different than food from traditionally bred animals.”

In fact, they compare cloning to artificial insemination:

“Many farmers and ranchers routinely use other assisted reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination, embryo transfer and in vitro fertilization to produce superior animals for milk, meat or breeding purposes. Cloning is another breeding technique that has evolved and has now been demonstrated to be safe. It is helpful in creating genetic twins of the very best animals who can transmit superior characteristics to their offspring and quickly improve a herd.”

However, despite the supposed safety, the USDA has not lifted the voluntary moratorium established in 2001 that urges producers to refrain from introducing meat or milk from clones or their progeny into the food supply. The USDA is supposedly in the process of determining “next steps.”

But when the moratorium lifts, ladies and gents, will you even know?

Maybe not. Sorry.

“FDA is not requiring any additional [labeling] measures relating to food derived from adult clones of cattle, swine, and goats, and the offspring of clones of any species traditionally consumed as food, including labeling. Under our current laws, FDA may require specific food labeling if there are any safety concerns, or if there is a material difference in the composition of food. We have not identified any food safety concerns, and we have found no material difference in food from clones as compared to food from conventionally bred animals […] Therefore, there is no science-based reason to use labels to distinguish between milk derived from clones and that from conventional animals.”
- FDA’s Consumer FAQs

Piqued your interest? The FDA has a whole section on their website devoted to animal cloning and answering the questions of the curious customer – find those answers here, along with the original FDA risk assessment.

16 Mar

NOAA Releases First National Aquaculture Policy Draft

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Aquaculture, GM Foods, NOAA.

Photo by Loozrboy. Some rights reserved.

Though it originally slipped past me, I was recently made aware (by way of a blog post on the Atlantic) of the release of NOAA’s Draft National Aquaculture Policy, which is intended to guide NOAA’s “actions and decisions on aquaculture and to provide a national approach for supporting sustainable commercial production, expanding restoration aquaculture, and researching and developing new technologies.”

More than half of the fish consumed globally is “produced by aquaculture,” yet domestic aquaculture supplies only 5 percent of the seafood Americans eat (and we do love our seafood, stresses Commerce Secretary Locke: we consume 5 billion pounds of it each year!). The NOAA policy – which was released jointly with a complementary draft policy from the Department of Commerce – aims to fix this imbalance by funding innovative in-house aquaculture technologies and creating job initiatives that encourage industry growth in the U.S.

The policy stresses a sustainable approach to aquaculture that includes a tip of the hat to habitat restoration and the rebuilding of wild fish stocks, but it’s the impact from fish farming on these same wild stocks that is often the concern of aquaculture opponents. Indeed, many of the comments already submitted on the policy voice this concern:

“THIS IS NOT “SUSTAINABLE”. AQUACULTURE POLLUTES VAST AMOUNTS OF WATER. WE NEED TO DRINK THAT WATER AND WE NEED CLEAN WATER, NOT DIRTY WATER FRO MFISH GROWING. AQUACULTURE PRODUCES INFERIOR FISH DISEASE RIDDEN. LICE, ETC. WILD FISH STOCKS ARE DECIMATED TO FEED TO THE AQUAFISH.”

“I am one of the millions of citizens who do not approve of developing and selling genetically engineered salmon. You must be aware of the environmental harm that was done when 600,000 nonnative fish escaped in 4 years in the Northwest so the claim to sustainability cannot be true.”

“But wait you say…everyone knows that farmed fish are bad.., bad for the ecology, bad for the wild species in the area, bad for the farmed fish themselves and bad for the consumer. Ah-ha, never fear, NOAA is here. NOAA will make sure that everything is done sustainably. Not only that but (and this is the best part of all), NOAA and the United States Department of Commerce will make sure to tell everyone how safe and environmentally sound our new grand Aquaculture Industry really is. They’ll probably have posters with rainbows and kittens and happy cartoon salmon.”

Agree? Disagree? Click here to submit a comment on the draft policy before April 11, 2011.

2 Feb

GM Salmon Leaves Icky Taste in Senators’ Mouths

Posted by Hester Serebrin in FDA, GM Foods.

Shortly after our initial coverage of Aqua Bounty Technologies’ genetically modified salmon, nearly forty members of the House and Senate contacted the FDA with their concerns over what could be the first GM animal approved for human consumption.

Photo by Marcel030NL. Some rights reserved.

In late September 2010, in two separate letters, 10 Senators and 29 Representatives expressed distaste for not only FDA’s failure “to disclose to the public any data relating to environmental, food safety, or efficacy concerns” until 10 days before the public meetings, but also the “egregious flaws with the data” that was released.

More than four months later and the FDA has yet to make a decision regarding the quick-to-mature AquAdvantage salmon. So some Senators are upping the ante: Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have introduced two congressional bills relating to GM salmon. The first (S.230) aims to prevent the approval of genetically modified fish altogether, while the second (S.229) would require special labeling for GM fish – should they actually make it to market.

Read the full news report here.

28 Jan

GE Alfalfa Gets the Go-Ahead

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Agriculture, GM Foods.

Photo by tina_kolesnik. Some rights reserved.

The USDA announced yesterday that so-called Roundup Ready alfalfa will be fully deregulated. After a “thorough and transparent examination,” USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service found RR alfalfa to be “as safe as traditionally bred alfalfa.”

If you aren’t too disheartened, you can read the USDA Q&A on their decision or peruse their promises of support to the diverse set of stakeholders. Of course, I couldn’t help but notice that Monsanto’s stock rose over the course of the afternoon.

You can read the back story on RR alfalfa and see the original Environmental Impact Statement on which the decision was supposedly based here.

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 210 other followers

%d bloggers like this: