|
|
August 23, 2010:
An article "Can Genetically Engineered and Organic Crops Coexist?" in Choices magazine by Catherine Greene and Katherine Smith reviews evidence that consumer demand has led to markets for products differentiated on some basis of GE status, and that maintaining the integrity of those differentiated product markets relies on interventions such as physical distancing or product segregation. They find, at present, the costs required to support the coexistence of all markets is borne disproportionately by producers and consumers of organic food in the United States. Read more.
August 13, 2010:
A federal district court judge revoked the government’s approval of genetically engineered sugar beets, saying that the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the environmental consequences before approving them for commercial cultivation. Read The New York Times article here. |
July 29, 2010:
OTA has hand-delivered a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack asking that GE alfalfa remain prohibited from being planted until comprehensive research concludes that the organic system will not be harmed. This is in support of OTA's work over the past year to prevent the planting of GE alfalfa. The letter is posted here.
July 19, 2010:
In a bipartisan request organized by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), seventy-five members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on July 16, asking USDA to partially deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa to allow fall 2010 planting of inventoried seed. The request comes almost one month after the Supreme Court's decided to strike down the injunction issued in the 9th Circuit Count's 2007 ruling which had stopped further planting.
June 23, 2010:
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), have responded to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Draft Environmental Impact Statement finding of “no significant impact” from the use of genetically engineered alfalfa. OTA officially thanks Leahy and DeFazio, along with the 56 additional members of the House and Senate, for urging USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to retain the regulated status of GE alfalfa.
June 22, 2010:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced three bills regarding genetically engineered food. The bills focus on the public's right to know if their food contains GE products, stringent testing of new GE products, and making the technology companies liable for their GE products. The language for the bills has not been posted, but the highlights can be seen in the “Dear Colleague” letter that Rep. Kucinich sent to Members of Congress asking them to be cosponsors.
June 21, 2010:
The Center for Food Safety celebrated the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Geerston Farms, the first genetically modified crop case ever brought before the Supreme Court. Although the High Court decision reverses parts of the lower courts’ rulings, the judgment holds that a vacatur bars the planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa until and unless future deregulation occurs. The Center for Food Safety is celebrating the ruling as a victory for the Farmers and Consumers it represents.
May 18, 2010:
Representative DeFazio (D-OR4) and Senator Leahy (D-VT) are circulating a letter to their colleagues asking United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Vilsack to maintain the ban on genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa seed. The letter emphasizes that the deregulation of GE alfalfa would create significant economic losses to organic dairy producers, and would jeopardize consumer trust in the integrity of the USDA organic seal. Read the bicameral “Dear Colleague” letter, and associated letter to Secretary Vilsack.
Those in favor of allowing GE Alfalfa production to resume have sent a letter to USDA asking that the ban be lifted because it would provide dairy farmers a $100 per acre per year financial benefit. Their letter and talking points, which were cirulated in opposition to the DeFazio/Leahy letter, can be seen here.
April 20, 2010:
OTA has signed on with more than 80 groups to urge FDA and USDA to change the U.S. position on food labeling
Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, and more than 80 farmers, public health, environmental, and organic food organizations today sent a letter to Michael R. Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Food at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and to Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), expressing serious concerns that a proposed U.S. position on food labeling would create major problems for American producers who want to label their products as free of genetically modified (GM)/genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.
April 5, 2010:
OTA has signed-on to an amicus brief in the GE alfalfa case. OTA's interest in the case is:
OTA believes that organic stakeholders livelihoods will be harmed by the release of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa into the environment.
This is a Supreme Court case about the release of Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” Alfalfa. After USDA originally approved the genetically engineered crop, the Center for Food Safety sued on behalf of farmers and allied organizations. In 2007, the court agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered more analysis on the crop’s impacts. In the interim, the court halted any further planting. The main impact the court ordered USDA go back and analyze was the harm to conventional and organic farmers from transgenic contamination: the likelihood of cross-pollination between fields and feral sources by wild and managed bees, the mixing of seeds and other means. It was because of this loss to farmers from unwanted transgenic contamination of their ability to sow the crop of their choice (and potential lost markets such as organic or exports) that the Court also halted the planting. The court of appeals twice affirmed the district court’s decision in 2008 and 2009. In January of this year, despite even the government’s opposition, Monsanto was able to get the Supreme Court to take the case.
This is the first time ever a court has recognized a farmer’s right to choose in this legal context. It is the first time a court has held transgenic contamination as an injury with legal consequences in this context and issued an injunction. The court concluded that the threat of irreparable harm to conventional and organic alfalfa farmers of the loss of the ability to grow non-GE alfalfa outweighed the solely economic harm to Monsanto. The Supreme Court could reverse all of those legal conclusions. It could rule that contamination harm is not enough to gain an injunction, or that the balance of the equities should have favored Monsanto and its allied partners. It could rule that even if a crop is ruled illegally approved, as in this case, that a court could not halt the planting until proper analysis of its impact is done.
|
