08
Jan
(Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2024) On the brink of the second Trump administration, a legal victory just last month overturned a rule issued under the first Trump administration to “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” as characterized by the Center for Food Safety (CFS). CFS served as counsel in the case for the plaintiffs, led by the National Family Farm Coalition. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decision, responding to the lawsuit filed in 2021 on behalf of farm and environmental groups, remanded the case back to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with instructions to follow. “This is a critical victory on behalf of farmers, the planet, and scientific integrity,” says George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety, also a plaintiff in the case. Mr. Kimbrell continued, “USDA tried to hand over its job to Monsanto and the pesticide industry and the Court held that capitulation contrary to both law and science.” It remains to be seen whether the incoming Trump administration will appeal this court decision. Unpacking The Center for Food Safety Litigation This legal battle began in 2004 with the Animal and Plant Health […]
Posted in Contamination, Federal Agencies, Genetic Engineering, Labeling, Litigation, Monsanto, Plant Incorporated Protectants, Uncategorized, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) | No Comments »
10
Jun
(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2024) Expanding the planting of genetically engineered crops is the major focus of “The Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology – Plan for Regulatory Reform under the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology” (Framework), released in May by three federal agencies. In its Framework, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the words “exempt” or “exemption” in reference to federal safety regulations 21 times. Then, another 21 times the agencies identify their efforts to “streamline” the process for bringing genetically engineered “plant-incorporated protectants” (PIPs) to market. Without including the word “resistance” even once, the Framework advances the interests of the biotech and allied industries, ignoring the serious scientific issues regarding health and environmental effects and the economic failure for farmers facing crop loss. Meanwhile, the issue of resistance is not new to EPA, which has for years acknowledged the resistance problem despite allowing continued weed resistance to weed killers used with herbicide-tolerant crops and insect resistance to the pesticides incorporated into plants.  >> Tell USDA, FDA, and EPA to replace agricultural provisions in the Framework with policies that discourage GE crops […]
Posted in Agriculture, Congress, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Genetic Engineering, Plant Incorporated Protectants, Resistance, Take Action, Uncategorized, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) | 1 Comment »
05
Oct
(Beyond Pesticides, October 5, 2020)  Another example of trading health and environmental protection for the support of special interests, EPA announces the misleading and fraudulently named, “EPA Supports Technology to Benefit America’s Farmers.” This time, EPA announces plans to “streamline the regulation of certain plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs).” Named to sow confusion, PIPs are plants engineered with pesticides in them. PIPs are known in general for two problems arising from incorporating pesticidal ingredients into crops: residues that cannot be washed off and production of crop-eating insects that are resistant to the incorporated pesticide that blankets the agricultural landscape. Tell Congress that EPA needs to listen to science, not pesticide manufacturers and biotech companies that are causing problems for farmers and the environment. This time, EPA is proposing to exempt from regulation certain PIPs created by biotechnological techniques that are cisgenic (using genes derived from sexually compatible species), such as CRISPR. The distinction that EPA seeks to make between cisgenic plants and transgenic plants (in which the gene of interest may come from any species) is not supported by science. In fact, cisgenic techniques make use of genetic material other than the targeted genes, and that may come from species that are not […]
Posted in Agriculture, bacillus thuringiensis, Chemicals, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Genetic Engineering, Plant Incorporated Protectants, Resistance, Uncategorized | No Comments »
