{"id":37382,"date":"2025-01-08T00:01:17","date_gmt":"2025-01-08T05:01:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=37382"},"modified":"2025-03-14T15:09:53","modified_gmt":"2025-03-14T19:09:53","slug":"federal-court-reverses-genetically-engineered-crop-deregulation-adopted-by-first-trump-administration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2025\/01\/federal-court-reverses-genetically-engineered-crop-deregulation-adopted-by-first-trump-administration\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Court Reverses Genetically Engineered Crop Deregulation Adopted by First Trump Administration"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, January 8, 2025) On the brink of the second Trump administration, a legal victory just last month overturned a rule issued under the first Trump administration to \u201cpractically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,\u201d 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<\/a>, responding to the lawsuit filed<\/a> 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. \u201cThis 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.<\/p>\n

Unpacking The Center for Food Safety Litigation<\/u><\/p>\n

This legal battle began in 2004 with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announcing that it would revisit rulemaking on the governance of genetically engineered organisms. In 2008, APHIS published a notice of this proposed rulemaking that resulted in the final rule in 2020. Center for Food Safety filed the lawsuit in 2021.<\/p>\n

The court agreed with litigants that USDA violated various keystone environmental statutes, including the Endangered Species Act <\/em>(ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act <\/em>(NEPA), and the Plant Protection Act (<\/em>PPA). [Passed by Congress in 2000, PPA consolidated the regulatory system for genetic engineering into one unitary framework combining various other previous laws.] Ultimately, the court determined that APHIS\u2014the leading USDA agency assessing potential harms of GE crops\u2014made \u201csignificant\u201d errors regarding PPA and the Administrative Procedure Act<\/em> (APA). \u201cSummary judgment is granted to plaintiffs on the PPA-based APA claim that it was arbitrary and capricious for APHIS to not incorporate its noxious-weed authority in the final rule and to implement the conventional-breeding exemptions,\u201d reads the summary judgment, written by U.S. District Judge Hon. James Donato.<\/p>\n

Unpacking this ruling, the court finds that APHIS acted \u201carbitrarily and capriciously\u201d in regard to PPA\u2019s statutory mandate on noxious-weed authority (a.k.a. management of invasive plants and weeds) as well as attempting \u201cto implement the conventional-breeding exemptions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Relating to noxious weed authority, the court finds that “ignoring concerns the agency [APHIS] had previously recognized is not reasoned decision-making\u2019\u201d in highlighting \u201cAPHIS\u2019s failure to address the limitations in the part 360 regulations with respect to GE plants that its prior assessments identified as justifying adding noxious weeds as a trigger to part 340 regulations was arbitrary and capricious.\u201d<\/p>\n

Relating to breeding exemptions, \u201cNowhere in the final rule does APHIS acknowledge the conflicting scientific evidence concerning the basis on which the exemption is premised,\u201d says Judge Donato. This, he refers to as \u201carbitrary and capricious.\u201d<\/p>\n

A Game of Hot Potato: History of GE Litigation and Rulemaking <\/u><\/p>\n

In 2019, USDA under the first Trump Administration proposed new rulemaking that would exempt almost all GE crops from regulation and allow the company that makes them to decide whether they are safe. In a petition submitted to the Federal Register that year, USDA Must Offer Basic Protection from Genetically Engineered Organisms<\/a>, over six thousand comments were submitted by members of the public on varying sides of these issues. Environmental, public health, and consumer safety organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, urged that APHIS regulations should:<\/p>\n