The Economic Research Service, an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in its second report, Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, downplayed the impact of glyphosate resistance and gave Bt crops the kid gloves treatment.
|
|||
A recent number crunching report by the Electronic Research Service (ERS) arm of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) gives the reader an eye full of charts, graphs and statistics but not the full picture of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. 
China’s rejection of shipments containing low levels of unapproved genetically-modified organisms is another incident of GMO contamination that is disrupting US food and feed trade. 
Connecticut will become the first and only state so far to require food manufacturers to label products containing genetically modified ingredients — but there is a catch! 
Legislation proposed in New York would require labeling of food or food products that contain a genetically modified material. With a deadline for a vote looming, can New Yorkers keep the bill alive? 
The claim that GMOs reduce pesticide use — a main selling point — should be abandoned by the industry that is gobbling up dramatic pesticide sales growth in response to hardy plant pests rapidly adopting and developing resistance to genetically modified crops. 
In a case of national prominence, farmers, seed selling businesses and agricultural organizations are fighting for their right to seek legal protection from accusations of patent infringement by the agri-giant Monsanto should they become contaminated by Monsanto’s GMO seed. 
A judge recently ordered Fish and Wildlife Services to halt the planting of genetically engineered crops on the national wildlife land in the Southeast Region. Similar result eluded environmental groups in a related lawsuit over GMO use on refuge lands in the Midwest Region. 
There was no shortage of vitriol against a new long-term GMO study showing cancers in rats fed GM maize, as well as those fed Roundup, in amounts well below the officially set safety limits. Is the orchestrated response to discredit Seralini et al anti-science? 
Advocacy takes different forms. Harrington Investments and PANNA are trying to foster greater public awareness about Monsanto’s unsustainable corporate practices by engaging in shareholder advocacy. Not a mere hypothetical disagreement. The OSGATA lawsuit against Monsanto moved forward, despite the lower court dismissal, as more scholars and organizations echo concerns over GMO contamination and onerous lawsuits. 
After a lengthy legal battle the U.S. Department of Agriculture decided to completely deregulate Monsanto’s genetically engineered sugar beets.
Monsanto’s genetically modified soybeans to be used for cooking oil containing lower levels of saturated fats and higher levels monounsaturated fats were approved last year by U.S. regulators. Yet, while Monsanto prepares for product launch, important safety questions remain unanswered. 
Did you know that United States permits the planting of genetically engineered crops in the nation’s protected wildlife refuges? Environmental groups have challenged this practice one region at a time. 
Organic and conventional family farmers, small and family-owned seed companies, and agricultural organizations recently filed an appeal in the case of OSGATA et al v. Monsanto, which was dismissed by a Federal Court in New York on February 24, 2012. 
While the Doomsday Vault may have been founded on noble ideas, many critics fear that the lofty ideas may get lost in the complex agreements between the Vault and the depositors while permitting greater access to seeds by corporate breeders. 
The Federal District Court in New York dismissed the organic and conventional farmers’ complaint against Monsanto. But despite the legal loss, the lawsuit leaves a beneficial legacy. Think twice before believing GMO advocates who argue that genetically engineered foods are safe because they were approved by government agencies. New report from the Union of Concerned Scientists demonstrates the many ways in which corporations influence scientific and policy making processes. 
There is a growing demand from consumers to know what is in their food. In response to this demand, sprouting across the nation are bills seeking to label foods containing genetically modified ingredients. 
Despite a vocal opposition from residents, Colorado’s Boulder County recently decided to permit a second genetically modified crop, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, to be planted on public land. 
All Natural chips made by Frito-Lay may not be so natural after all, says a new lawsuit alleging that the snack-maker is misleading consumers with its all natural claims when in fact the products are made from genetically modified ingredients. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) has once again introduced a bill that would require require the labeling of all foods that contain or are produced with genetically engineered material. It is a counter-balance to another pending legislation that could strip USDA of some of its authority to approve to biotech crops. Without mention of socioeconomic facts and reiterating biotech industry talking points about GMOs, last year’s workshop of Islamic scholars wholeheartedly approved of agricultural biotechnology. However, conclusions of the workshop are questionable. 
Faced with another government agency’s failure to follow the laws, advocate groups had to resort to the courts yet again, making the judicial system the last stopgap for even the most sensible environmental policy. |
Join GMO Journal and follow the latest headlines
    |
||
|
 |
|||
