Posted on March 16, 2010 by Heather
Today, federal district Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California denied a request by a coalition of organic seed growers, and conservation and food safety groups seeking a temporary ban on genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets and sugar beet seeds. While Judge White denied the preliminary injunction, he indicated that permanent relief is likely forthcoming: “The parties should not assume that the Court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction is indicative of its views on a permanent injunction pending the full environmental review that APHIS [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] is required to do.” The court further explained: “While the environmental review is pending, the Court is inclined to order the Intervenor-Defendants to take all efforts … to use conventional [non-GE] seed.”
Keep Reading and Share >>>
Filed under: GE Crops, GE Food, Legal Actions | Leave a Comment »
Posted on March 3, 2010 by Heather
Resulting contamination of non-GE and organic alfalfa hay and seed would devastate livelihoods and organic industry
The National Organic Coalition (NOC) today announced that more than 200,000 people submitted comments to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) critiquing the substance and conclusions of its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on Genetically Engineered (GE) Alfalfa. Groups, including NOC, Center for Food Safety (CFS), Organic Consumers Association, Food & Water Watch, CREDO Action and Food Democracy Now, mobilized their communities to help generate the unprecedented number of comments.
In addition, more than 300 public interest organizations, farmers, dairies, retailers and organic food producers from the U.S. and Canada delivered a strongly worded letter to USDA, calling upon it to deny approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered, Roundup Ready alfalfa (GE alfalfa). The letter cites the inevitable contamination of organic and non-GE alfalfa hay and seeds and threats to the viability of organic dairies, livestock, and meat and dairy producers as reasons for urging the denial. NOC, Organic Valley, Whole Foods, National Cooperative Grocers Association, CFS and others agree that it would be irresponsible government policy to approve GE alfalfa in the absence of legal requirements holding companies accountable for GE contamination, as is currently the case.
Keep Reading and Share >>>
Filed under: GE Crops, Legal Actions, Organics, Politics and Policy | 1 Comment »
Posted on March 1, 2010 by Heather
Delaware’s Bombay Hook Lacks Required Environmental Review and Justification
A lawsuit filed today in federal court against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service seeks to compel the Service to uproot genetically engineered (GE) crops from its Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware. As many as 80 other national wildlife refuges across the country now growing GE crops are vulnerable to similar suits.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for Delaware by the Widener Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic on behalf of Delaware Audubon Society, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Center for Food Safety, the federal suit charges that the Fish & Wildlife Service had illegally entered into Cooperative Farming Agreements with private parties, allowing hundreds of acres to be plowed over without the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
Keep Reading and Share >>>
Filed under: GE Crops, Legal Actions, Politics and Policy | 1 Comment »
Posted on February 25, 2010 by Heather
Food safety, consumer and health advocacy organizations blasted Eli Lilly subsidiary Elanco for claiming that prominent health organizations had endorsed use of the controversial artificial growth hormone rbGH,(rbST) on dairy cows when, in fact, they have not. Elanco’s report, from eight experts and academics in medicine and dairy science, said that groups such as the American Cancer Society, American Association of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association affirmed the safety of rbGH. In fact, none of these three groups have endorsed it.
An article in the Feb. 22 issue of the online Bioscience Resource Project cited one of the co-authors as admitting several of the endorsements were “technically untrue” and that “we counted endorsement as a failure to oppose rbGH.”
Keep Reading and Share >>>
Filed under: rbGH / rBST | Leave a Comment »