genetically modified crops Archives

December 3, 2024

Court rules USDA’s GE crop rules break law, must be reworked

By Douglas Main

US regulators made “significant” errors in adopting a new rule four years ago around the release of genetically modified crops, and must now strengthen oversight, a federal court ruled this week.

The US District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the National Family Farm Coalition and other plaintiffs in finding that a rule issued in 2020 by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) related to regulation of genetically engineered (GE) crops ran afoul of other federal laws.

Close to 100 new GE plants have been exempted from USDA oversight since the 2020 rule took effect. The court vacated the rule, effective Dec. 2, and sent it back to USDA for “reconsideration consistent with this order.”

“This is a critical victory on behalf of farmers, the planet, and scientific integrity,” George Kimbrell, legal director for the plaintiff Center for Food Safety, and counsel in the case, said in a statement. “USDA tried to hand over its job to [the] pesticide industry and the Court held that capitulation contrary to both law and science.”

Up until 2020, most GE crops were evaluated by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) before they were allowed to be used commercially. But during the first Trump Administration, the agency took a deregulatory course, making it easier to bring new genetically altered plants to market.

Several environmental groups sued in 2021, arguing that these 2020 rules violated the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Plant Protection Act.

In this week’s decision, US District Judge James Donato ruled that the USDA violated the Plant Protection Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, by failing to account for harm caused by the 2020 rules. In re-writing these regulations, Donato wrote: “APHIS’s errors are significant.”

September 27, 2024

“Defend or be damned” – How a US company uses government funds to suppress pesticide opposition around the world

By Carey Gillam, Margot Gibbs and Elena DeBre

In 2017, two United Nations experts called for a treaty to strictly regulate dangerous pesticides, which they said were a “global human rights concern”, citing scientific research showing pesticides can cause cancers, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and other health problems.

Publicly, the industry’s lead trade association dubbed the recommendations “unfounded and sensational assertions”. In private, industry advocates have gone further.

Derogatory profiles of the two UN experts, Hilal Elver and Baskut Tuncak, are hosted on an online private “social network” portal for pesticide company employees and a range of influential allies.

Members of the network can access a wide range of personal information about hundreds of individuals from around the world deemed a threat to industry interests, including US food writers Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman, the Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva and the Nigerian activist Nnimmo Bassey. Many profiles include personal details such as the names of family members, phone numbers, home addresses and even house values.

The profiling is part of a broad campaign – that was financed partly with US taxpayers dollars – to downplay pesticide dangers, discredit opponents, and undermine international policymaking harmful to the pesticide industry, according to court records, emails and other documents obtained by the non-profit newsroom Lighthouse Reports in an investigative reporting collaboration with The New Lede, the Guardian, and other international media partners.

The efforts were spearheaded by a “reputation management” firm in Missouri called v-Fluence. The company, founded by former Monsanto executive Jay Byrne, provides self-described services that include “intelligence gathering”, “proprietary data mining” and “risk communications”.

The revelations demonstrate how industry advocates established a “private social network” to counter resistance to pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa, Europe and other parts of the world, while also denigrating organic and other alternative farming methods. More than 30 current government officials are on the membership list of the private network, most of whom are from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Elver, who is now a university research professor and a member of a United Nations food security committee, said public money would have been better spent on scientific research into the health impacts of pesticides than on profiling people such as herself.

“Instead of understanding the scientific reality, they try and shoot the messenger. It is really hard to believe,” she said.

Author Michael Pollan’s profile portrays him as an “ardent opponent” of industrial agriculture and (GM) crops and a proponent of organic farming. His profile includes a long list of criticisms and details such as the names of his siblings, parents, son and brother-in-law.

“It’s one thing to have an industry come after you after publishing a critical article. This happens all the time in journalism,” Pollan said. “But to have your own government pay for it is outrageous. These are my tax dollars at work.”