Twelve years have passed since the Flavr Savr tomato, the world’s first genetically modified (GM) crop, was commercially approved. Since then, hundreds of other GM varieties have been granted deregulation status, with the global area of GM crops now reaching 102 million hectares, according to industry sources. This figure has been widely contested.
In August 2006, a federal district judge in Hawaii made a landmark ruling on the first case involving GM crops – those that produce drugs. The judge found that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had violated the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by allowing drug-producing GM crops to be grown in Hawaii without conducting any preliminary investigations into the environmental impact.
The plaintiffs in this case were the Center for Food Safety, KAHEA (The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance), Friends of the Earth, and the Pesticide Action Network, North America. The defendants were the US Secretary of Agriculture and administrators of the USDA.
In all cases involving GM crops, the USDA has been found to have disregarded the law and ignored health and environmental considerations in its approvals. Despite years of GM crop approvals, the agency has never once completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – until the 2007 court ruling that required it to do so for GM alfalfa.
In 2007, the USDA was legally challenged over its initial approval of GM alfalfa and ordered by a federal court to carry out a proper EIS. Monsanto was also ordered to cease planting GM alfalfa until it could be proven that its ‘Frankencrop’ was safe for the environment and humans. The USDA completed the EIS in late December, which revealed serious issues with GM alfalfa, including the potential for widespread damage through cross-pollination.
Despite clear evidence that genetically modified (GM) alfalfa is unsuitable for approval, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved it anyway. Paul Achitoff, attorney for the environmental law firm Earthjustice, expressed disappointment: “We expected better from the USDA, which has much broader responsibilities than Monsanto.”
In response, the USDA has launched a two-year pilot project to evaluate bio-tech crops for commercialization. Under this program, bio-tech developers would conduct their own environmental assessments or hire contractors to do so. This is a departure from the current system, where the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for the studies.
The biotech industry has welcomed this move, believing it will speed up the approval process for transgenic crops. However, some worry that the assessments may be biased and inaccurate. Karen Batra of the Biotechnology Industry Organization said the added resources would help the documents stand up in court.
Biotech opponents have won lawsuits in the past, claiming the USDA violated environmental law by inadequately supporting its decision to deregulate transgenic alfalfa and sugar beets. They argue that allowing biotech developers to conduct their own environmental assessments creates a conflict of interest. Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center For Food Safety, said it would be like “asking BP to write an assessment of an offshore drilling operation.” He believes the pilot program is a “rubber stamp” for getting biotech crops to market more quickly.
