June, 19 2017, 01:30pm EDT

Concerned Americans Say New GMO Regs Would Make Oversight Worse, Not Better
Nearly 100,000 people and 65 environmental, farm, and consumer groups call for more rigorous oversight of genetically engineered crops and animals
WASHINGTON
Today marks the close of three U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) public comment periods on proposed changes to the oversight of genetically engineered (GE) crops and animals. Nearly 100,000 individuals, along with 65 leading environmental, food safety, consumer, and farm groups, are calling on USDA and FDA to substantially strengthen their proposed rules to better protect farmers, the general public and the environment from harmful GE plants and risky GE animals.
USDA is revising its three decade-old rules governing GE plants and other GE organisms. While USDA today has more authority to strengthen oversight, its proposed new rules would weaken it. Many GE organisms would be exempted from regulation altogether. Ongoing harms caused by pesticide-promoting GE crops would remain unaddressed. USDA would stop regulating risky GE plants engineered as "biofactories" to produce experimental pharmaceutical and industrial compounds. Definitional loopholes would permit many novel GE crops to escape all but superficial review. Overall, the USDA's proposed new rules abandon sound science in favor of promoting the interests of the biotechnology industry.
"The haphazard and negligent regulation of agricultural biotechnology has been nothing short of a disaster for the public and the environment. While USDA should be protecting farmers and the environment, it has instead turned a blind eye to the harms that GE crops cause," said George Kimbrell, legal director at Center for Food Safety (CFS). "Unfortunately, the proposed rules would make things worse, not better, with less oversight, not more. Today Americans are demanding that USDA reverse this dangerous proposal and enact responsible regulation, not continue doing Monsanto's bidding."
USDA's proposed rules would continue to permit large increases in the use of harmful chemicals with new herbicide-resistant GE crops, and do nothing to stop the epidemic of resistant superweeds or crop-damaging herbicide drift that plagues farmers. Transgenic contamination would continue unchecked, harming conventional and organic growers. Newer GE crops like grasses and trees will create even greater novel risks.
"USDA's proposal discounts well-established scientific evidence showing that GE crops increase overall pesticide use, endangering public health and the environment," added Bill Freese, CFS's science policy analyst.
In addition to the USDA comment period, FDA has requested comments on how to regulate GE animals and GE plants developed with new genetic engineering techniques. Surprisingly, FDA has never issued rules for assessing genetically engineered animals. Instead, GE animals are reviewed under entirely inappropriate regulations designed for new animal drugs. Last year, the FDA approved genetically engineered salmon using its outdated animal drug rules--an approval Center for Food Safety is currently challenging in court.
"This approval could set a dangerous precedent for other genetically engineered animals in the pipeline, from genetically engineered fish, to cows, chickens, and pigs," saidDana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner with Friends of the Earth U.S. "Some of these genetically engineered animals are being designed to better fit into and perpetuate the current broken factory farm model and are virtually unregulated and inadequately assessed."
The groups contend that the lack of regulations specific to GE animals allows the FDA to overlook a host of serious risks posed by the genetic manipulation of animals. These concerns are shared by many scientists, and include environmental contamination, harm to endangered species, unpredictable genetic responses, and potential generation of surprise toxins and allergens in GE animal-derived foods, among other unintended consequences.
Read the groups' comments to USDA here
Read the groups' comments to FDA here
Signatures and organizational comments were collected and submitted to the docket by Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth U.S.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
Oman's Foreign Minister Said US-Iran Deal Was 'Within Our Reach.' Then Trump Started Bombing
"The Omani FM decided to go public," suggested one observer, "so that the American people knew that peace was within reach when Trump instead opted for war."
Feb 28, 2026
Hours before President Donald Trump announced his decision to bomb Iran and pursue the overthrow of its government, the foreign minister of Oman appeared, in person, on one of the most prominent US television news programs to declare that a diplomatic breakthrough was possible.
"I can see that the peace deal is within our reach," Badr Albusaidi, the mediator of recent talks between the US and Iran, told "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan on Friday. "I'm asking to continue this process because we have already achieved quite a substantial progress in the direction of a deal. And the heart of this deal is very important, and I think we have captured that heart."
Pressed for specifics, Albusaidi said that Iran committed during the talks to renounce the possibility of amassing "nuclear material that will create a bomb"—a pledge that Trump claimed Iran refused to make as part of his justification for Saturday's strikes.
"This is something that is not in the old deal that was negotiated during President Obama's time," Albusaidi said, referring to the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump ditched during his first term in the White House. "This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling. And that is very, very important, because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way you can actually create a bomb, whether you enrich or don't enrich. And I think this is really something that has been missed a lot by the media, and I want to clarify that from the standpoint of a mediator."
"There is no accumulation, so there would be zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification," the Omani foreign minister continued. "Full and comprehensive verification by the [International Atomic Energy Agency]."
In a social media post following the interview, Albusaidi reiterated that a deal "is now within reach" and implored all parties to "support the negotiators in closing the deal." Prior to Saturday's attacks, additional US-Iran talks were scheduled for next week.
Watch the full segment, which critics highlighted as evidence that the US-Israeli attacks on Saturday were aimed at forestalling a diplomatic resolution:
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in response to Albusaidi's remarks that "the Omanis are famously cautious."
"The Omani FM going on CBS to reveal what has actually been achieved in the negotiations is quite unprecedented. And what has been achieved is significant—Trump can indeed declare victory. Listen to this segment—it goes way beyond what Obama achieved," Parsi wrote. "But everything indicates that Trump won't take yes for an answer. That he will start a war of choice very soon."
"Which is probably why the Omani FM decided to go public," Parsi added. "So that the American people knew that peace was within reach when Trump instead opted for war."
According to one survey released earlier this month, just 21% of Americans support "the United States initiating an attack on Iran under the current circumstances."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Demands Emergency United Nations Action Amid 'Criminal Aggression' by US, Israel
"Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense," said the Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Feb 28, 2026
As US and Israeli bombs fell on Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Saturday vowed that the country would defend itself against "criminal aggression" and implored the United Nations Security Council to take emergency action.
The ministry said in a lengthy statement that Saturday's attacks, which US President Donald Trump characterized as the start of a massive military operation aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, represent "a violation of Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and a clear armed aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran."
"The Islamic Republic of Iran notes the grave duty of the United Nations and its Security Council to take immediate action to confront the violation of international peace and security," reads the ministry's statement, which noted that the US and Israeli assault began "in the midst of a diplomatic process."
"The Iranian people are now proud that they did everything they could to prevent war," the statement continues. "Now is the time to defend the homeland and confront the enemy's military aggression. Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense. The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to the aggressors with authority."
Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, condemned US-Israeli "aggression against Iran" in a social media post, calling the assault a "violation of the most fundamental rule of international law—the ban on the use of force."
"All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order," Saul added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Bombs Will Be Dropping Everywhere': Trump Launches Illegal Regime Change War Against Iran
"The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran."
Feb 28, 2026
President Donald Trump announced in the early hours of Saturday morning that the US has launched a massive military operation aimed at toppling the Iranian government as blasts were reported in Tehran, including near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is taking part in the assault. Unnamed Israeli security sources told Channel 12 that Israel and the Trump administration are "going all in" against Iran as Trump instructed Iranians to "stay sheltered," warning that "bombs will be dropping everywhere." People were seen seeking cover in Tehran as the US and Israeli bombs began to fall.
The assault, dubbed "Operation Epic Fury" by the Pentagon, comes days after the US and Iran took part in talks in Geneva, which Trump's envoys characterized as "positive." In announcing military action on Saturday, Trump said falsely that the Iranian government has "rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions."
The US and Israeli attacks—which both nations characterized as "preemptive"—are plainly illegal under international law, which prohibits the threat or use of force except in response to an armed attack. The Trump administration is also violating US law, which gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
"The term 'preemptive' is pure propaganda," wrote Drop Site journalist Jeremy Scahill. "The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran. Tehran had just offered terms that went far beyond the 2015 nuclear deal. What was preempted was diplomacy. The same propaganda tactics used in the 2003 Iraq war."
Trump, who ditched the 2015 nuclear deal during his first White House term, repeatedly made clear in his remarks Saturday that he does not intend the new assault on Iran to be limited in scope like his bombings of Iranian nuclear sites last year. In the weeks leading up to Saturday's attack, the Trump administration carried out a massive military buildup in the Middle East even as the president publicly claimed he was open to a diplomatic resolution.
"We may have casualties," the US president said of American troops. "That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future."
Trump also urged the Iranian armed forces to surrender or "face certain death."
The Iranian government's immediate response to Saturday's onslaught was a pledge of "crushing retaliation" and a wave of drone and missile attacks on Israel. The Associated Press reported that "hours after the strikes on Iran, explosions rocked northern Israel as the country worked to intercept incoming Iranian missiles."
Iran's foreign minister later informed his Iraqi counterpart that Iran would be targeting US military installations in the region in retaliation for Saturday's attacks.
A spokesperson for the Iranian military declared that "we will teach Israel and America a lesson they have never experienced in their history."
"Any base that helps America and Israel will be the target of the Iranian armed forces," the official added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


