Food Law Prof Blog

GE Roundup Ready sugar beets and Mother's Day candy -- Andrew Kimbrell on Huffington Post blog

Genetically engineered sugar beets are on the way, and next year's candy will include sugar from the new plants.  Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety has a post on The Huffington Post that's kind of interesting.  I had assumed that sucrose is sucrose is sucrose, always a glucose molecule stuck to a fructose molecule.  And I just assumed it's always pure.  But here's an excerpt from the article suggesting I may be too calm about it:

Sugar in your Mother's Day candy comes from several sources, including sugar beets. A new option available to farmers this year is Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beet, genetically engineered to survive multiple direct applications of the weed killer, Roundup. At the request of Monsanto, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency increased the allowable amount of glyphosate residues on sugar beetroots by a whopping 5,000% -- glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Sugar is extracted from the beet's root and the inevitable result is more glyphosate in our sugar. This is not good news for those who want to enjoy their chocolate morsels without the threat of ingesting toxic weed killer.

Read Mothers Day Candy from Monsanto Not So Sweet

Religious Investors Call for Boycott of GM Sugar

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) has launched an on-line campaign protesting the planting of genetically modified sugar beets in the upcoming spring planting season, arguing genetically engineered crops suffer from “‘weak governmental review and oversight, and the lack of long-term independent and peer-reviewed safety studies.’”

According to a March 5, 2008 news article on NutraIngredients-USA.com, ICCR’s campaign encourages consumers to print off and mail a letter to major food companies and manufacturers including, McDonald’s, Campbell’s Soup, and Kellogg’s, urging them to publicly oppose the planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets.

Leslie Lowe, Director of ICCR’s Energy and Environment Program, is optimistic the campaign will be successful because the companies targeted “face major potential backlashes if they do not act now to stop the use of genetically modified sugar from sugar beets.” She also went on to say that similar campaigns have successfully persuaded companies not to use genetically modified organisms in its food products.

Link to ICCR’s Press Release regarding the launch of its “Don’t Plant GMO Beets” campaign.

Thank you to William Mitchell College of Law student Sene Binsfeld for preparing this post.

Bratspies on The American Approach to Regulating GMOs

Professor Rebecca Bratspies, (CUNY School of Law) has posted Some Thoughts on the American Approach to Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms, Kansas Journal of Law & Pubic Policy, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2007,  on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1017832

Abstract: A healthy society needs room for genuine dialogue, particularly over issues of how to evaluate and weigh risks to public safety. When citizens do not have confidence in the regulatory systems that purport to protect them, social trust breaks down. The lack of a transparent, well-organized regulatory system threatens public trust in biotechnology and more fundamentally in government itself. The success of agricultural biotechnology depends on society's willingness to accept and consume food produced via this technology. This willingness hinges on the level of trust that the technology is being developed and used in a safe manner. (abstract continues)

This needed trust is multilayered - the consumer must trust that the scientists know what they are doing in developing these crops, that the companies marketing and distributing the crops are operating in a legal and ethical manner, that the regulators are exercising proper oversight, that the farmers are obeying the regulations, and that the consumer is not being lied to or misled. The presence or absence of trust dramatically affects communications about and perceptions of risk. As a result, a credible oversight scheme and trust in the institutions promoting and overseeing agricultural biotechnology may be the single biggest predictors of public acceptance of this technology

Because the development, production and marketing of GM crops requires the activities of so many different parties, there are multiple levels on which this process can break down, creating suspicion and mistrust. This article explores fundamental questions about the relationship between transparency, trust and acceptability of risk and makes some recommendations about the role that public voices should play in regulatory policy.

Dry Your Eyes, the Tearless Onion is Here

On February 1, 2008, Crop & Food Research announced the world’s first tearless onion.  Dr. Colin Eady, a plant biologist, and his Japanese counterparts have saved cooks from the perils of crying in the kitchen.  Normally the onion’s enzyme, lachrymatory-factor synthase, is released upon cutting the onion, which then leads to tearing.  Eady’s onion silences the gene that produces that enzyme, giving the onion non-tearing properties. 

Interest in Eady’s onion has been gaining momentum since his presentation at the 5th International Symposium on Edible Alliaceae, and his subsequent appearance on the cover of “Onion World” (an International Trade Journal that published Eady’s findings in their December 2007 issue). Don’t worry though, scientists insist the product is safe, and we have another decade before this onion will hit the grocery stores.   

Dr. Eady’s interest in the GM onion dates back to 2003 when he applied to the New Zealand Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) for permission to test onion plants by adding a gene in order to make them tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate. Controversy surrounded Eady’s research when efforts to hide the financial backer’s identity were kept secret.  Seminis Vegetable Seeds, the California-based international seed company, eventually stepped forward with their “altruistic” intent to help farmers by cutting the percentage of herbicide used by onion growers. Both Crop & Food Research and Seminis have already applied for patents with the U.S. and European Patent Offices. 

Link to the 2003 ERMA Application

U.S. Patent

European Patent

Thank you to William Mitchell College of Law student Wendy Sanchez, who prepared this post.

Calcium rich GE Supercarrots!

Scientists unveil 'supercarrot'

According to a study reported in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists have genetically engineered carrots to provide more calcium.  From a BBC News article:

". . .Someone eating the new carrot absorbs 41% more calcium than if they ate the old, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study suggests.

The calcium-charged vegetable still needs to go through many safety trials. "These carrots were grown in carefully monitored and controlled environments," said Professor Kendal Hirschi, part of the team at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas.

"Much more research needs to be conducted before this would be available to consumers."

Link to the Abstract on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website.

Link to Professor Kendal Hirschi

USDA -- Monsanto GE seed corn deal

From the Dec. 26 Chicago Tribune --

Seed Controversy Sprouts, by Stephen J. Hedges

While the federal government doesn't usually endorse products, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has struck an unusual arrangement with agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. that gives farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota a break on federal crop insurance premiums if they plant Monsanto-brand seed corn this spring.

The arrangement has raised some eyebrows, particularly among organic farm groups that argue the government agency should not be promoting corn that contains an herbicide; the Monsanto brands contain chemicals that kill weeds and insects.

more

Final week for comments on USDA proposal to deregulate GE soybeans

The USDA is accepting comments on whether soybeans genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate should be deregulated.  The comment period ends December 4.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2007--The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is seeking public comment on a petition to deregulate soybean line 356043, genetically engineered (GE) for herbicide resistance.
 
The petition for deregulation, submitted by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., is in accordance with APHIS’ regulations concerning the introduction of GE organisms and products.  APHIS has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether deregulating the soybean could have a significant impact on the environment.  After a thorough review of the scientific evidence, APHIS’ current preferred action is to deregulate the soybean based on the fact that it does not present a plant-pest risk.

more

How to comment:

APHIS is seeking comments on the petition and invites comments on the EA. Consideration will be given to comments received on or before Dec. 4.  Send an original and three copies of postal mail or commercial delivery comments to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0019, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, Md. 20737-1238.  If you wish to submit a comment using the Internet, go to the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu; then click on “Submit.”  In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0019 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically.

Comments are posted on the Regulations.gov Web site and may also be viewed at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th St. and Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C., between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.  Please call (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the comment reading room.

USDA Fines Scotts half a million dollars over genetically engineered creeping bentgrass

USDA news release:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 26, 2007--The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has concluded an investigation into alleged compliance infractions by The Scotts Company, LLC. The investigation related to regulated genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass. Under today's settlement agreement, Scotts has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $500,000 which is the maximum penalty allowed by the Plant Protection Act of 2000. This is a severe civil penalty and underscores USDA's strong commitment to compliance with its regulations.

more

Photo: Oregon State University Jed Colquhoun and Larry Burrell photo Collection

Video -- Jim Chen on Beyond Food and Evil

Jim Chen has posted a RealPlayer video of his Duke Law Journal Administrative Law symposium presentation of Beyond Food and Evil (blogged here) on the Agricultural Law Blog.  The presentation was delivered via videoconference after Jim's flight was cancelled.  I don't actually know whether that's the only reason the digital version exists, but if so, what a lucky break for the rest of us!  Click here to go to the Agricultural Law post and view the video.

LA Times on Biotech foods

The Los Angeles Times science section ran an interesting piece on biotech foods.  There's not really anything new, but it describes the issues pretty well (IMHO):

Biotech foods are still hard to swallow, by Elena Conis

OPPONENTS call them Frankenfoods, man-made aberrations that should be banished from our grocery stores or at least clearly labeled so consumers know what they're eating.

Supporters have long cast genetically modified foods in a different light: as answers to human problems. They would, the dream went, make crops that didn't rot, spoil or succumb to frost. They would boost harvests, feed the hungry and fortify the malnourished.

Several decades later, very few of those goals have been realized. Yet today, largely unbeknownst to most consumers, more than 70% of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered or biotech ingredients.

More

Edwards, Richardson and Dodd favor mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods

From Foodconsumer.org:

Fairfield, IA -- October 13, 2007 - Senator John Edwards, Governor Bill Richardson, and Senator Chris Dodd have all gone on record in favor of mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods this week in Iowa. In response to questions during their campaign visits to Fairfield this week, each candidate stated he would support legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods if elected to be President of the United States.

more

GE Corn may harm stream ecosystems

A team of stream ecologists from four universities has just released a new study, "Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems," by Todd V. Royer of Indiana University,

Emma Rosi-Marshall of Loyola University Chicago, Jennifer Tank of the University of Notre Dame and Matt Whiles of Southern Illinois University. From the Southern Illinois University news release:

The group, funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation, examined whether the genetically modified corn plant debris — everything from pollen to husks and cobs — might have unintended impacts on the stream food chain as aquatic insects use it for food. Genetically modified corn such as Bt corn is engineered to create a toxin aimed at destroying the European corn borer, a moth larvae, and other pests that typically feed on corn crops.

The current research focuses on caddisflies, small insects that break down the coarse biomaterial deposited into streams and provide an important food source for other stream life. The researchers chose caddisflies because they are closely related to pests targeted by Bt corn toxin.

Whiles and his graduate student, Catherine Chambers, found caddisflies have slower growth rates when feeding on Bt corn crop debris than when they feed on the non-modified variety. Because smaller insects tend to have fewer eggs, Whiles said it's possible their numbers could decline over time, which might have an overall negative effect on stream food webs.

And here is the abstract from the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences website:

Corn (Zea mays L.) that has been genetically engineered to produce the Cry1Ab protein (Bt corn) is resistant to lepidopteran pests. Bt corn is widely planted in the midwestern United States, often adjacent to headwater streams. We show that corn byproducts, such as pollen and detritus, enter headwater streams and are subject to storage, consumption, and transport to downstream water bodies. Laboratory feeding trials showed that consumption of Bt corn byproducts reduced growth and increased mortality of nontarget stream insects. Stream insects are important prey for aquatic and riparian predators, and widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences.

(If you click on Abstract above, you can see the abstract on the PNAS website.  To get the whole article, you need a subscription.)

The Center for Food Safety has this to say:

"This is yet another example of a government agency granting clearance for a GE organism without requiring meaningful or stringent testing," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety.  "Bt corn is planted widely throughout the U.S.  Had a study like this been done prior to the government's approval, we would not be looking at a popular crop that has the potential to broadly disrupt the environment."

more from Center for Food Safety

National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy report on biotechnology

The National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy website includes its 2006 Update of Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2005, a quantitative analysis of the use of transgenic crops in the U.S.  The National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy board includes both university and industry representatives.  Projects are designed to illustrate the value of herbicides, the benefits of pesticide use, and the improvement in crop production due to transgenic crops.  Project funding comes from industry and other sources.  From the NCFAP website:

Biotechnology Assessment Program

NCFAP’s Biotechnology Assessment Program encompasses studies that analyze the potential of transgenic plants to improve pest management in the United States. NCFAP plays a unique role in the biotech debate because transgenic plants deliver pest control benefits. NCFAP’s extensive experience assembling and analyzing pesticide use data forms a strong basis for preparing these studies. NCFAP’s projects can best be described as educational in focus because they shape the basis to understand why US farmers have embraced biotechnology and are likely to continue to do so. NCFAP’s intent is to prepare concise, definitive, non-technical summaries of the technology and the reasons that farmers have chosen to plant millions of acres with transgenic plants. 

NCFAP researchers began the Biotechnology Assessment Program before the first transgenic crops were commercialized. In the early 1990s, NCFAP researchers estimated the potential benefits that herbicide tolerant soybeans and cotton would provide once they were commercialized. Following the widespread adoption of genetically-engineered corn, soybeans and cotton plants in the mid-1990s, NCFAP researchers prepared a series of in-depth assessments of the aggregate national impacts through 1999 including changes in yield, production costs, and pesticide use. The Rockefeller Foundation and Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) financially supported these efforts.

Transcript of Technical Briefing on Rice Investigation with Cindy Smith, Administrator, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

Also on the USDA website:

Transcript of Technical Briefing on Rice Investigation with Cindy Smith, Administrator, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

USDA Concludes genetically engineered rice investigation

From the USDA news release:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5, 2007--The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Bruce Knight today announced the conclusion of the genetically engineered rice (GE) investigation. The investigation, which was conducted by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Investigative and Enforcement Services in coordination with USDA's Office of the Inspector General, focused on the unintentional release of trace amounts of regulated genetically engineered rice detected in two commercial varieties of long-grain rice. . . .

The investigation was initiated on Aug. 1, 2006, after Bayer CropScience reported that regulated LLRICE601 had been detected in the long-grain rice variety Cheniere. LLRICE601, which is similar to two previously deregulated lines, was subsequently deregulated in November 2006. The investigation was expanded on Feb. 16, 2007 to include the discovery of regulated GE rice, later identified as LLRICE604, in the long-grain rice variety Clearfield 131 (CL131).

. . .

As a result of this extensive sampling, investigators were able to determine that the presence of LLRICE601 was limited to Cheniere and that the presence of LLRICE604 was limited to CL131. In both cases, only trace amounts of GE material were present. No short- or medium-grain rice varieties tested positive for either LLRICE601 or LLRICE604.

Investigators had hoped to identify how each GE rice line entered the commercial rice supply, but the exact mechanism for introduction could not be determined in either instance. . . .

Based upon the findings of the investigation, APHIS will not be pursuing enforcement against Bayer CropScience. Given the lack of available information and evidence, USDA was unable to make any definitive determinations that could have resulted in enforcement action.

Center for Food Safety is criticizing the outcome because it does not recommend further action:

USDA Report on Biotech Rice Reaffirms Agency's Do-Nothing Approach on Biotech Crop Contaminations

Washington D.C., October 5, 2007 - In a long-awaited report released today on widespread contamination of the U.S. rice supply by an unapproved genetically engineered (GE) variety, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it would take no enforcement action against Bayer, the producer of the untested GE rice. Remarkably, the USDA report also reveals that the agency has no formal rules requiring biotech companies to retain records of their experimental field trials or to require companies to keep seed samples for genetic tests, which are essential in detecting and tracking potential sources of contamination.

more

EU commission considering GM potatoes

From a Reuters article by Jeremy Smith on Checkbiotech.org:

EU environment chief faces GMO hot potato

BRUSSELS - Europe's environment chief faces a showdown this month with his colleagues in the EU's executive Commission over biotech foods and crops, officials say. The root cause is a potato. Since July, the biotech industry has been waiting for the Commission to authorize an application by German chemicals group BASF for a genetically modified (GMO) potato for use in industry rather than as food.

The application for a potato, engineered to yield high amounts of starch has triggered controversy far exceeding the usual European consumer wariness over GMO foods.

If, or rather when, it is approved by the Commission, the EU's executive arm, it will be the first GMO product to be passed since 1998 that is designed to be grown in Europe's fields.

It is not intended for human consumption but rather for use in industries such as paper-making.commercially as Amflora, as animal feed.

more

Rice Industry says no traces of GE rice

Early test results reveal no traces of genetically engineered rice in this year’s U. S. long-grain rice crop, according to the USA Rice Federation. According to an agribusiness newsletter, Feedstuffs, the rice harvest is more than half done in Arkansas and testing there and in Louisiana and Texas shows no trace of the unapproved Liberty Link genes that contaminated last year's crop.  From the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

More than 13 months after the U. S. Department of Agriculture announced that an unapproved, transgenic rice had been detected in U. S. longgrain rice supplies, the industry trade group on Wednesday reported preliminary findings about this year’s crop.

Test results thus far from Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas indicate that mandatory seedtesting programs have been effective in purging LibertyLink traits from this year’s longgrain rice crop, [USA Rice Federation senior vice president Bob] Cummings said. Arkansas took the lead by banning the 2007 planting of two rice varieties that had tested positive for the “adventitious presence,” or unintentional commingling, of trace amounts of the protein that makes LibertyLink rice varieties resistant to the herbicide Liberty, also known as glufosinate.

Link: Arkansas Democrat Gazette
Link: Feedstuffs

French study raises concerns about genetically engineered Bt maize

A French research company, Crii-gen, analyzed the rat-feeding data on which Monsanto relied in gaining European approval of its NK603 maize, which has been engineered to tolerate Monsanto's own herbicide. Approved for import for use in human food and animal feed in 2004, it is currently being tested for cultivation in field trials in Europe.  According to Greenpeace:

The study, carried out by French scientific research institute CRIIGEN on the results of rat feeding trials using a GE maize made by biotech firm Monsanto, highlights 60 significant differences between the rats that were fed the GE maize and those fed normal maize (all for 90 days). The first group showed differences in their kidney, brain, heart and liver measurements, as well as significant weight differences. These could be warning signs of toxicity, but have not been further investigated.

In March, Crii-gen released a report showing similar findings on the rat-feeding data for another genetically engineered maize variety: Bt GM Mon 863 Maize, which produces its own internal pesticide.

Greenpeace press release

Crii-gen Bt Maize press release in English

GE tomatoes come with their own spices

From The Times of India via CheckBiotech.org:

Israeli researchers say they have genetically engineered tomatoes to give hints of lemon and rose aromas that have done well in testing on volunteers. The transgenic tomato includes a gene from a variety of lemon basil, Ocimum basilicum, that produces an aroma-making enzyme called geraniol synthase, Efraim Lewinsohn of Newe Yaar Research Centre and colleagues report.

Center for Food Safety Publishes Guide to Avoiding GE Foods

Andrew Kimbrell, of the Center for Food Safety, has published YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food

• Today, an estimated 52% of all corn, 87% of all soy, 55% of all canola, and 79% of all cotton grown in the US are genetically engineered.
• Genetically engineered plants can cause serious allergies, increase our resistance to antibiotics, depress our immune systems and remove the nutrition from our food.
• The FDA requires no labeling or human health testing of GE foods.
• While US companies are labeling GE food exports for the more than 50 countries that require it, they are not for Americans.

The book is available at Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com

Permanent Injuction Against Genetically Engineered Alfalfa

Judge Charles Breyer of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California today affirmed his preliminary ruling against the USDA's deregulation of genetically engineered alfalfa.  The agency did not perform an environmental impact statement even though it did identify environmental effects likely to follow from deregulation. 

The following is from the Center for Food Safety press release.  The Center for Food Safety was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the USDA action.

San Francisco, CA, May 3, 2007 - A Federal judge today made a final ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2005 approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) "Roundup Ready" alfalfa was illegal.  The Judge called on USDA to ban any further planting of the GE seed until it conducts a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the GE crop.

In the decision, Judge Charles Breyer in the Federal Northern District of California affirmed his preliminary ruling, which echoed the Center for Food Safety's arguments in their lawsuit against USDA, that the crop could harm the environment and contaminate natural alfalfa. Today's ruling also requires Forage Genetics to provide the locations of all existing Roundup Ready alfalfa plots to USDA within 30 days.  The Judge ordered USDA to make the location of these plots "publicly available as soon as practicable" so that growers of organic and conventional alfalfa "can test their own crops to determine if there has been contamination."

"This permanent halt to the planting of this risky crop is a great victory for the environment," said Will Rostov, a Senior Attorney for CFS. "Roundup Ready alfalfa poses threats to farmers, to our export markets, and to the environment. We expect the USDA to abide by the law and insure that American farmers are protected from genetic contamination."

Today's decision is consistent with Judge Breyer's ruling of February 13th, in which Judge Breyer found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. In calling today for a permanent injunction, Judge Breyer noted that contamination of natural and organic alfalfa by the GE variety has already occurred, and noted that "Such contamination is irreparable environmental harm. The contamination cannot be undone."

"This ruling is good news for organic farmers and most conventional farmers across the country," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center. "This crop represents a very real threat to their corps and their livelihood. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country,"  Kimbrell concluded.

Read the rest

Giant Genetically Engineered Sorghum Could be Biofuel Alternative

Texam A&M Researchers have been working to develop a fast-growing genetically engineered version of sorghum for use as a biofuel.  They hosted U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary Gale Buchanan and Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples this week for a behind-the-scenes tour of biomass research efforts within The Texas A&M University System. From the Texas A&M Press Release:

"Corn is a viable way to produce ethanol from starch," said Dr. Elsa Murano, who serves as Vice Chancellor of Agriculture and Life Sciences for the A&M System and also directs the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, where scientists are digging into a range of biofuels alternatives. "But that's not the only option for Texas and the southern part of the country."

In addition to growing corn for biofuels, Texas can capitalize on decades of sorghum research at the Experiment Station, Murano said. The giant sorghum varieties being grown in experimental plots today are drought-tolerant, can be grown across the state, and offer high yields in ethanol.

"Based upon our analyses, we find it's efficient to take something like our new sorghum varieties or sugar cane that produces large volumes of biomass, rather than producing grain and then converting grain-starch to ethanol," Murano said.

AP story on WCCO.com:

Minnesota has stopped the distribution and sale of a certain genetically modified variety of Syngenta seed corn because it doesn't comply with state regulations. Farmers were told not to plant the root-worm resistant seed.

While the seed in question has federal approval, Minnesota requires companies to receive a commercial use exemption before they can sell genetically modified, or GMO, seed. Syngenta neglected to get the required state approval.

Who Saw This Coming? -- Glyphosate Resistant Weeds

This is from the Union of Concerned Scientists Food and Environment news page:

Glyphosate resistance popping up in weeds
A decade after the introduction of crops genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup Ready crops), farmers are noticing glyphosate-resistant weeds in their fields. At first, farmers who planted herbicide-tolerant crops were able to kill weeds with a single application of glyphosate. But now, thanks to natural selection, even after repeated applications of glyphosate, herbicide-resistant weeds keep growing. . . .

Read more