Striking down a Trump era GE rule

• Facebook
• Twitter

Genetically engineered (GE) crop systems are infamous for causing agricultural and environmental harm. They contaminate organic and conventional crops and escalate pesticide-resistant superweeds. Because these crops are engineered to be resistant to weed-killing pesticides, a study foundthat they massively increased pesticide usage in US agriculture. And economically, GE crops have caused farmers billions of dollars in market lossesthanks to their contamination of crops.

Clearly, GE technology is a dangerous and risky industry that necessitates oversight to ensure it cannot run rampantly. Yet that's exactly what Donald Trump green-lit.

During his first term in office, Trump's administration enacted a rulingto eliminate oversight of GE technology and let the industry self-regulate. Previously, nearly all GE plants had to be approved by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) before being planted and commercially used; however, Trump's friends in the pesticide industry did not like that. Trump put power into the hands of corporate agribusiness by allowing the GE industry to "self-determine" whether or not their engineered plants should even go under a regulatory review and an environmental risk assessment. All transparency was eliminated.

So, we signed on as plaintiffs in a lawsuit and took them to court.

We teamed up with The Center for Food Safety and other allies to sue USDA, arguing that the rule violated the Plant Protection Act - a bill enacted in 2000 to give USDA broad authority to prevent agricultural, economic, and environmental harms. And the court agreed with us.

A federal district court ruledthat genetically engineered organisms mustbe regulated, striking down Trump's relaxed GMO rules and halting GE crops from being introduced without USDA oversight. The judges demandeda vacation of Trump's rule to return regulations to the status quo.

The ruling even went further in criticizing USDA for reversing the rule despite more than 10 years of science showing the germs of GE technology. The judge asserted that Trump's ruling was based on "perceptions and beliefs" and was "untethered to a clear and sound analysis."

The judge said it best - science shows that GE technology is harmful. Thanks to this court case, the basic oversight needed to protect us has been restored.

We will not sit by and let profit-driven Big Ag determine what is or is not safe for our environment and public health. USDA needs to urgently prioritize a high standard of oversight for these risky, unknown GE organisms. We will continue to stand up for science, not pesticide corporations' profits.