Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-11-27 Correspondence
M (l) Marian Karr From: Melvin Kelly <kellyresearchplan @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:29 AM To: citymanager @hollister.ca.gov ; council @cityoffullerton.com ; cityclerk @dalycity.org ; citycommission @salina.org ; cmomail @springfield - or.gov ; christopherc @cityofwestsacramento.org ; citycouncil @cityoflamirada.org ; cpucheu @gulfport- ms.gov ; cjackson @cityofdalton- ga.gov; clarissa.rowe @comcast.net ; council @town. barnstable. ma. us ; constituenttsservice @weymouth.ma.us ; council @suffolkva.us ; csierra @phenixcityal.us ; contact @huntsvilleal.gov ; citymgr @johnsoncitytn.org ; croth @kenner.la.us ; cshaheen @wrga.gov; councilclk @tompsc.com; cityhall @melbourneflorida.org ; cityhall @westonfl.org ; citycouncil @cityofrichfield.org ; Council; council @altoonapa.gov ; cshannon @baycitymi.org ; cohmayor @co.hawaii.hi.us ; cityclerk @derrynh.org ; council- dist12 @brgov.com ; council- distll@brgov.com ;council-distlO@brgov.com ;council-dist9@brgov.com ; council -dist8 @ brgov.com ;council-dist7@brgov.com ;council-dist6@brgov.com ; council -dist5 @ brgov.com ;council-dist4@brgov.com ;council-dist2@brgov.com ; council -dist3 @brgov.com ;council-distl@brgov.com ;counciladmin@brgov.com ; clfowlerjr @suddenlink.net ;cjordan@www.greenville.ms.us ;council@shreveportla.gov ; citymanager @cox - internet.com ;csawyer@cityofpafterson.org ;CityClerk@quincyil.gov ; chris .mulvaney @chicagowilderness.org ;ckohler@cantoncityhall.org ; cityhall @valdostacity.com ; contact @gov.state. la. us; cs @odessa- tx.gov ; council @ci.pearland.tx.us ; chris.lee @mail.house.gov ;cio@ame-church.com ; cliff @wvon.com ;clee@bellevuewa.gov ;cityclerk@melbourneflorida.org ; Commission @largo.com ; cjohnson5 @augustaga.gov; cpd_web_mail @hud.gov Subject: Emergency Evacuation Plans by Melvin Lorenzo Kelly Attachments: hurricane sandy.doc From: Melvin Lorenzo Kelly 2014 Olive Rd. Augusta, Ga. 30906 706 - 796 -3044 Email: kellyresearchplankyahoo.com To: United States Mayors / Elected Officials Sub: Shelter in the Time of a Storm / Evacuation Plans Date: November 8, 2012 Cc: Federal Emergency Management Agency Dear Hon. USA Mayors / Elected Officials, During the year 2005 American Scientist and Meteorologist predicted that the northeastern part of the United States would experience a Super Storm, this storm was not only predicted without an expected date but its huge and enormous size was exizibited and demonstrated vicariously in photographic description through out magazines all across America. While living in Trenton, NJ during the year 2005 I was a very active civic member in that city, I approach the Trenton city council member with the question, do the city of Trenton, NJ have a serious evacuation plan prepared for a storm such as the one being predicted in the future of such enormous size? The city council president along with its other council members had no knowledge of what the city's evacuation plan was incase of an emergency and I was referred to the city clerk's office for that information. After weeks of investigating this situation, the city clerk finally told me that the State Troopers of the State of New Jersey have an evacuation plan for the city of Trenton along with other cities in New Jersey and in order for me to get information about there plan; I had to purchase it for $90 in book form. Seven years latter here comes the Super Storm and 90% of the residents that live in the cities the storm attacked had no knowledge of what to do, or where to go in the case of a total evacuation of there city. I am not writing this letter trying to make anyone look bad, but in return I truly hope and pray to God that the elected officials of American cities and towns take the total responsibility of informing their residents of evacuation procedures in cases of an emergency ahead of time, walking or driving, with the intent of saving every human life possible. For years I have been submitting letters to American elected officials to respond and create employment in the following areas to make life better for American citizens, not because I have nothing else to do, it's because I see the need for change and survival for the citizens of the United States of America in many areas. The following is a list of the proposed programs I previously submitted to you that can create employment and help change America for the best: 1. Four Point Homeless to Home Ownership Program (Employment Training) 2. Education ( Elimination of Abbott Districts and Drop -Out factories) 3. Shelter in the Time of a Storm (Employment Training and Employment) 4. Violence in Music (Employment) 5. West Nile Virus (Employment) 6. Crime Watch (Employment) 7. Youth Musical Recreational (Recreational and Employment) Storms may come in many forms and fashions: Unemployment is a storm Homelessness in America is a storm Failing school systems is a storm Hurricanes and Tornadoes is a storm Violence in music is a storm The West Nile Virus is a storm Crime and Violence in America is a storm Research and Development in the areas of Employment, Housing and Education is one of my main professions, and within this profession I have to face the storms of life to come up with solutions to the problem. One thing I learned about facing the storms of life is the fact that when good people turn there heads away from the problems the situation can only get worst. Let's Build a Better America Melvin Lorenzo Kelly Marian Karr From: SandrEskin <sandreskin @aol.com> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:38 PM To: Council Subject: Pet ordinance Attachments: NLiberty _animal_ordinance_2008.pdf Dear Mayor Hayek and City Manager, Tom Markus. While we are addressing chickens in the yard, I feel we have to take this opertunity to look over our pet ordinance and remove from it the in- humane practice of tethering cats. I have attached the North Liberty pet ordinance that does not seem to need such ill advised measures. (They don't mention chickens at all). Best, Sandie Eskin Ordinance Number 08 -16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY CODE OF ORDINANCES, TITLE 6 ( "ANIMALS ") BY DELETING CURRENT CHAPTER 6.04 ( "PETS ") AND INSERTING NEW CHAPTERS 6.02 ( "PETS - GENERAL ") AND 6.04 ( "DOGS AND CATS ") BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA: SECTION 1. That Title 6 of the North Liberty Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended by adding the following new Chapter 6.02: Chapter 6.02 PETS - GENERAL Sections: 6.02.010 Purpose and Definitions. 6.02.020 Owners responsibility. 6.02.030 Nuisances. 6.02.040 Prohibitions and requirements. 6.02.050 Harboring dangerous animals. 6.02.055 Declaration of Dangerous Animal - Impoundment - Appeal 6.02.060 Shelter or pound. 6.02.070 Releasing or molesting animals. 6.02.080 Interference with agent. 6.02.090 Authorized. 6.02.100 Registry of impounded animals. 6.02.110 Notice to owner. 6.02.120 Redemption - Fees - Conditions - Disposal. 6.02.130 Confinement of animals suspected of having rabies when impounded - Tests. 6.02.140 Isolation and quarantine of suspect animals. 6.02.150 Required reports. 6.02.155 Duty When Striking Domestic Animal with Motor Vehicle. 6.02.160 Proclamation. 6.02.165 Violations as Infractions and Misdemeanors. 6.02.170 Penalty. 6.02.010 Purpose and Definitions. It is the public policy of the City of North Liberty to secure and maintain such levels of animal control within the city limits of the City as will protect human health and safety and, to the greatest degree practicable, to prevent damage to property. It is also the policy of the City of North Liberty to prevent the inhumane treatment of animals. Therefore, it is also the purpose of this chapter to provide for the humane use, care, and treatment of animals to the end that cruelty to such animals will be reduced or eliminated. The definitions in Chapter 6.04 shall apply to this chapter. Additionally, the following definitions shall apply when used in this chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise: A. "Dangerous animal" means any animal that: 1. inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property; 2. inflicts severe injury on or kills another animal without provocation while the animal is off the owner's or custodian's property; 3. aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or other animals; 4. inflicts bites on a human or another animal either on public or private property; 5. chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack; or 6. has known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or other animals. B. "Defilement" means to foul, dirty, pollute, or make filthy, either by the pet animal's body or wastes or by the animal carrying or dragging any foul material. C. "Kennel" means a place maintained for the business of boarding, raising, rearing, training, or sale of dogs and cats. D. "Leash" means a rope, line, thong, chain, or other similar restraint not more than ten feet in length which is of sufficient strength to hold the animal in check. E. "Molest" includes not only biting and scratching, but also any annoyance, interference with, or meddling with any person so as to trouble or harm him/her. F. "Pet animals" includes all reptiles and warm- blooded animals, except birds, animals of the equine species, and those raised for food purposes, within the city limits. G. "Private property" means all buildings and other property owned by a private person. It shall include buildings, yards, and service and parking areas. H. "Public property" means buildings and other property owned or dedicated to the use of the city, the state, county, or the United States government, wherein the authorized representative has granted the city jurisdiction thereof, or any governmental subdivision of the city, state, county or U.S. government or any governmental organization established by the city, state, county or U. S. government. Such property shall include but not be limited to buildings, grounds, yards, street rights -of -way, walks, bicycle paths, easements, parks, service areas, open areas, athletic and recreational areas, riverbanks, parking areas and ramps, boulevards, and any other real estate owned by a governmental unit. I. "Veterinarian" means a person duly licensed by the state to practice veterinary medicine. I "Veterinary hospital" means an establishment regularly maintained and operated by a veterinarian for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and injuries to animals and which may board animals. 6.02.020 Owners re ponsibility. The owner of a pet animal shall be responsible for the obtaining of licenses and the care and control of any such animal owned by him or her as defined in Section 6.04.030. The owner shall be prima facie responsible for any violation of Section 6.04.040 by any animal owned by him or her. 6.02.030 Nuisances. The following acts and circumstances are declared to be nuisances and therefore prohibited: A. Allowing any animal to habitually bay, bark, screech, yell or make a sound of any kind or nature for prolonged periods in such manner as to unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of the vicinity. B. Allowing a pet animal to cause any damage or defilement to public or private property. C. Allowing a pet animal to molest any person.on public or private property who has a legitimate reason to be thereon. D. Allowing a pet animal to molest or kill wildlife, birds or domestic animals on public or private property. 6.02.040 Prohibitions and Requirements. A. Pets at Large Prohibited. No pet animal shall be found at large within the City at any time. A properly licensed animal shall not be deemed at large if: 1. It is on the premises of the owner; or 2. It is on the premises of another person with the knowledge and consent of that person; or 3. It is under the control of a person competent to restrain the animal, either by leash or properly restrained within a motor vehicle, or enclosed within a structure. B. Additional Definitions and Exceptions to Subsection (A). Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A, any pet animal shall be deemed at large at any time when attacking persons, domestic animals, destroying property, or on any public property, except when under restraint as set out in subdivision 3 of subsection A. Furthermore, any female pet in heat shall be deemed at large at any time except: 1. When housed in a building which is completely enclosed; or 2. When housed in a veterinary hospital or boarding kennel licensed or registered with the state; or 3. When on the premises of the owner, provided the area on which such animal is located is completely enclosed by a fence or other structure having a height of at least sixty inches; or 4. When under the control of a person competent to restrain the animal, either by leash or properly restrained within a motor vehicle. C. On Private Property. No pet animal shall be taken, allowed, or permitted on private property not owned by the owner of the animal without the permission of the person owning such property or the person in charge thereof. D. In Food Establishments. No pet animal shall be taken, allowed, or permitted on or in any building, store, restaurant or tavern where food or food products are sold, prepared or dispensed to people other than the owners thereof. This provision shall not apply to property wherein food is sold in stands or shelters such as fairs or circus carnivals when the owner or person in charge of the grounds allows animals on the premises. E. Restraint of Animals. No person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or otherwise restrain any pet animal or cause any pet animal to be tethered, fastened, chained, tied, or otherwise restrained to a dog house, tree, fence, or any other stationary object without direct supervision by the owner or custodian. Further, no person shall restrain any pet animal to a utility pole, parking meter, building, structure, fence, sign, tree, shrub, bush or other object on public property or so 3 as to intrude onto a public property. Further, no person shall restrain any pet animal in a manner that is hazardous, poses harm, or deprives the animal of adequate water or shelter. In addition to these restrictions and limitations, no pet animal shall be restrained: 1. By use of a restraint system that allows the animal to be within twenty (20) feet of any dwelling, other than the owner's or custodian's dwelling; or 2. By use of a restraint device that is ill- fitting or constructed of any material other than leather or nylon; or 3. By use of a restraint device that exceeds 25% of the body weight of the animal; or 4. By use of a restraint device other than a harness, except that a dog may be restrained by use of a collar; or 5. By use of any choke collar, pinch collar, or head halter -type device. F. Solid Waste Removal. Any person who shall walk a pet animal on public or private property shall provide for the disposal of the solid waste material excreted by the animal by immediate removal of the waste. G. Exceptions to Section. The provisions of this section shall not apply to trained service animals while such animals are acting in such capacity. 6.02.050 Harboring dangerous animals. It shall be unlawful for any person to harbor or keep a dangerous animal within the City. Any animal is deemed to be dangerous when it shall have attacked or bitten any person without provocation, or when propensity to attack or bite persons shall exist and such propensity is known to the owner, or ought reasonably to be known to the owner thereof. 6.02.055 Declaration of Dangerous Animal - Impoundment - Appeal. A. Declaration of Dangerous Animal. When the Police Chief has sufficient information to determine that an animal is a dangerous animal as defined by Section 6.02.010(A), the Police Chief shall declare the animal a dangerous animal and shall notify the owner or custodian of the animal in writing, either in person or by regular and certified mail. The notice shall contain the following information: 1. The person receiving the notice is the owner or custodian of a dangerous animal as defined in Section 6.02.010(A); 2. The breed, color, sex, and license number (if applicable and if known) of the said animal; 3. A copy of the records relied upon by the Police Chief that form the basis for declaring said animal to be a dangerous animal. These records may be supplemented with additional material as it becomes available; and 4. An appeal form. B. Immediate Impoundment. Any animal declared dangerous under this section or any comparable section by a duly authorized governmental animal control authority shall be immediately impounded. The owner or custodian will have seven (7) days from the date of the notice to appeal the determination or the animal will be euthanized at the direction of the Police Chief. If the owner appeals the dangerous animal declaration, the animal will be held at the shelter at the owner's expense pending the results of the appeal. C. Appeal. To contest the declaration of dangerous animal, the owner or custodian of the animal must request an administrative appeal hearing in writing on a form provided with the notice within seven (7) days of the date of the notice. If an administrative appeal hearing is requested, such hearing will be convened pursuant to subsection (D) of this section. At the administrative appeal hearing, the records of the Police Chief and any supplementary material shall be admissible to prove the animal is a dangerous animal. The owner or custodian of the animal may require the officer compiling the record to be present at the administrative appeal hearing. The owner or custodian of the animal may present evidence and examine witnesses present. The burden shall be on the City to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal is a dangerous animal. D. Administrative appeal hearing. If the owner or custodian of the animal requests an administrative appeal hearing as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the hearing shall be held before the City Administrator. The administrative appeal hearing shall be held within seven (7) days after the receipt of the request for an administrative appeal hearing, unless it is continued for good cause shown. The City Administrator shall notify the owner or custodian of the date, time, and place for the administrative appeal hearing. The administrative appeal hearing shall be informal and open to the public. The following procedures shall apply: 1. All administrative appeal hearings before the City Administrator shall be recorded, testimony shall be taken under penalty of perjury, and witnesses may be subpoenaed; 2. The City Administrator shall render an oral decision at the conclusion of the administrative appeal hearing or within five (5) business days. This time may be extended at the discretion of the City Administrator in order to receive additional information. The oral decision shall be reduced to writing and issued in accordance with subsection (F) of this section. It will include findings of fact and will be forwarded to the appellant. E. Decision. At the conclusion of the administrative appeal hearing as provided in subsection (D) of this section, the City Administrator shall have the authority to affirm, reverse or modify the declaration by the Police Chief that the animal is dangerous. If the City Administrator affirms the declaration and finds that the animal is dangerous, the animal shall be euthanized unless the City exercises its discretion, as set forth in subsection (I)) of this subsection, to allow the animal to be permanently removed from the City. If the City Administrator finds that the animal is not dangerous, the City Administrator shall order the dog released, at which time the City Administrator may also impose reasonable conditions of release upon the owner or custodian to prevent further incidents involving the particular animal and to provide for better protection of the general public. F. Notification. The owner or custodian of the animal shall be notified in writing by the City Administrator within five (5) days of the administrative appeal hearing of the decision, unless this time period has been extended pursuant to subsection (D)(2) of this section. In no event shall this time period be extended beyond ten (10) days from the date of the conclusion of the administrative appeal hearing, unless good cause is shown. The decision of the City Administrator is final. The owner or custodian of an animal determined by the City Administrator to be dangerous may appeal the City Administrator's decision to the District Court within five (5) days of the date of the City Administrator's decision. G. Subsequent action. A finding that an animal is not a dangerous animal shall not prevent the Police Chief from seeking to have the animal declared a dangerous animal as the result of any subsequent action by the animal. H. Costs and expenses. The owner or custodian of the animal shall be liable to the City of North Liberty for all costs and expenses of keeping such animal. I. Removal from City. The City, in its sole discretion, may release a dangerous animal by agreement with the owner or custodian if the owner or custodian agrees to immediately remove the dangerous animal from the City permanently and, further, agrees to any other conditions required by the City. At a minimum, the owner or custodian of a dangerous animal to be removed from the City shall have the animal injected with a microchip implant for the purpose of permanent identification. The owner or custodian shall cooperate fully with the City in making and providing records of the implant procedure and is responsible for all costs associated with the procedure. The City may but is not required to exercise its discretion to enter into a permanent removal agreement with the owner or custodian at any time during the process set out in this section. J. Dangerous animal from other jurisdiction. If an animal is known or found to be in the City that has been declared dangerous by another governmental entity, the City shall immediately impound the animal. The animal shall then either be returned to the governmental entity that declared it to be dangerous or be subject to being declared dangerous by the Police Chief in accordance with this section. K. Simple misdemeanor. An owner or custodian of a dangerous animal who violates any conditions imposed under this section shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor. 6.02.060 Shelter or pound. A. Establishment. The City may enter into a lease or contract with any business organized for the purpose of handling animals and the use of its facilities for the restraining and impounding of animals under this chapter. It will be the duty of the City Administrator to insure that any contract for service will be with an organization that provides adequate and wholesome food for animals impounded and shall provide careful and humane treatment towards such animals, and shall provide for humane destruction of animals as provided for in this section. B. Enforcement. The City Administrator and those designated by the City Administrator shall act as the official agents of the City for the purposes of impounding animals and enforcing this chapter. 6.02.070 Releasing or molesting animals. No person, except the owner of a pet animal or the owner's authorized agent, shall willfully open any door or gate on any private or public premises for the purpose of enticing or enabling any such animal to leave such private or public premises; nor shall any person willfully molest, tease, provoke, or mistreat a pet animal. 6.02.080 Interference with agent. No person shall willfully interfere with, molest or injure an agent of the City authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or seek to release any animal in the custody of such authorized agent. 6.02.090 Authorized. Any pet animal found in violation of the provisions of this chapter may be impounded by the City in the pound or shelter as provided by Section 6.02.060. 6.02.100 Registr�of impounded animals. A. The person authorized to impound pet animals, upon receiving any pet animal pursuant to this chapter, shall make a complete registration for such animal, entering the date, species, breed, color and sex of such animal any tattoo number, other special characteristics, and whether licensed. If such animal is licensed, he or she shall enter the name and address of the owner and the number of the license tag. B. The registry of impounded pet animals shall be available for inspection during reasonable hours by the owners of animals not wearing the tag required by this chapter when impounded. 6.02.110 Notice to owner. Not later than two days after the impounding of any pet animal, the owner, if known, shall be notified of such impoundment. 6.02.120 Redemption - Fees - Conditions - Disposal. A. Redemption. Any animal may be redeemed by payment of the redemption fees, which include applicable fees, penalties, and recoverable expenses. The redemption fees for any animal, other than dogs and cats, are calculated in the same manner as for dogs and cats as set forth in Section 6.04.080 plus reimbursement of any expenses incurred by the City that are not included or contemplated in that section. B. Fees. Fees for the boarding of pet animals impounded by the City shall be based upon the agreement with the owner of the pound. The charges established pursuant to this section shall be in addition to any fine or penalty that may be enforced against the owner for violating the provisions of this chapter. C. Licensing and Vaccination Prerequisite to Release of Animals Four Months or Older. If a pet animal four months of age or older which is unlicensed is impounded, the person to whom the animal is released shall purchase a license, if applicable, for such animal and show proof of current rabies vaccination or purchase a rabies vaccination in order to obtain the release of the animal. D. Disposal upon Owner's Failure to Redeem. It shall be the duty of the City to keep all animals impounded pursuant to this chapter for a period of five (5) days after the owner has been notified as provided herein. If, after seven (7) days following service of notice on the owner either by certified mail or by personal service of the impoundment of the owner's animal, the owner thereof has failed to claim and redeem any such impounded animal as provided in this chapter, such animal may be adopted, transferred to any state institution pursuant to the provisions for the purposes of Chapter 351A of the Code of Iowa, or humanely euthanized and disposed of. In the event that owner is not willing to accept service by certified mail, or by personal service, then, after a period of seven (7) days following the attempt to make service on the owner, the animal control personnel shall have the right and duty to dispose of said animal in the manner provided for by the City. E. Disposal if Owner Unknown. If a pet animal is not licensed, and if the owner is unknown, it shall be the duty of the City to keep the animal for seven (7) days from the date that the animal is first picked up, and then said animal may be disposed of as provided for in this section. 6.02.130 Confinement of animals suspected of having rabies when impounded - Tests. Any pet animal which appears to be suffering from rabies when impounded shall be confined in the pound or a veterinary hospital for a period of not less than ten (10) days or may be euthanized. Such animal, or its carcass if it dies, shall be subject to such reasonable veterinary or pathological tests as the City determines, which tests shall be conducted at the expense of the owner. 6.02.140 Isolation and quarantine of suspect animals. A. It shall be the duty of the City to impound pet animals in the City to cause to be placed in isolation and under quarantine for observation for a minimum period of ten (10) days any such animal suspected of being infected with rabies or other diseases communicable to humans or any animal that has bitten or caused a skin abrasion upon any person in the City. B. Every owner or person having possession, custody, or control of an animal which is known to be rabid or which has been bitten by an animal infected with rabies shall immediately report such fact to the City and shall have such animal placed in isolation and quarantine as directed by the City for such period as may be designated and at the expense of the owner. C. Such isolation and quarantine shall be either at the municipal pound authorized by the City or in a veterinary hospital; except that if such animal is properly licensed and is currently vaccinated against rabies, it may be placed in the custody of the owner on the owner's premises during the isolation and quarantine period if the owner resides in the City. When isolation and quarantine is authorized on the owner's premises, it will be at the discretion of and under the direct supervision of the City. D. All expenses of isolation and quarantine at a municipal pound or a veterinary hospital will be borne by the owner. 6.02.150 Required reports. A. Physicians. It shall be the duty of every physician or other practitioner in the City to make written report to the City of the name and address of persons treated for bites inflicted by animals, together with such other information as will assist in the prevention of rabies. B. Veterinarians. It shall be the duty of every veterinarian in the City to report to the City any diagnosis of rabies in an animal made by him/her or under his/her supervision. C. Every animal which bites a person shall be promptly reported to the City and shall thereupon be securely quarantined at the direction of the City for a period of ten days. At the discretion of the City, such quarantine may be on the premises of the owner or custodian, at a shelter selected by the City, or in a veterinary hospital of the owner's or custodian's choice at the owner's or custodian's option and expense. In the cases of animals whose ownership is not known, such quarantine shall be at a hospital or shelter selected by the City. If the animal is quarantined at a shelter selected by the City, the owner or custodian of the animal shall be responsible for all expenses. D. Any owner or custodian of an animal who knowingly violates this section shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor. 6.02.155 Duty When Striking Domestic Animal with Motor Vehicle. Any person who, while operating a motor vehicle, strikes a domestic animal in the City shall stop at once, shall render reasonable assistance, and shall immediately report such injury or death to the animal's owner. In the event the owner of said animal cannot be ascertained and located, such person shall at once report the accident to the City. This section shall in no way be construed as requiring the person striking the animal with a motor vehicle to be financially responsible for any injury or death of the animal. A person who willfully violates this section shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor. 6.02.160 Proclamation. Whenever it becomes necessary to safeguard the public from the dangers of rabies, the Mayor may issue a proclamation ordering every owner of a pet animal to confine the same securely on the owner's premises at all times for such period of time as is deemed necessary. 6.02.165 Violations as Infractions and Misdemeanors. Failure to perform any act required by this chapter or the performance of any act prohibited by this chapter is a municipal infraction and, additionally, is a simple misdemeanor if so designated in any specific section. 6.02.170 Penalties. A. The maximum penalty for the violation of any provision of this chapter constituting an infraction other than Sections 6.04.030 relating to failure to obtain animal licenses shall be as set in the City of North Liberty Code of Ordinances relating to municipal infractions. B. Any person, in addition to any other penalties provided by this chapter, found in violation of any provisions or any amendments thereto which are designated as simple misdemeanors shall be punished by a fine of not less than $65.00 and not more than $625.00 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days; or by both such fine and imprisonment. SECTION 2. That Title 6, Chapter 6.04 "Pets," of the North Liberty Municipal Code be and the same is hereby deleted and replaced by: Chapter 6.04 DOGS AND CATS Sections: 6.04.010 Purpose. 6.04.020 Definitions. 6.04.030 Dog and Cat license - Required. 6.04.031 Dogs and Cats to have current vaccination against rabies. 6.04.032 Declaration of Dangerous Dog - Impoundment - Appeal. 6.04.040 Unlawful use of tags. 6.04.045 Designated off -leash area(s) - Rules and regulations. 6.04.050 Enforcement power. 6.04.060 Impounding of dogs and cats. 6.04.065 Release for Adoption. 6.04.066 Impounding of cats. 6.04.067 Control of cats. 6.04.070 Control of dogs. 6.04.071 Violations as infractions - Exceptions. 6.04.080 Redemption procedures. 6.04.081 Removal Destruction of Dangerous and Vicious dogs. 6.04.090 Penalties. 6.04.010 Purpose. It is the public policy of the City of North Liberty to secure and maintain such levels of control of dogs and cats within the city limits of the City, as will protect human health and safety and to the greatest degree practicable to prevent damage to property. To this end, it is the purpose of this chapter to provide a means of licensing dogs and cats and controlling errant dog and cat behavior so that it shall not become a public nuisance. It is also the policy of the City of North Liberty to prevent the inhumane treatment of dogs and cats. Therefore, it is also the purpose of this chapter to provide for the humane use, care, and treatment of dogs and cats to the end that cruelty to dogs and cats will be reduced or eliminated. 6.04.020 Definitions. In construing provisions of this chapter, except where otherwise plainly declared or clearly apparent from the context, words used in this chapter shall be given their common and ordinary meaning and, in addition to the definitions in Chapter 6.02, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Abatement" means the termination of any violation by reasonable and lawful means determined by the animal control officer in order that a person or persons presumed to be the owner or custodian shall comply with this chapter. B. "Animal" means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian. C. "Animal Control" mean-s that department empowered by the City to provide animal control services. D. "Animal Shelter" means a state licensed facility which is used to house or contain stray, homeless, abandoned or unwanted animals, and which is owned, operated or maintained by a public body, an established humane society, animal welfare society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or other nonprofit organization devoted to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of animals. E. "At large" means a dog which is physically off the premises of the owner, handler, or custodian of the dog, and which is not secured by a leash which is under the control of the owner, handler, or the custodian not exceeding ten feet in length; provided, "at large" does not include dogs exhibited in dog shows, field trials, obedience training or trials, or a dog or cat when otherwise safely and securely confined or completely controlled within or upon any vehicle; or under control in a designated off -leash area; or dogs used by law enforcement agencies. F. "Cat" means a domesticated Felis Catus, and includes both male and female cats. G. "City" means the incorporated area of the City of North Liberty, Iowa. H. "City Administrator" means the City Administrator or a designee of the City Administrator. I. "Dangerous dog" means any dog that: 1. inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property; 2. inflicts severe injury on or kills an animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner's or custodian's property; 3. aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or animals; 4. inflicts bites on a human or animal either on public or private property; 5. chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack; or 6. any dog with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or animals. If two or more dogs jointly engage in any conduct described in this subsection, thereby rendering proof of the individual dog that inflicted any particular injury difficult to ascertain, 10 then regardless of the degree of participation by the individual dog(s), all such dogs shall be deemed dangerous dogs. A dog shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner or custodian of the dog, or was tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog, or has, in the past, been observed or reported to have tormented, abused or assaulted the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. I "Dog" means a domesticated Canis Familiaris, bred in a great many varieties. K. "Euthanasia" means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death, or by a method that causes painless loss of consciousness and death during such loss of consciousness. L. "Exhibits vicious propensities" means: 1. The infliction of a bite, or bites, on a human being or animal, either on public or private property; or 2. Killing or severely injuring an animal while the dog is off the owner's or custodian's property. M. "Guard dog" means a dog trained to guard property. N. "License year" means license expires December 31 of the year of purchase. O. "Microchip implant" means a passive electronic transponder that is injected into an animal, subcutaneously, by means of a hypodermic -type syringe device. Each microchip shall contain a unique and original number that is read by an electronic scanning device for purposes of animal identification and recovery by the animal's owners. The microchip implant shall be supplied with an exterior collar -type tag for purposes of an external means of notifying others that the animal has been implanted with a microchip. P. "Off -Leash Area" means an area specifically designated in Section 6.04.045 in which an owner, handler, or custodian may allow or permit his or her dog to run at large subject to the rules and regulations in Section 6.04.045(B). Q. "Owner, handler or custodian" means any person, firm, corporation, organization or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in or having control or custody of an animal, regardless of whether the animal is licensed pursuant to the ordinance codified in this chapter. R. "Pet shop" means an establishment where animals bred off the premises are offered for sale to the public. S. "Police Chief' means the Police Chief or a designee of the Police Chief. T. "Police dog" means any dog trained to assist police, especially in tracking. U. "Premises" means the area of land surrounding a house, or dwelling unit or units, and actually or by legal construction forming an enclosure with it and to which the owner or custodian of a dog has legal and equitable right therein. "Premises" does not extend into areas of common ownership or use in the case of easements, trailers parks, apartment complexes, private communities, etc. V. "Proof of vaccination" means a health or rabies certificate issued by a licensed veterinarian. W. "Severe injury" means any physical injury which results in broken bones, disfigurement, or lacerations requiring multiple sutures or surgery. X. "Trip Fee" means the response fee an owner or custodian of an animal may be charged by the City when an animal is impounded. 11 6.04.030 Dog and Cat License - Required. A. All dogs and cats four months of age or older harbored, kept or maintained in the City shall be licensed. The annual license fee for each dog and cat shall be two dollars ($2.00) for neutered or spayed dogs and cats; and twenty five dollars ($25.00) for non - spayed or non - neutered dogs and cats. A penalty often dollars ($10.00) will be added to the above license fees for failure to timely obtain or renew a license as required by subsection (D) of this section. Senior rate (senior is age 62 plus), if applicable, will eliminate the above fee on one neutered or spayed license. Upon payment of the license fee provided above, the licensing outlet shall deliver to the owner or custodian of such dog or cat a metallic tag for each animal licensed. B. All licenses issued pursuant to this section shall be dated and numbered, and shall bear the name of the City, the name and address of the owner and custodian of the dog or cat license, and a description of the dog or cat, including its color and sex. The metallic tag shall bear a serial number corresponding with the number of the license. It shall be the duty of every owner or custodian of a dog or cat to keep a substantial collar on the animal and to keep firmly attached thereto the metallic tag for the current licensing year. There shall be a fee of two dollars ($2.00) for replacement of any lost license tag. C. Any person who shall, for the reason of securing a dog or cat license, falsely represent whether the dog or cat is spayed or neutered or non - spayed or non - neutered shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor. D. A new license must be purchased within thirty (30) days after a dog or cat was first acquired, harbored, kept, maintained, or brought into the City by a person residing in the City. Licenses must be renewed in January of each calendar year. E. The City shall honor the request by a blind person or hearing impaired person not to be charged a fee to license his or her trained service animal, or a request by a physically disabled person not to be charged a fee to license his or her trained service animal. F. The owner or custodian of such dog or cat shall provide the City upon request with proof that the dog or cat is currently licensed as provided by this chapter. G. Any increase in current dog and cat licensing fees or penalties in this section shall become effective upon publication of this ordinance. 6.04.031 Dogs and Cats to have current vaccination against rabies. All dogs and cats four (6) months of age or older shall be vaccinated against rabies. The owner or custodian of dog or cat shall provide the City with proof that such dog or cat has been vaccinated against rabies as well as the expiration date of such vaccination. An owner or custodian who refuses to provide proof of such vaccination upon request by the City shall be deemed to have failed to provide such proof. 6.04.032 Declaration of Dangerous Dog - Impoundment - Appeal. A. Declaration of Dangerous Dog. When the Police Chief has sufficient information to determine that a dog is a dangerous dog as defined by Section 6.04.020(I), the Police Chief shall declare the dog a dangerous dog and shall notify the owner or custodian of the dog in writing, either in person or by regular and certified mail. The notice shall contain the following information: 1. The person receiving the notice is the owner or custodian of a dangerous dog as defined in Section 6.04.020(I); 2. The breed, color, sex, and license number (if known) of the said dog; 12 3. A copy of the records relied upon by the Police Chief that form the basis for declaring said dog to be a dangerous dog. These records may be supplemented with additional material as it becomes available; 4. An appeal form. B. Immediate Impoundment. Any dog declared dangerous under this section shall be immediately impounded. The owner or custodian will have seven (7) days from the date of the notice to appeal the determination or the dog will be euthanized at the direction of the Police Chief. If the owner appeals the dangerous dog declaration, the dog will be held at the shelter at the owner's expense pending the result of the appeal. C. Appeal. To contest the declaration of dangerous dog, the owner or custodian of the dog must request an administrative appeal hearing in writing on a form provided with the notice within seven (7) days of the date of the notice. If an administrative appeal hearing is requested, such hearing will be convened pursuant to subsection (D) of this section. At the administrative appeal hearing, the records of the Police Chief and any supplementary material shall be admissible to prove the dog is a dangerous dog. The owner or custodian of the dog may require the officer compiling the record to be present at the administrative appeal hearing. The owner or custodian of the dog may present evidence and examine witnesses present. The burden shall be on the City to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the dog is a dangerous dog. D. Administrative Appeal Hearing. If the owner or custodian of the dog requests an administrative appeal hearing as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the hearing shall be held before the City Administrator. The administrative appeal hearing shall be held within seven (7) days after the receipt of the request for an administrative appeal hearing, unless it is continued for good cause shown. The City Administrator shall notify the owner or custodian of the date, time, and place for the administrative appeal hearing. The administrative appeal hearing shall be informal and open to the public. The following procedures shall apply: 1. All administrative appeal hearings before the City Administrator shall be recorded, testimony shall be taken under penalty of perjury, and witnesses may be subpoenaed; 2. The City Administrator shall render an oral recommendation at the conclusion of the administrative appeal hearing or within five (5) business days. This time may be extended at the discretion of the City Administrator in order to receive additional information. The oral recommendation shall be reduced to writing and issued in accordance with subsection (F) of this section. It will include findings of fact and will be forwarded to the appellant. E. Decision. At the conclusion of the administrative appeal hearing as provided in subsection (D) of this section, the City Administrator shall have the authority to affirm,'reverse or modify the declaration by the Police Chief that the dog is dangerous. If the City Administrator affirms the declaration and finds that the dog is dangerous, the dog shall be euthanized unless the City exercises its discretion, as set forth in subsection (I) of this subsection, to allow the animal to be permanently removed from the City. If the City Administrator finds that the dog is not dangerous, the City Administrator shall order the dog released, at which time the City Administrator may also impose reasonable conditions of release upon the owner or custodian to prevent further incidents involving the particular dog and to provide for better protection of the general public. F. Notification. The owner or custodian of the dog shall be notified in writing by the City Administrator within five (5) days of the administrative appeal hearing of the decision unless this time period has been extended pursuant to subsection (D)(2) of this section. In no event shall this time period be extended beyond ten (10) days from the date of the conclusion of 13 the administrative appeal hearing unless good cause is shown. The decision of the City Administrator is final. The owner or custodian of a dog determined by the City Administrator to be dangerous may appeal the City Administrator's decision to the District Court within five (5) days of the date of the City Administrator's decision. G. A finding that a dog is not a dangerous dog shall not prevent the Police Chief from seeking to have the dog declared a dangerous dog as the result of any subsequent action by the dog. H. Costs and Expenses. The owner or custodian of the dog shall be liable to the City of North Liberty for the costs and expenses of keeping such dog, unless a finding is made that the dog is not a dangerous dog. I. Removal from City. The City, in its sole discretion, may release a dangerous dog by agreement with the owner or custodian if the owner or custodian agrees to immediately remove the dangerous dog from the City permanently and, further, agrees to any other conditions required by the City. At a minimum, the owner or custodian of a dangerous dog to be removed from the City shall have the dog injected with a microchip implant for the purpose of permanent identification. The owner or custodian shall cooperate fully with the City in making and providing records of the implant procedure and is responsible for all costs associated with the procedure. The City may but is not required to exercise its discretion to enter into a permanent removal agreement with the owner or custodian at any time during the process set out in this section. J. Dangerous dog from other jurisdiction. If a dog is known or found to be in the City that has been declared dangerous by another governmental entity, the City shall immediately impound the dog. The dog shall then either be returned to the governmental entity that declared it to be dangerous or be subject to being declared dangerous by the Police Chief in accordance with this section. K. Simple Misdemeanor. An owner or custodian of a dangerous dog who violates any conditions imposed under this section shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor. 6.04.040 Unlawful Use of License Tags. A. It is unlawful for any owner to use any license tag on any dog or cat other than the one for which it was issued. If there is a change of ownership of a licensed dog or cat, the new owner must apply for and obtain a new license as required in this chapter. B. It is unlawful for any person to use the license tag for an unlawful purpose or to conceal the ownership of the dog or cat or remove the license tag provided for in this chapter from any dog or cat, with the intent to deprive the owner or custodian thereof. C. A willful violation of this section is a simple misdemeanor. 6.04.045 Designated Off -Leash Areas - Rules and Regulations. Except as expressly allowed in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to allow or permit his or her dog to run at large. A. Dogs may be allowed to run at large only in designated off -leash areas. B. An area designated as an off -leash area in subsection (A) herein is governed by the following rules and regulations: 1. Any person bringing a dog into the off -leash area remains liable for damage or injury inflicted by the dog and is subject to all applicable State and City laws regulating dogs. 14 2. Any dog deemed potentially dangerous or dangerous by any recognized animal control authority is not allowed in an off -leash area. 3. Any person bringing a dog into an off -leash area must maintain control of the dog at all times. 4. No handler is allowed to have more than two (2) dogs in an off -leash area at any one time. All dogs must be attended to within an off -leash area at all times. 5. Any dog exhibiting dangerous or aggressive behavior, including but not limited to biting and fighting, is prohibited from an off -leash area. 6. A female dog in heat is not allowed in an off -leash area. 7. Any person bringing a dog to an off -leash area must leash the dog when it is outside the off -leash area and must carry a leash for each dog while inside the off -leash area. 8. Pinch and choke collars are not allowed when a dog is off leash in the off -leash area. 9. A dog must be vaccinated. 10. Any person bringing a dog into an off -leash area must clean up feces after the dog, deposit feces in the containers at the off -leash area, and visibly carry equipment for removing feces. 11. Any children less than 16 years of age in the off -leash area must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. 12. No alcohol or glass containers are allowed in an off -leash area. 13. Bicycles, skateboards, and other wheeled items are prohibited inside an off -leash area. 6.04.060 Impounding of dogs and cats - Notice of owner or custodian - Redemotion - Fee. A. The City may impound any dog or cat doing any of the acts prohibited by the City, determined to be in danger of being subjected to cruel treatment as defined by this chapter, or when the dog or cat is found to be sick, injured or dead. B. The City upon impounding of a dog or cat, shall record the breed, color, and sex of the animal, and whether or not it is wearing a current license tag. If currently licensed, the City shall enter the name and address of the owner or custodian and the number of the license tag. If the dog or cat is not returned to its owner or custodian, the City shall make a reasonable and diligent effort to notify the owner or custodian within twenty four (24) hours or as soon thereafter as possible by mail, telephone or personal notice that the dog or cat has been impounded and where it may be redeemed. Any currently licensed dog or cat impounded pursuant to this chapter shall be held for the owner or custodian for at least one hundred twenty (120) hours from the time of impoundment. Any unlicensed dog-or cat shall be held for the owner or custodian at least seventy -two (72) hours from the time of impoundment. C. Any dog or cat not redeemed after the expiration of the holding period as provided in subsection (B) of this section may be adopted out or humanely euthanized. All dogs or cats adopted out shall be pursuant 6.04.064. D. Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (B) of this section concerning holding periods, the Police Chief may humanely euthanize any unlicensed impounded dog or cat if upon finding that the animal is feral and /or dangerous to the safety of humans or other animals; the animal is suffering from serious injury or disease; or the designated shelter area is at capacity. 15 E. Any dog or cat impounded pursuant to this section may be redeemed upon payment of all redemption fees as provided in Section 6.04.080. In addition, any unlicensed dogs or cat must be licensed at the time of redemption. F. Any dog or cat running at large during rabies quarantine shall be immediately impounded by the City and kept at the animal shelter for the remainder of the quarantine at the owner's or custodian's expense. 6.04.064 Release for Adoption. A. The City may decline to release a dog or cat for adoption under any circumstances including but not limited to: 1. The prospective adoptive owner has a history of violations of this chapter or has been convicted of an animal - related crime; 2. The prospective adoptive owner has inadequate or inappropriate facilities for confining the dog or cat and for providing proper care to the dog or cat as required by this chapter. 3. The existence of other circumstances that, in the opinion of the City, would endanger the welfare of the dog or cat or the health, safety and welfare of the people residing in the City; or 4. The animal is classified as a dangerous dog. B. Any adoption shall be subject to the following: 1. The adoptive owner shall agree in writing to furnish proper care to the dog or cat in accordance with this chapter; 2. Payment of required fees under this chapter; and All dogs and cats must be spayed or neutered as set forth in 6.04.065.C. Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in subsections (A) and (B) of this section, the City may release animal dog or cat to an approved rescue or adoption agency which has agreed in writing to abide by the constraints of this section in the placement of rescued dogs or cats. 6.04.067 Control of cats. The following cat control regulations are designed to protect public health and safety. The owner or custodian is strictly liable to control any cats as required herein. This means that the penalty for violation of these regulations is imposed without regard to any wrongful intention of the violator. It is unlawful for the owner or custodian of cats to violate any of the following regulations. The owner or custodian of cats shall prevent said cats from: A. Being accessible to other cats while in heat for purposes other than controlled or planned breeding; B. Running at large when the cat has not been neutered or spayed, and the cat is four (6) months of age or older; C. Not having a current license or failing to provide proof of such license as provided for in this ordinance; D. Not being currently inoculated for rabies or failing to provide proof of such inoculation if the cat is four (6) months of age or older, as provided in this ordinance; E. Being kept, harbored or maintained and known to have a contagious disease unless under the treatment of a licensed veterinarian, and appropriately isolated to protect the public and other animals; 16 F. Being on private property without the permission of the property owner or the person entitled to possession of the property. G. Exhibiting vicious propensities that constitute a danger to persons, domestic animals, property or livestock; and H. Entering any place where food is stored, prepared, served or sold to the public or any public building or hall; provided, that this section shall not apply to any trained service cats while such cats are acting in such capacity, to veterinary offices or hospitals, or to exhibitions or organized cat show. 6.04.070 Control of dogs. The following dog control regulations are designed to protect public health and safety. The owner or custodian of dogs is strictly liable to control any dogs as required herein. This means that the penalty for violation of these regulations is imposed without regard to any wrongful intention of the violator. It is unlawful for the owner or custodian of dogs to violate any of the following regulations. The owner or custodian of dogs shall prevent said dogs from: A. Running at large in the City, whether licensed or not; provided that this subsection shall not: 1. prohibit a person from walking or exercising a dog in public when such dog is on a leash, tether or chain not to exceed ten feet in length; 2. prohibit a person from having a dog off -leash in an area designated pursuant to Section 6.04.045(A) as an off -leash area provided that the requirements of Section 6.04.045(2) are met; and 3. apply to any trained service dog; B. Entering any place where food is stored, prepared, served or sold to the public or any public building or hall; provided, that this subsection shall not apply to any trained service dog, to veterinarian offices or hospitals, to dog exhibitions or organized dog training classes or to dogs used by armored car services or law enforcement agencies; C. Being accessible to other animals while in heat for purposes other than controlled or planned breeding; D. Chasing, running after or jumping at vehicles using public streets and alleys; E. Snapping, growling, snarling, barking in a threatening manner, jumping upon, chasing or otherwise threatening persons or animals; F. Exhibiting vicious propensities that constitute a danger to persons, domestic animals, property, or livestock; G. Howling, yelling, whining or barking or making other oral noises in such a manner as to disturb any person or groups of persons to an unreasonable degree; H. Being kept, harbored or maintained and known to have a contagious disease unless under the treatment of a licensed veterinarian and appropriately isolated to protect the public and other animals; 1. Running in packs ( "packs" means dogs in groups of three or more); J. Not-having a license as provided for in the ordinance codified in this chapter; K. Not being currently inoculated for rabies or failing to provide proof of such inoculation if the dog is four months of age or older, as provided in this ordinance; L. Running at large when the dog has not been neutered or spayed if the dog is four months of age or older; 17 M. Running at large or off the owner or custodian's property, unless it is on a leash and under physical restraint of a responsible person, if the dog has been declared potentially dangerous; and N. Running at large or outside a proper enclosure, unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under physical restraint of a responsible person, if the dog has been declared dangerous. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal. 6.04.080 Redemption Procedures. A. Any dog or cat impounded pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, when all conditions have been met for release, may be redeemed upon payment of any fees, penalties, and any recoverable expenses incurred by the City and proof of a current license; and upon proof of a current rabies vaccination or written agreement to present such proof within 30 days. The redemption fee for a dog shall be twenty -five dollars ($25.00) for each dog plus an additional fee of ten dollars ($10.00) for each twenty- four -hour period or portion thereof during which such dog is retained by the impounding agency. The redemption fee for a dog redeemed a second or a third time in any twelve -month period shall be thirty-five dollars ($35.00) and fifty -five dollars ($55.00), respectively, plus an additional fee of ten dollars ($10.00) for each twenty- four -hour period or portion thereof during which such dog is retained by the impounding agency. B. Recoverable expenses incurred include but are not limited to trip fees of twenty -five dollars ($25.00) for a regular response and fifty- dollars ($50.00) for an emergency response and reasonable veterinary expenses incurred by the City. C. All fees and expenses payable under this section shall be made payable to the City of North Liberty. 6.04.081 Destruction of Dangerous Dogs. A. Any dog declared a dangerous dog that is not in the custody or control of the City shall be turned over to the City by the owner or custodian within B. Twenty four (24) hours from notification. Willful interference with the lawful surrender of a dog pursuant to this section is a simple misdemeanor. 6.04.100 Enforcement Power. A. The Police Chief is authorized to take such lawful action as may be required to enforce the provisions of this chapter of the City Code. B. The Police Chief, unless authorized by the owner or person entitled to possession thereof, shall not enter private dwellings that are not licensed as either commercial or private kennels unless a proper warrant has been issued upon showing that the Police Chief has reasonable cause to believe that there is a violation of this chapter. Any enforcement officer, while pursuing any dog observed by the officer to be in violation of this chapter, or during investigation for unlicensed dogs, may enter upon any public or private property, except any private dwellings which are not licensed as either commercial or private kennels, for the purpose of abating the dog violation being investigated. C. No person shall deny, prevent, obstruct or attempt to deny, prevent or obstruct the Police Chief from pursuing any animal observed to be in violation of this chapter of the City of North Liberty Code. No person shall fail or neglect, after a proper warrant has been presented, to 18 properly permit City enforcement officers to enter private property or private dwelling homes to perform any duty imposed by this chapter. 6.04.110 Violations as Infractions and Misdemeanors. Failure to perform any act required by this chapter or the performance of any act prohibited by this chapter is a municipal infraction and, additionally, is a simple misdemeanor if so designated in any specific section. 6.04.120- Penalties. A. The maximum penalty for the violation of any provision of this chapter constituting an infraction other than Sections 6.04.030 relating to failure to obtain animal licenses shall be as set in the City of North Liberty Code of Ordinances relating to municipal infractions. B. Any person, in addition to any other penalties provided by this chapter, found in violation of any provisions or any amendments thereto which are designated as simple misdemeanors shall be punished by a fine of not less than $65.00 and not more than $625.00 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (3 0) days; or by both such fine and imprisonment. C. The penalties for violation of Section 6.04.030 other than Section 6.04.030(D) shall be two hundred dollars ($200) per violation; provided, however, the district court judges by local court rule or general order may allow for a reduction in said sum by way of mitigation or where a license is obtained or renewed within ten (10) calendar days of the issuance of an infraction. SECTION 3. REPEALER. All Ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of this Ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication as required by law. Attest: First reading on the day of , 2008. Second reading on the day of , 2008. Third and final passage on the day of 2008. CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY 19 Mayor Tracey Mulcahey, City Clerk Drafted and approved as to form by City Attorney City Attorney I certify that the forgoing was published as Ordinance No. in the North Liberty Leader on the day of , 2008. Tracey Mulcahey, City Clerk 20 Marian Karr From: Jim Steffen Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:15 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Cat leash laws Capt. Wyss said you were looking for the reply to this inquiry. From: Jim Steffen Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:36 AM To: Sam Hargadine Subject: FW: Cat leash laws Here is her reply. From: Misha Goodman Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:14 PM To: 'sandreskin @aol.com' Subject: Cat leash laws Hi Sandra, I was forwarded an email inquiry you had sent to the City Manager, Tom Markus with regard to the tethering of cats. have been asked to respond to your email. I will assume that you were referring to the Leash Law in Iowa City code section 8 -4 -6 which states, Animals At Large Prohibited: 1. No animal shall be found at large within the city at any time. A properly licensed animal shall not be deemed at large if: (Ord. 97 -3793, 7 -15 -1997) a. It is tethered or on the enclosed fenced premises of the owner; or (Ord. 99 -3902, 9 -28 -1999) b. It is tethered or on the enclosed premises of another person with the knowledge and consent of that person; or c. It is under the control of a person competent to restrain the animal, either by leash or properly restrained within a motor vehicle or enclosed within a structure; or (Ord. 97 -3793, 7 -15 -1997) d. It is a dog in Thornberry Off -Leash Dog park that has been issued a use permit. (Ord. 06 -4215, 6 -13 -2006) 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, any animal shall be deemed at large at any time when the animal is attacking humans, other animals, or destroying property or is on any public property, except when under restraint as set forth above. In addition, any female animal in estrus shall be deemed at large at any time, except: a. When housed in a building completely enclosed; or b. When housed in a veterinary hospital or boarding kennel licensed or registered with the state; or c. When on the premises of the owner, provided the area in which such animal is located is completely enclosed by a fence or other structure having a height of at least sixty inches (60 "); or d. When under the control of a person competent to restrain the animal, either by leash or properly restrained within a motor vehicle. The code was in place before 1993 when I became the director. Many cities across the united states started to enact cat leash laws similar to dog leash laws in an attempt to cut down on property damage complaints, wildlife attrition, control rabies, birth rates and reduce euthanasia. In cities where cats are randomly collected if observed off leash and off the owner's property the rates of euthanasia can actually rise when owners do not reclaim their animals. Obviously cats and dogs are very different types of animals and the expected injury that can be caused by an aggressive dog vs a cat is perceived to be worse. However cat bites often result in infection, blood poisoning and hospital stays. The primary difference is that cats don't bite generally unless provoked whereas dogs may chase and bite for territorial, protective, fearful or other reasons putting the public more at risk if left unattended. Although Rabies is now controlled fairly well we still see incidents occur in domestic animals. This year in Keokuk there was a case of confirmed rabies in a cat which resulted in 120 people having to be treated with post exposure vaccine. Although the law is in place here in Iowa City, we do not randomly pick up cats that are, as an example sitting on their owner's porch. We notify owners of the law and leave it at that unless an actual complaint has been filed. Dogs on the other hand are always impounded when loose. Most cats that come into the facility are brought in by either owners relinquishing them or citizens who have experienced a specific problem with that animal being loose in the neighborhood. Although some cats can learn to walk on a leash with a harness, many never do and it would be dangerous to use this method for some cats. We never condone the tethering of cats ever. Tethering would be tying an animal to a stationary structure. This is very dangerous for a cat. It is important to note that cats may be loose in a fenced yard. Obviously there are pros and cons to either keeping cats indoors or allowing them to run loose. I am not inclined to recommend a change in this code unless there is a citizen push to do so. Please feel free to contact me by phone and we can chat some more. Sincerely, Misha Goodman Supervisor Iowa City Animal Services 319 - 356 -5296 2 UP Marian Karr From: Melvin Kelly <kellyresearchplan @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:36 AM To: citymanager @hollister.ca.gov ; council @cityoffullerton.com ; cityclerk @dalycity.org ; citycommission @salina.org ; cmomail @springfield- or.gov ; christopherc @cityofwestsacramento.org ; citycouncil @cityoflamirada.org ; cpucheu @gulfport - ms.gov ; cjackson @cityofdalton- ga.gov; clarissa.rowe @comcast.net ; council @town.barnstable.ma.us ; constituenttsservice @weymouth.ma.us ; chn @chn.org; council @suffolkva.us ; contact @huntsvilleal.gov ; citymgr @johnsoncitytn.org ; croth @kenner.la.us ; cshaheen @wrga.gov; councilclk @tompsc.com; cityhall @melbourneflorida.org ; cityhall @westonfl.org ; citycouncil @cityofrichfield.org ; Council; council @altoonapa.gov ; cohmayor @co.hawaii.hi.us ; cityclerk @derrynh.org ; council- dist12 @brgov.com ;council-distll@brgov.com ;council-distlO@brgov.com ; council- dist9 @brgov.com ;council-dist8@brgov.com ;council-dist7@brgov.com ;council- dist6@brgov.com ;council-dist5@brgov.com ;council-dist4@brgov.com ; council -dist2 @brgov.com ;council-dist3@brgov.com ;council-distl@brgov.com ; counciladmin @brgov.com ; clfowlerjr @suddenlink.net ;cjordan@www.greenville.ms.us ; council @shreveportla.gov ;citymanager@cox-internet.com ;csawyer@cityofpafterson.org ;chmorrell@nola.gov ;CityClerk@quincyil.gov ;chris.mulvaney@chicagowilderness.org ; ckohler @cantoncityhall.org ;cityhall@valdostacity.com ; contact@gov. state. la.us; cs @odessa- tx.gov ;council@ci.pearland.tx.us ; chris.lee @mail.house.gov ;cio@ame- church.com ;cliff@wvon.com ;clee@bellevuewa.gov ;cityclerk@melbourneflorida.org ; Commission @largo.com ; cjohnson5 @augustaga.gov; cpd—web—mail@hud.gov Subject: Wasteful Spending in Homelessness by Melvin Lorenzo Kelly Attachments: the cost of Homelessness. doc From: Melvin Lorenzo Kelly 2014 Olive Rd. Augusta, Ga. 30906 706 - 796 -3044 Email: kellyresearchplangyahoo.com To: United States Elected Officials / National Homeless Organizations Sub: Homelessness in America and Count the Cost Date: November 11, 2012 Cc: US Clergy Dear Hon. Elected Officials, Before I start telling you what this letter is about I would just like to say thank you to all the secretaries of America's mayors that have been receiving my email's addressed to your office, just letting you know that even when I don't spell every word correct or my commas are not in the right place, I truly appreciate them reading my letters and sharing my information with you. If you don't mind me being friendly with you just for a moment, research and development in the areas of employment, housing and education is one of my main professions along with architectural and mechanical design. Even though I cannot type or write as professionally as I would like to, I can design a house and can draw floor plans for residential or commercial buildings, elevation drawings, perspective drawings, pluming diagrams, electrical schematics, plot plans and aerial views of a building. But when it comes to building a designed structure a lot of professionals are needed to complete the process such as; carpenters, plumbers, electricians, brick masons, roofers and etc... Recently I have been writing to you pertaining to my proposed project to help eliminate homelessness in America, indicating that even though I have a plan or an ideal that will perform such a matter it is totally impossible for me to accomplish step one of this process with out the help of other professionals. Step one of my proposed project entails the hiring of 16 professionals for a 60 day period of time to come up with a complete operating plan to be presented to the proper officials for implementation. The professional's needs for the mentioned period of time are as following: 1 architect, 1 mechanical engineer, 2 draftsmen, 2 research specialist, 2 general contractors, 1 construction manager, 1 secretary, 2 proposal writers, 1 business manager, 1 substance abuse counselor, 1 financial specialist, and 1 budget analyst. During the years of 1982 -1987 I work in the engineering department as a mechanical draftsman /designer for a company name Hill Refrigeration located in Trenton, NJ. Within this company we manufactured freezers, walk -in coolers and pod systems for many super markets through out America. Within this company once every year for a 30 day period of time one hour a day, every individual from the administration department and the engineering department split up into teams to look for ways to save the company money, produce a better product and operate the factory production process more efficiently. One great thing I learned while working at Hills Refrigeration Company is that you never force your ideals or change of any situation upon a company or group of people. The administration at this company taught me that when a newly proposed ideal or project get rejected, stop, take a deep breath, put it on the back burner and maybe come back to it latter but never drag the same projects into the next year, such as this up coming 2013. I mention all the above just to say that I truly believe in my heart it is time for me to start putting more focus on other project that can benefit our country besides homelessness, because the leadership response which includes mayors, council members and commissioners. Along with various department directors through out our entire country was less than 1% out of the 1500 emails I sent out by- weekly for a one year period of time. I will continue writing you about other issues besides homelessness and at the end of this letter you will find a briefing of what my proposed homeless project goals and objectives were. The following information is a short synopsis of my research findings in the area of homelessness: Habitat for Humanity and AmeriCorps are the two biggest organizations in America that performs building low income housing for the poor voluntarily, but none of their homeless projects have a serious effect on rebuilding urban areas across America, and the continues growth of the homeless population in America have diminished their efforts by far. There are two kinds of transitional homeless shelters in America for single men and women, religious and non - religious. Most religious homeless shelters will allow an individual to stay in their shelter for a period of time freely, as long as they attend church services daily. Most non - religious homeless shelters will allow single men and women to stay in their shelters for a period of time because the government, state or county will pay the shelter between $25 -$30 per night for every individual they let sleep there. If my arithmetic is correct, there is usually 30 day in a month and $30 times 30 days come out to approximately $900.00 per month, which seems to be enough money to rent a one bed room apartment per month per homeless person. Most Salvation Army and Rescue Missions provide transitional housing for homeless individuals also under the same financial plans mentioned above. Both organizations offer 9 -18 months drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs considered to be work therapy. Even after an individual completes the 9 -18 month program in the Salvation Army or Rescue Mission they are still most likely to become homeless and un- employed. Just about every county in every state across America have an alliance to end homelessness with a ten year plan, working with the Continuum of Care Division of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Which decides what organization gets selected to become a recommended candidate for funding, through a selective process based on the number of homeless people in their county.........? The money spent through section -8 vouchers for low income individuals or families living in Public Housing Authority dwellings or private home, after five years usually amounts up to enough to buy a brand new home. I can go on and on talking about homelessness and low - income housing programs, I believe my proposed project is the better plan to eliminate homelessness for this day and time and will give the tax payers more for their money and do just what it is outlined to do. Four Point Homeless to Homeownership Project Objective: The first stages of this proposed project entail hiring 16 professionals, architects contractors, etc for a period of 8 weeks to complete the final research process. Goals: 1. Eliminate Homelessness 2. Create Employment 3. Create Employment Training 4. Re -build torn down Urban Neighborhoods 5. Reduce Recidivism 6. Create constructive human activity for impoverish Americans to reduce crime. Total needed to finish homelessness research process.... $191,118.00 Let's build a better America, Melvin Lorenzo Kelly Lll-zt- Z 3e(4) Civic Project: House Parties Part 3 = � ' r• -u By: Sydney Ingram 0 Dear City Council Member Matt Hayek,112: ;1f.i. �,. S.F r;� �yy tat P it I'm a City High student and was working on a civic project. My too,9 5Jhd,A$- Ra + s: ,one of the many problems in Iowa City is the house parties and the underage drinking. The basic cause of the house parties is that the city council made a new rule banning people under the age of 21 to be in the bars after 10p.m. Disorderly house arrest have increased since the city's law was banning people younger than 21 from the bars at night. That law was in effect in mid 2010. There were 165 arrests in 2009 and 244 arrest in 2011 according to police department statistics. This led to house parties because since younger students no longer can be in the bars after 10p.m they still want to party just like all the other college students, so house's come in handy because there isn't any rules there..... until now. Currently U of I is ranked No.2 for party schools. Police in Iowa City, say they are having trouble with house parties of college students because they are using a new weapon -not answering the door. And if the residents don't answer the door then there's nothing the police can do so they are looking for a new response. That new response is to come up with a law that fines everyone who lives in that house up to $1,000. The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported: On August 23, 2012 that the city council voted 7 -0 on the first considerations of an ordinance amending the city's nuisance rental property regulations to allow for civil citations for disorderly house when occupants don't answer the door. Under the proposed ordinance, if the police respond to a reported rowdy house party and no one answers the door they'd be able to tell the city's housing inspectors it's a "disorderly house" and all tenants could be penalized. Last year, the Iowa City police issued 244 disorderly house citations and 273 were issued in 2010. Drinking downtown Iowa City has become an issue to some as well. As many citizens have suggested that decreased drinking in bars downtown may lead to increased drinking outside of the bar environment. Iowa City resident Jason Briggs says although these young adults are no longer welcome in most downtown establishments after 10p.m the risk of binge drinking could remain with access to unsupervised house parties. In this situation the problem isn't the parties and having fun. It's that they get too noisy and out of control and disturb their neighbors. In this case the neighbors could win with this new law by being able to sleep and have peace. The college students would lose in this situation because they would have to be careful about having parties and face the consequence of the fine One solution the city council could offer for the young college students who throw house parties is an alcohol free environment for young college students. By them creating a place like this it could prevent many house parties and the loud noise problem and keep the noise to one place downtown where it belongs -This new alcohol free environment could offer good current music,. rice tasting food and pool tables for the students to shoot pool. By having the college students go there instead of having all these house parties, the city could offer the bar some sort of tax cut. Another solution to the house parties problem could be to have some of the bars downtown do a first ri_ r-,i Saturday of every month thing, where they wouldn't sell any alcohol so that the j.ung st!Wents could still come in and still get that "bar" experience.; CA av All bars that contribute to this last solution could get some kind of refund. Since they wouldn't be selling any alcohol they wouldn't be making a good profit for the night so each bar could get a $1,000 tax refund if they agree to do it. This could make up with the house parties difference and would make fewer kids get caught drinking and fewer police responding to drunken people. Some of the bars downtown aren't doing so well anyway, so this might help them too. If you could please consider these ideas that would be great! Sincerely, Sydney Ingram q I� U�0"�1,Y11Jfi ST Iowa GtulrR h� C T�7 r 1 ' F-3 _ November 20, 2012 Ms. Sydney Ingram 918 Walnut Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Dear Ms. Ingram: r 1 ��.:. ®SIT mkt. IN 011%A.6_ - —�#i 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www, icgov.org On behalf of Iowa City Mayor Matt Hayek, I would like to thank you for your recent letter regarding alcohol related issues in our community. I appreciate you taking the time to research the issue and offer your thoughts and suggestions. Your suggestion for alcohol free entertainment venues is one that we are actively trying to promote in our community. We fully agree that those types of options will help promote a safer and more inviting environment for young persons in our community. Hopefully, in the coming years you will see more of these alternatives available to our residents. Thank you again for your interest in the community. I applaud your willingness to share your viewpoint and hope that you will continue to stay engaged in the future. Sincerely, Ge Fruin Assistant to the City Manager Cc: City Council Matt Hayek, I do not agree with your current decision regarding house parties. I believe the citation is too much at one time. Students are not given the heads up or full knowledge they need about it. But for any of these strategies to work effectively the students have to have a full understanding of the ordinance being passed. I conducted a survey with 1 U of I class that had 41 students, asking them if they knew what this new ordinance is, what it consists of, and if they agree or disagree with it. And out of 41 students only 12 are aware of what it is. When asked if they knew what it consisted of only 5 students actually knew and 23 didn't know any of it. That just shows that the people that are going to be mainly affected by this ordinance aren't even fully educated about it. Therefor while asking opinions only 12 people agreed with the ordinance. Your citation consists of a $750 fine to all the residents on the lease for the first offense, and $1,000 for following offenses. That fine doesn't include any warnings for them either. You are throwing that fine right at them all at once. And what happens to the students that weren't present at the party? Do you really think it is the right thing to do? To fine them $750 they most likely do not have just sitting around, for something they didn't contribute in? Lowering the amount of the fine would be great also. Madison, Wisconsin for example only has a $500 fine. And that has been a very successful ordinance for them. I have thought of a possible strategy to pilot your citation. This would consist of an online registration of the party and possibly also an attendance list. This could be on the Johnson County website. This makes sense because that page can show what's complaints have been made. Now this could make it so you could see when somebody is having a party. It could look something like this; Registering your House Party Name Address Time & Date # of people attending Party Attendance Party Host Parry Address Your Name John Example 5476 Example Rd. 10/31/12 8pm -1 am 32 John Example 5476 Example Rd. Betty Example I believe that there is a chance at this being effective because students would rather easily register their party than get a $750 fine. Even if this doesn't work out as planned, lowering the amount of the fine would be great as well. So before you go and pass your ordinance reconsider the path your taking, and try educating the group most effected a little better. Maybe try showing a quick presentation in every clasl;at the U of I and Kirkwood. Try and give these college students a better _a heads up :beDa e there $750 more in debt. Thanks for your Time, , . Rood _ M�- Ic.�en�� �Ivaxtt" U J�rn Iowa Cit�,� 52Zyo November 20, 2012 Ms. McKenzie Fluaitt 62 Amber Lane Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Ms. Fluaitt: r 1 - _.:. ®4 ''w' cam M CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356 -5000 (3 19) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org On behalf of Iowa City Mayor Matt Hayek, I would like to thank you for your recent letter regarding the City's ordinance on disorderly houses. I appreciate you taking the time to research the issue and offer your thoughts about a party registration program. This is an issue that is very important to many neighborhoods in our community. As with any ordinance we will constantly evaluate its effectiveness and look for ways to improve upon it in the future. You make an excellent point about communicating the ordinance to the public and our staff is currently working to identify ways to help broaden the understanding of this ordinance in the community. Thank you again for your interest in Iowa City. I applaud your willingness to share your suggestions and hope that you will continue to stay engaged in the future. Sincerely, Geo Fruin Assistant to the City Manager Cc: City Council Dear City Council, I am a student at City High School and for my State and Local Gov't class I am doing a project on the intersection of Kirkwood Ave and S. Summit St. I've been researching the topic for the past 3 weeks and I have gotten major cause summaries from the police departments records. Those records are from 2008 to 2011 showing all the accidents and the causes of those accidents. There were a total of 10 accidents over those three years with only one major injury. The majority of those accidents were due to a failure to yield right of way. I have come to the conclusion that stop signs should be added at both sides of Kirkwood Ave making it a three way intersection. I have talked to Kristopher Ackerson about sign and labor costs and he has informed me that it would cost about $130 for the sign and an additional $130 for label and then it would it plus another $260 for the other sign plus labor. I have also sent similar letters to Ron Knoche a city engineer ,Bud Stockman and John Sobaski, Streets, Traffic Engineering and Solid Waste Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent.Thank you for your time and for reading my proposal of this issue. vo.r, p I 1 d Pax Puran 3e(5) �.. ,a y r'a a 3e(5) November 20, 2012 Pax Puran 1107 Kirkwood Ct Iowa City, IA 52245 Dear Pax: � r CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org On behalf of the Iowa City Council, I would like to thank you for your recent letter regarding the intersection of Kirkwood Ave. and Summit St. I appreciate you taking the time to research accidents rates and talk with City staff about your concerns for the intersection. Our traffic control efforts certainly aim to minimize accidents and protect those using our roadways. We are constantly working towards improvements and will fully consider your suggestion for stop signs at this location. Thank you again for your interest in the community. I applaud your willingness to share your viewpoint and hope that you will continue to stay engaged in the future. Sincerely, Geoff Fruin Assistant to the City Manager Cc: City Council Dear Matt Hayek I personally think that the curfew ordinance is a good law because it protects everyone during the night hours, such as 9pm -Sam. It keeps kids safe and parents aware of their kids. I don't think that the curfew law need any changes, it's fine just the way it is. It lowered crimes by a lot, it's very beneficial to our Iowa city community, it lowered violations on minors and it's putting less work for the patrol officers. One thing I would change is the time for 17 years olds because some people have jobs that close at 12am and they don't get done cleaning the store until about 12:30am. We need time to get home and get situated. Most people have to walk home if they don't have a car or a way to get home so there should be an exception for people who have jobs that work late. But that's the only thing that I think needs to be changed about the curfew law. Overall I think that having curfew is good it helps parents /guardians and police officers, it keeps the streets safe and it protects others from people who is disturbing the peace or being reckless. r'"cLon:,: Un to -3ao. !Do u J i asc 5+., S-�a45 Sincerely " C:Z) o0 4 3e(6) November 20, 2012 Mr. Brandon Juniel 320 Douglass Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Dear Mr. Juniel: � r CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356 -5000 (319) 356 -5009 FAX www.icgov.org On behalf of Iowa City Mayor Matt Hayek, I would like to thank you for your recent letter regarding the City's curfew ordinance. I appreciate you taking the time to research the issue and offer your thoughts about the effectiveness and impact of the regulations. The curfew regulations are intended to protect the safety of our residents. It is reassuring to hear that you believe that the law is meeting its intended consequence. I do appreciate your suggestion to consider and exemption for situations involving late night employment of persons under the age of eighteen. Thank you again for your interest in the community. I applaud your willingness to share your viewpoint and hope that you will continue to stay engaged in the future. Sincerely, Geoff Fruin Assistant to the City Manager Cc: City Council 3e(7) Marian Karr From: Melvin Kelly <kellyresearchplan @yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:14 PM To: citymanager @hollister.ca.gov ; council @cityoffullerton.com ; cityclerk @dalycity.org ; citycommission @salina.org ; cmomail @springfield- or.gov ; christopherc @cityofwestsacramento.org ; citycouncil @cityoflamirada.org ; cdavis @gainesville.org; cjackson @cityofdalton - ga.gov; clarissa.rowe @comcast.net ; council @town.barnstable.ma.us ; constituenttsservice @weymouth.ma.us ; chn @chn.org; council @suffolkva.us ; Rainbow Coalition; contact @huntsvilleal.gov ; citymgr @johnsoncitytn.org ; cheribarry@meridianms.org ; councilclk @tompsc.com; cityhall @melbourneflorida.org ; cityhall @westonfl.org ; citycouncil @cityofrichfield.org ; Council; council @altoonapa.gov ; cohmayor @co.hawaii.hi.us ; cityclerk @derrynh.org ; council- dist12 @brgov.com ;council-distll@brgov.com ;council-distlO@brgov.com ; council- dist9 @brgov.com ;council-dist8@brgov.com ;council-dist7@brgov.com ;council- dist6@brgov.com ;council-dist5@brgov.com ;council-dist4@brgov.com ; council -dist2 @ brgov.com ;council-dist3@brgov.com ;council-distl@brgov.com ; counciladmin @brgov.com ; clfowlerjr @suddenlink.net ;cjordan@www.greenville.ms.us ; cgriffith @biloxi.ms.us ;council@shreveportla.gov ;citymanager@cox-internet.com ; chmorrell @nola.gov ;CityClerk@quincyil.gov ;chris.mulvaney@chicagowilderness.org ; ckohler @cantoncityhall.org ;cityhall@valdostacity.com ; contact @gov.state. la. us; council @ci.pearland.tx.us ;chip.beckett @glastonbury- ct.gov ; chris.lee @mai1.house.gov ; cio @ame- church.com ;cliff@wvon.com ;clee@bellevuewa.gov ; cityclerk @melbourneflorida.org ; Commission @largo.com ; cdent @augustaga.gov; cjohnson5 @augustaga.gov; cdcinfo @cdc.gov; ccwro @aol.com; celestel @pacbell.net; center @weingart.org; cdm @wwisp.com Subject: Neighborhood Crime Watch by Melvin Lorenzo Kelly Attachments: Homeland Security Project.doc From: Melvin Lorenzo Kelly 2014 Olive Rd. Augusta, Ga. 30906 706 - 796 -3044 Email: kellyresearchplankyahoo.com To: United States Mayors / Elected Officials Sub: Neighborhood Crime Watch Date: November 18, 2012 Cc: The United States Division of Homeland Security Dear Hon. Elected Officials, I believe I have the right proposed project to put a twist on Neighbor Crime Watch projects here in America today, but just like many of my other proposed projects I have written to you about a patent research process is required. 1. Four Point Homeless to Home Ownership 2. Education (Elimination of Abbott Districts and Drop -Out Factories) 3. Shelter in the Time of a Storm 4. Violence in Music 5. West Nile Virus 6. Crime Watch 7. Youth Musical Projects Then once a patent research process is completed, it will determine if the recommended designed product has a pending patent or ownership which will determine the next steps such as production and distribution. Neighborhood Crime Watch organization are very important elements in every city across America, people working with law enforcement officers on every level to reduce crime in their neighborhoods. All across America one day per year, people in thousands of American cities participate in what is known as "National Night Out." The purpose of this National Night Out event is to help the decent resident of much crime and drug infested neighborhoods began the process of retrieving control of their neighborhoods. After this one day event per year, most neighborhoods never change because there is no follow -up action plan. This is were my proposed project will come into play, in the form of Neighborhood Crime Watch continuously 365 days a year 24 hrs a day. Many senior citizens born during the 1930's have told me that when they were growing up here in America, they could go to sleep at night with their house doors unlocked and windows open. Here today in the year 2012 while at your home during the day time neither less the night time, you have to keep all your first floor windows shut and locked with two locks on your front and back doors. Neighbors working with their neighbors to keep their communities safe from criminals, predators and intruders are a very important step towards obtaining a safe environment for everyone. For more information about my proposed project to refuel America's Neighborhood Crime Watch programs please contact me. Let's build a better America, Melvin Lorenzo Kelly 73 (8) e Marian Karr From: Jonathan Bluemke <jmbluemke @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:59 PM To: Council Subject: Requesting a New City Ordinance To the City Council Members, My name is Jonathan Bluemke and I am a resident of 639 S. Lucas, Iowa City, the apartment building where a landlord was caught peeping on his tenants. http: / /thegazette.coml2O l 2/11 /02 /victim -of- accused -iowa- city - peeper -i- felt -so- violatedl In response to this landlord misconduct and invasion of privacy, I would like to propose a new ordinance to the city code that states the following: "Iowa City landlords or owners of residential buildings are required to disclose all misdemeanor and felony charges that included, involved, were against or were filed by any current or former tenant(s). These charges must be disclosed for a period of 10 years past the occurrence of the misdemeanor or felony charges. Landlords or owners are required to disclose this as a written statement to any current or prospective tenants and must receive a signature from the current or prospective tenants displaying that they have received this written statement and understand it. Prospective tenants must sign and receive this written statement before their date of moving in to the apartment/building owned or operated by the landlord or owner. This written statement must be kept on file for the period of the tenant's lease and at least one year after the end of the tenant's lease." Can you please inform me how I would go about proposing this? I am more than happy to attend a city council meeting to discuss this. Thank you for your assistance. Thank you, Jonathan Bluemke Marian Karr From: Doug Boothroy Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:19 PM To: Council Cc: Marian Karr; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Tom Markus Subject: FW: Per your request Jonathan; I've been asked to respond to your e-mail sent to the City Council requesting consideration of amending the City Code to require Landlords /owners of residential buildings to disclose any misdemeanor and felony charges for a period of 10 years to all current and prospective tenants. I'm the Director of Housing & Inspection Services and it is my department's responsibility to enforce the Rental Housing Code that would be the subject of your proposed amendment. The recent landlord misconduct that led to an invasion of privacy criminal complaint was a terrible act that no tenant should have to suffer and I share your concerns. However, I cannot recommend your proposal to Council because it is unenforceable. The enforcement problems include but not limited to the issues of determining who the owner is and who has access to the apartment. Many rental property owners may not be individuals but corporations, L.L.C., or partnerships (in fact, the properties where the alleged criminal acts took place were owned by a Limited Liability Company not an individual). Rental property owners are often absentee owners whose properties are managed by designated agents and /or property management companies. The major issue is who has access to an apartment unit. Who has access to can be many individuals including owners, designated agent, management company employees, relatives, etc.? Criminal background recording keeping by the City on all who have access to an apartment for a 10 year period and ensuring tenant notification would be an impossible enforcement task that would fail. In Iowa City there are 3982 rental properties with 17,159 apartments that would need to be tracked. The landlord criminal /misconduct act is a tenant /landlord matter and tenants can look to the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Chapter 562A IA Code) for a remedy (e.g. give the landlord 7 days to cure the problem). Also, the invasion of privacy criminal complaint may be grounds for filing a civil action in court by the tenant against the landlord for damages. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me @356.5121. 3e`g� Marian Karr From: nancy reimer < nereimer @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:45 PM To: Council Cc: Reimer, Alicyn; Doug Boothroy Subject: Property at 1024 East Burlington Dear City Council members, My daughter, Alicyn Reimer, is a Junior at the University of Iowa. She rents an apartment in Iowa city, 1024- 1 /2 East Burlington, a property owned by Gene Miller. We were devastated when we learned of the charges brought against Mr. Miller with regards to watching his female tenants in their bathrooms. We are concerned with the fact tht there is no protection for people renting in Iowa City with regards to city ordinances. According to Kevin, the Iowa City detective on this case, there are no city ordinances that would allow for Mr. Miller's renters permit to be terminated. It seems that he will be able to continue renting multiple units in Iowa City. This must be changed to protect the many University students who rent his properties. A criminal background check should be part of the renters permit application process, as well as with each renewal. If a property owner is charged/convicted of a crime involving his tenants or his properties, his/her renters permit should be terminated immediately. As city council members, it is your responsibility to protect the citizens residing in your community. Please consider changing the ordinances to reflect that responsibility. A reply by email or mail would be appreciated. Sincerely, Nancy Reimer 305 East 21 st Street Atlantic, IA 50022 nereimer e,gmail.com M1 Marian Karr From: John Stamler <jstam ler@g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:59 AM To: John Yapp Cc: Council; Sam Hargadine; Rick Wyss; June Nasby; Kristopher Ackerson; Brad Neumann; Geoff Fruin; Cutler, Catherine [DOT] (Catherine.Cutler @dot.iowa.gov); Marian Karr Subject: Re: Traffic camera Mr. Yapp, Thank you for your prompt reply and consideration. I hope that a traffic camera or some other solution can help with this situation. John Stamler On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM, John Yapp < John- Yappkiowa- city.org> wrote: Mr Stamler— Thanks for your note. Iowa City does not currently have red light running cameras. The cameras you see at signalized intersections are for vehicle detection, for signal operations. There are several steps to take before Iowa City would be able to implement red light running cameras. We have applied for permission to the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) to utilize red light running cameras on state highway routes, and Iowa DOT has requested additional traffic speed, volume, and red light running incidence data before considering the application. We are currently collecting this data /information; this will take several months or more depending on winter conditions. Subsequently, Iowa City would need to enter into a negotiated contract with a red light running provider. By copy of this email, I am adding this intersection to our data collection efforts, and notifying Iowa DOT and Iowa City Police of your concern. Thanks again for your email, John Yapp, Transportation Planner From: John Stamler [mailto:jstamler @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:32 AM To: John Yapp; Council Subject: Traffic camera Dear Iowa City Council members and Mr. Yapp, I would like to encourage the instillation of a traffic camera to inhibit red light running at the intersection of North Dodge street and the North interstate off -ramp. This morning, for the fourth time in the last six months I was almost hit by a car running a red light at this intersection. Actually, it was the third time of being almost hit - -the other time I was hit. I run to work in the morning from Iowa City to Northgate Drive a few times per week and cross this intersection around 6:45 -7:00 am. The drivers approaching this intersection will look to the left to see if there are cars traveling South and if not, will very often proceed through the intersection turning right (South) on the red light without stopping or looking to the right for pedestrians in the crosswalk. Today, once again, I was in the intersection crosswalk with a green light and a white walk sign in my direction when a car sped through the intersection without ever looking in my direction. If I would not have suddenly stopped and jumped back he would have hit me. It seems to me that this is a dangerous intersection where cars routinely do not stop at the red light. I think it is exactly the situation for which traffic cameras are meant. I hope you will consider placing a camera at this intersection. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John Stamler 358 Lexington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52246 j stamler&gmail.com L 7 -12 10) Marian Karr From: Joe Reilly <jepkry86@g mail. com> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 12:34 PM To: CGProjectlnput Subject: College Gilbert Proposals City Council, I personally like the Chauncey proposal, even though it does not incorporate the Co -Op. I think going without the Co -Op is a better idea for the downtown district (keeping in mind that the current Co -Op is still in the same area). This project thinks about what the downtown district needs. Movie theaters (which we haven't had since the Old Capital Mall in 2006), a bowling alley (Colonial Lanes is not easily accessible for the students and residents without cars), and also hotel space (which is always an issue for Hawkeye fans and visitors who want to be somewhere near the downtown district and not in Coralville). I appreciate the proposal because it rethinks the area. The other proposals just move the Co -Op and plop a couple living spaces on top. The city can't just cater to a specialty food grocery store, we have to think about what the residents of Iowa City, students, and visitors to Iowa City are looking for. Thank you Joe Reilly 2141 Davis St Iowa City, IA 52240 Marian Karr From: Jim <j.schlott @mchsi.com> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:00 AM To: CGProjectlnput Subject: College /Gilbert site It is encouraging that three of the five finalists have proposed a portion, or all of, the living space be dedicated to workforce housing. The council has endorsed the fact that all urban studies have shown down town urban areas are more vital when there is a significant number of career individuals, and families, living there. That can only happen if the council insists that all, or a high majority, of the living units be owner occupied units. This is a critical point to the success of remaking the image of the downtown area. Rental units in this area will become nothing more than high density student housing. Regardless of the developers stated intent, there is no credible way for the City to prevent this from happening if they allow rental permits in this development. It will become an upscale version of Reno or Slater resident halls only without University oversight. Imagine an upscale party central for students with money. The only credible way for the City to prevent this is to require the living units be owner occupied. If the developer will not agree to this from the outset then they do not have a realistic financial model that isn't just more student housing in the down town area. Respectfully, Jim Schlott JS &JS Investments Marian Karr From: Nathalie Carlson <nathalie.t.carlson @g mail. com> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 12:45 PM To: CGProjectlnput Subject: Proposal Finalists Hello, Since you are soliciting the opinion of residents of Iowa City on the proposal finalists, I took a few moments to consider each one in detail. I'm not going to attempt to assess the various funding and construction details and such, as I believe the persons holding office are probably much better prepared to make an informed assessment of those aspects. Instead, I'll just address my preferences as someone who will likely walk by the building every day and make use of it a couple times a week. It may be of interest to know that I am a member of New Pioneer Co -op and have lived in or spent time at length in a number of large cities, which has informed my opinion of urban building design. A quick take on my opinions is that I despise "The Chauncy" and the Sherman proposals, and like the others with caveats. 4Zero4 - The building as designed is ugly. Which is unfortunate, because the rest of the proposal is great. It provides a nice big store for New -Pi, commercial and residential space, a lower profile building (I'm not a fan of Mark Moen's push for skyscrapers. I like seeing the big Midwestern sky), and most importantly, environmental sustainability. But I believe the last can be achieved with buildings that also look good, like "living walls ". On the other hand, I'd rather have an ugly, eco- friendly building any day over a pretty but wasteful building. The Chauncy - Aha, a Mark Moen giagantic tower. I am unsurprised, and annoyed. First of all, downtown used to have a movie theatre. It closed because no one went to it. A new theatre isn't going to fare much better. Bowling? That's simply not an activity anyone under 30 takes part in, at least not in any notable numbers. It isn't because it's too far away, it's because most younger people just don't enjoy it. I note that while the "popularity" of bowling is in the proposal, among all the nice hard numbers, they never seem to give a hard number for the survey where bowling was requested? Likewise, we can talk about alcohol -free activities for college students, but they've rejected many such options in the past. Until that culture has clearly changed, these kinds of businesses will have difficulty succeeding. But most importantly, where is sustainability in this proposal? I see a vanity project, not a project that deals with climate change or the real needs of the community. Chauncy Gardens - This is an improvement over Mark Moen's plan. It includes lots of gardens, though the ground level "green space" is just a disappointing lawn. It also provides space for new -pi, which is badly in need of a larger building (anyone who thinks otherwise has never been there at 5 pm or on a weekend). Honestly, if there was more about sustainability in this proposal (gardens are a wonderful start, but only that), such as supplementing the building with alternative energy, I think this one would be pretty good, especially since they want to set up the park right away rather than leave it to last. I think I could live with this glass tower much better than The Chauncy. Iceberg - This is basically "a big New -Pi plus apartments ", which is just fine. Not ambitious, but that's alright. I'm concerned that while they discuss sustainability, they are not committed. They provide options for sustainability, then soften the possibility by saying "these will have to be assessed for viability ". That's often double -talk for "good intentions that will never happen." While I'm happy the building appears to be designed to actually fit with Iowa City - it's not a wanna -be skyscraper nor is it covered in glass, I'm finding the visuals they've provided hard to compare with the other proposals. Sherman - This is an ugly without the excuse of putting an emphasis on being eco- friendly. I think as a community we are working towards dealing with climate change, and failing to incorporate that into building proposals even at the level of a single store front is unacceptable. This proposal seems uninterested in seriously addressing these issues nor in Iowa City as a community. They are merely looking for another job. I'd rather give our tax money to Mark Moen than this proposal, and that's saying something. - Nathalie Carlson Marian Karr From: Brion Hurley <brionhurley @hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:51 PM To: CGProjectlnput Subject: College - Gilbert proposal I would like the College - Gilbert proposal to reflect a new building expectation in Iowa City, and send a strong message to future developers. The message is simple: the city is concerned about the environment and we expect our builders to follow LEED criteria and utilize renewable energy. Please select a proposal that has the experience to achieve both of these criteria. Brion Hurley 713 E Davenport St Marian Karr From: Amanda Froese <afroese24 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:31 PM To: CGProjectlnput Subject: Gilbert Street/College Street Redevelopment Project To Whom it may Concern, The New Pioneer Coop is a great part of Iowa City, however, I believe relocating the business to this site does nothing for the City of Iowa City. New Pioneer is already located a block away, their main competition, The Bread Garden, is located a block away and together they already bring that demographic to downtown Iowa City. I feel to completely maximize the opportunity this space brings to Iowa City, something new, refreshing and exciting needs to be developed there. Hence, I'm voicing my support for "The Chauncey" project. Filmscene opens Iowa City to the world of cinema! A world Iowa City is lacking. As a true Art's community, Filmscene will attract hundreds of people to their events year round bringing a true new market to the downtown. In it's temporary location, Filmscene is looking for a place to expand, if they don't relocate to this development, they will relocate some where else. I would hate for Iowa City to lose the opportunity to support this great organization, and I personally would hate having to travel to Coralville, North Liberty or the outskirts of Iowa City to partake in their events! In my perfect Iowa City, downtown would have the best of both worlds, The New Pioneer Coop at their current location and Filmscene on the corner of College and Gilbert! Thanks for reading my thoughts, and good luck deciding! Amanda Marian Karr From: James Ponto <japonto @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:32 AM To: CGProjectlnput Subject: CG Project Input I support development of this parcel. I do like the idea of incorporating one or more entertainment venues such as a movie theater and /or a bowling alley. I also strongly support energy efficiency by incorporating solar panels, LEED certification, etc. However, I am very concerned about the height of some of the proposed buildings. I strongly believe that an 18 -20 story building is way too tall for this location and would overwhelm the surrounding area. I urge that the building be no more than 6 -8 stories. I also strongly believe that the residential component of the building, either apartments or condos, should be designed to cater to working families or other long -term residents who have a vested intererest in Iowa City, rather than to predominately students. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Jim Ponto 618 Brown St. Iowa City Public Comment - Iowa City City Council Meeting - 11.27.12 Matt Ohloff 827 E. Market St. #1 Iowa City, IA 52245 Regional Organizer - Food & Water Watch Hello, I, along with Food & Water Watch supporters in Iowa City, would like the Council to vote on and pass the resolution we recently submitted It is a non - binding resolution in support of mandatory labeling for 4a foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. 6 V-4 P sis J vacc� Genetically engineered foods have been quietly making their way onto grocery store shelves since Roundup Ready corn and soybeans were introduced in 1996, and now, the majority of processed foods contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. GE foods, made by inserting genetic material from one species into another, are unlabeled, untested and potentially unsafe. Unfortunately for consumers, regulatory agencies overseeing the approval of GE foods were not set up to address the long -term human health and environmental impact of GE foods. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducts no independent safety testing on GE foods and instead relies on data submitted by biotechnology companies. Because foods containing GE ingredients aren't required to be labeled, consumers don't even know when they are eating them. This is because the FDA views them as no different from conventional foods. Independent research on the safety of GE foods has been limited because companies prohibit the cultivation of seeds for research purposes in the licensing agreements that control the use of patented seeds. Even so, some independent, peer- reviewed research has revealed troubling health implications including deteriorated liver and kidney function and impaired embryonic development. The biotechnology industry spent over half a billion dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions between 1999 and 2009 to ensure that regulatory oversight of GE foods remains watered down and that consumers are kept in the dark. Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta secured regulatory approval and patented the seeds of GE corn, soybeans, and cotton among others. Now, some biotech companies are looking to patent GE animals, which, if approved for human consumption, could open the floodgates to a whole new wave of GE foods in our stores. Labels are the best way for consumers to make choices about the foods they want to eat, but the government has failed to require labeling for GE ingredients. Currently, the only way for consumers to ensure that they're not eating GE foods is to only buy products with an organic label. Food & Water Watch is calling on state and national lawmakers and regulators to require the labeling of foods containing GE ingredients, thereby giving consumers the right to know what is in their food. Across the country, we are urging local municipalities to stand with consumers and pass resolutions pressuring federal regulators and lawmakers to require labeling for genetically engineered ingredients, like the City of Cincinnati recently did. In some states like Iowa, we're pushing for statewide legislation that could help spur Congress to act on GE labeling. The recent narrow defeat of California's Prop 37, which would have required GE labeling in the state, serves as a reminder to us all that biotechnology will continue to lobby hard against consumers' right to know. Thank you for considering this resolution. It is an issue that impacts every resident of Iowa City. We all eat. We look forward to working with you to pass this resolution. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. 351 E. College Street Iowa City, IA 52240 } food Mater WBtC ) �-/ Matt Ohloff Organizer mohloff @fwwatch.org T +1.319.512.7825 www.foodandwaterwatch.org F +1.319.512.7835 C +1.515.988.3737 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of recognizes that consumers want accurate and thorough information about the food they feed their families; and WHEREAS, the potential long -terms risks to public health and the environment from genetically engineered foods are unknown; and WHEREAS, safety studies on genetically engineered foods are limited because biotechnology companies prohibit cultivation for research purposes in their seed licensing agreements; and WHEREAS, some independent, peer- reviewed research that has been done on genetically engineered crops has revealed problems with liver and kidney functions in rats, deformities and neurological problems in vertebrates and lower nutrition content in Roundup Ready crops; and WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the United States Department of Agriculture to ensure that genetically engineered crops are safe to grow, the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that genetically engineered products will not harm the environment and the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that genetically engineered food is safe to eat; and WHEREAS, the patchwork of federal agencies that regulates genetically engineered crops and animals in the United States has failed to adequately oversee and monitor genetically engineered products; and WHEREAS, farmers who produce organic or non - genetically engineered crops run the risk of crop contamination from nearby genetically engineered crops; and WHEREAS; farmers who unintentionally grow genetically engineered - patented seeds or who harvest crops that are contaminated with genetically engineered traits could lose marketing options and face costly lawsuits; and WHEREAS, a 2008 CBS /New York Times poll found that 87 percent of U.S. consumers wanted all genetically ingredients to be labeled; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on the day of 2011, name of townj supports mandatory labeling of all genetically engineered products. PASSED, APPROVED, AND EFFECTIVE on this day of 2012. ATTEST: Mayor Council President Date Date PLEASE SEND A COPY OF THIS SIGNED RESOLUTION TO: 1. Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 2. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC 20250 3. Margaret Hamberg M.D., Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993 4. Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510 5. Local Representative, United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 6. Food & Water Watch, 351 E. College St. / Iowa City, IA 52240 1Eoodaw 000 Ch How Much Will Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods Really Cost? LErME E C IDE) MAKE GE LABELING THE LAW FACT SHEET • SEPTEMBER 2012 SInce the first genetically engineered (GE) crops were introduced in the United States in the 1990s, consumers have not been able to tell whether they are eating these controversial new ingredients. And whenever the subject of mandatory labeling of GE foods comes up, the food industry claims that labeling will be prohibitively expensive. But the industry's most frequently repeated claims about the cost of labeling are based on cherry- picked eco- nomic analyses and extreme scenarios. The biggest food companies and agribusinesses are worried that consum- ers will be wary of "scary-sounding" GE labels.' But if GE products are as safe and natural as these companies claim, then why not let consumers decide what they want to buy? Food industry Claim: GE labeling is unnecessary. Consumers deserve the right to know what's in the food that they are providing for their families. Not only is GE labeling required in other countries, but the U.S. public has been clamoring for it for years. A 2008 poll by CBS /New York Times found that 87 percent of U.S. consumers wanted all genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled.' A 2010 Thomson Reuters survey of consumers found 93 percent in support of GE labeling. And 91 percent of voters '..,. __ u polled in a 2012 Mellman Group study favored having the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require labels on GE foods or foods containing GE ingredients; of those, 81 percent "strongly favored" the labeling pro- posal.° With labeling, consumers would be able to find out the differences in how various foods were produced and decide for themselves what those differences mean. Whether or not someone chooses to read a label is entirely their choice, but people deserve the right to know what they are buying, eating and feeding to their families. Food companies always seem to find room on the label to make a marketing claim — such as "new and improved" or "all - natural" — to try to convince us to buy, but somehow they cannot find any space if they are required to tell us a fad about the process by which the item was produced. A label stating that a product is genetically engineered will not mislead customers; it would simply provide the facts about the food they are eating. Food Industry Claim: GE labeling means higher food costs. Opponents of some labeling proposals claim that man- datory GE food labeling would increase food costs "for the average family by $600 per year. "` These kinds of claims are often based on analyses done by labeling op- ponents in the food industry and are far from objective examinations of the facts. It is not very surprising that a study with those kinds of figures was commissioned by the Grocery Manufacturers Association. According to a recent GMA report that has not been made public, the cost of labeling would end up being as much as $825 more per family every year.,, Yet a look at the literature on mandatory food labeling reveals that a much lower cost is likely. An impartial consulting firm did a study in 2001 for the U.K. Food Standards Agency and found that GE labeling would increase a household's annual food spending by only 0.01 to 0.17 percent — a very small figure rang- ing from an increase of $33 to $5.58 in 2010 real U.S. dollars (inflation - adjusted) annually.' The GMA's esti- mate of $825 would be 13 percent of the 2010 average annual household food expenditure in the United States — about 150 times more than the U.K. Food Standards Agency's forecasted increase in household food spend- ing." The GMA report grossly overestimates the impact that labeling would have on food costs for consumers. It is worth looking at some of the costs that could be in- curred with mandatory labeling. Labeling would require segregating seeds according to GE content through- out the food chain, which is already done with many identity - preserved crops. Farmers are already segregating crops to prevent cross - contamination in fields, although some cases of GE contamination do still occur. Label- ing requirements would not necessarily require fanners to incur any extra costs while keeping seeds separated at the field level:' Depending on the markets where the seeds or grains are sold, grain handlers and seed compa- nies do testing to ensure the purity of the seeds that they sell or distribute. There are already segregation methods in place today for crop and seed export to countries with GE labeling requirements, such as European Union countries, Japan and China. ," Once labeling is required in the United States, these practices would have to be expanded, but an entirely new system would not have to be developed. Food processors and manufacturers would have to make sure that there is proper segregation in crop storage and cleaning of equipment," but as long as labeling is main- tained throughout the process this should be straight- forward. Manufacturers can reduce the costs of actually changing their labels by waiting until their inventory of labels is low and making the change before reorder- ing packaging materials, or coordinating the required labeling change with a scheduled labeling change. According to an FDA Labeling Cost Model, "the pricing for graphic design services does not differ substantially if additional changes are made because of a regula- tory requirement at the same time as a scheduled label change. " Food Industry Claim: GE labeling means more bureaucracy and taxpayer costs. For decades, the food industry has opposed any new food labeling requirements, including nutrition labels and ingredient listings. One of their favorite arguments is that new labeling requirements will drive the growth Owing Size y a =�v� Fact ervings Per P (228 ) Container 2 ronnt Per Oeryin9 lories 250 -__ Ca/ Ories from Ft t a/ F 12g - — _- % Daily Value* i!t Irated F - - - -- - —_ at 3 -- - In - �% p Fat 3 psi' of government bureaucracy and cost taxpayers money.' Mandatory labeling would take monitoring and enforce- ment, but this does not have to be difficult as long as all players participated in labeling along all steps of the food chain. If GE labeling is mandatory, federal and state agencies could simply add GE labeling to the food label- ing requirements that they would already be assessing during compliance inspections. Food Industry Claim: GE labeling would burden grocers and retailers with mountains of paperwork. Changing food labeling to reflect the presence of a GE ingredient wouldn't be any different for grocery stores than stocking a product that has changed its ingredients or added a nutritional- benefit claim to the package. At the retail level, the costs for pre - packaged foods will be very small, because the labels will have been added long before the food gets to the store. For foods that the store handles (such as produce or some meat that is repackaged on site), retailers will have to be sure that GE and non -GE products are kept separately and labeled as such, not unlike what they do to provide country- of -ori- gin information or even pricing information. The bulk of the labeling costs will be incurred at the processing and manufacturing stage, with grocery stores having small additional costs." Food Industry Claim: It is not the responsibility of the states to create food labeling requirements. States often lead the way when the federal government is too slow, too gridlocked or too weak to take action. Long before the United States enacted a mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) policy, eight states required this labeling on their own." Some states have also led the way in enacting renewable energy stan- dards and mandates, as funding for federal initiatives has declined. 10 California has been building its renewable' energy program since 1998, and by 2009, 12 percent of the state's electricity came from renewable sources, almost three times the national percentage of renewable energy use.'' It is more than reasonable that stales are once again taking the lead on the issue of labeling GE food, where the federal government has failed to do its jab. Food Industry Claim: GE labeling conflicts with science One common refrain from opponents of GE labeling is that giving consumers information on how their fond was produced is in conflict with "good science." Yet the science that the food industry likes to talk about is far from complete. Although the FDA contends that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to prove that eating GE foods leads to chronic harm," the agency's process for evaluating the safety of these controversial new foods is completely inadequate. Companies submit their own safety- testing data, and in- dependent research on GE foods is limited because bio- technology companies prohibit cultivation for research purposes in the restrictive licensing agreements that con - trol the use of these patented seeds. "" This has resulted in few independent studies on the effects of GE foods on health, and those that have been done were performed on rats and mice for short feeding trials. Some of the in- dependent, peer- reviewed research that has been done on GE food consumption has revealed troubling health implications including deterioration of liver and kidney function and impaired embryonic development. ", The chronic effects of eating GE foods are still largely unknown. AM without labeling of GE foods, we can- not associate any health problems with people who ate them — because we do not know who ate them. Since the FDA has no way to track adverse health effects in people consuming GE foods, and because there is no requirement that food containing GE ingredients be labeled,=' there is no effective way to gather data on health problems that may be happening. Because GE foods contain novel genetic combinations that do not occur naturally in our food system, the least that con- sumers deserve is that these foals are labeled with this information in the grocery store. What You Can Do Go to http:// www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/ genetically- engineered - foods/ to take action and learn more. Endnotes 1 No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme. -Questions & Answers About the Food Labeling Proposition." On file and available at Mtp: / /noprop37.co(Wuploads /1342545312- Noon37_ QA_FACT.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2012. 2 CBS News Poll Database. "CBS News/New York Times Poll, Apr. 2170$." May 11, 2008 at Q88 and Q89. Available at http' / /www. cbn sco Wgs es/ 2007/ 10/ 12/ polibcs /main3362530.shtmlitagabs newst.eadStoriesArea Accessed July 9, 2012. 3 Tbomson. Reuters. "National Survey of Healthcare Consumers: Ge- netically Engineered Food." October 2010 at 3. 4 The Meflman Group, Inc. "Support for Mandatory Labeling of Ge- neticafty Engineered Foods Is Nearly Unanimous." March 22, 2012. 5 *M on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme. "Fact Sheet" On file and available at http:/ /noprop37.conv uptoads11342813362- Noon37Fact5heet.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2012. 6 Clayton, Chris. "Food Lobby says defeating California measure is highest priority." Wester Livestock Journal. July 23, 2012. Food & Water Watch analysis of data from: National Economic Research Associates. "Economic Appraisal of Options for Exten- sion of Legislation on GM Labelling: A final Report for the Food Standards Agency." May 2001 at 69 to 70; U.S. Internal Revenue Service. "Yearly Average Currency Exchange Rates." On file and available at ht tp:// www. im. gm /businesses/smalVintemational/ article/Q,id= 206089,00.1t1ml. Accessed August 9, 2012; U.S. Federal Reserve. 'G.S A Foreign Exchange Rates." Federal Reserve Statistical Release. January S, 2004. On file and available at httoWwww.federal- ms rue.gov/releases/gSa/20040102 /; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. `CPI Inflation Calculator.' Available at http://www.bi&guv/data/infla- tion_calculaochtm. 8 U_5. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Consumer Expenditures- 2010." !News Release). September 27, 2011. On file and available at http9/ www.bis.gpv/news.release /pdf/cesan.pdf. 9 National Economic Research Associates, 2001 at 23. 10 Bullock, David S. et al. 'The Economics of Non -GMO Segrega- tion and Identity Preservation." Paper for the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Tampa, Florida. July 30 — August 2, 2000 at 18; U.S. Trade Representative. -2071 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade." March 2011 at 49. 11 National Economic Research Associates, 2001 at 24. 12 Muth, Mary K. et al. Research Triangle Institute. "FDA Labeling Cost Model: Final Report." January 2003 at 4.2. 13 No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme - "Fact Sheet." On file and available at http ; / /Wprop37.corrV uploads/ 1342813362 -NO 37FwtSbeet.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2012. 14 National Economic Research Associates, 2001 at 24, 15 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). "Country-of -Origin Labeling: Opportunities for USDA and Industry to lrnplemem Chal- lenging Aspects of the New Law." Report to Congressional Request- ers. (GAO -03 -780). August 2003 at 14. 16 GAO- "Department of Energy: Key Challenges Remain for Develop- ing and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs," Report to Congressional Requesters. (GAO -07 -106). Decem- ber 2006 at 6 to 7. 17 The California Energy Commission. "History of Califomia's Renew- able Energy Programs." On file and available at http / /www.energy. ca.grry /renewables/history.html. Accessed August 22, 2012; U.S- Energy Information Administration. "Annual Energy Review 2010." October 2011 at 290. 18 GAO. "Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests as Adequate, but FDA's Evaluation Process Could Be En- hanced." Report to Congressional Requesters. (GAO -02 -566). 2002 at 30. 19 Pollack, Andrew, "Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Compa- nies Are Thwarting Research." The New YoA Times. February 20, 2009. 20 de vendomois, Joel Spiroux et al. "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Com varieties on Mammalian Health." international ) oumal of Biological Sciences, vol. S, iss. 7.2009 at 716 to 718; Malatesui, Manuela et al. "Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Im- munocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean." Cell Structure and function, vol. 27.2002 al Abstract; Cistema, B. et al- "Can a genetically - modified organism- containing diet influence embryo development? A prelimi- nary study on pre - implantation mouse embryos." Euro)x-an loumal of Histoclremistrv. 2008 at 263; Agodi, Antonella el al. "Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market." international kximal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, January 10, 2006 at Abstract; Mesnage, R. et al. "Cytotoxicity on human cells of CrylAb and CrylAc St insecticidal toxins alone or with a giyphosate -based herbicide." loumal of Applied Too(ology. 2012 at Abstract 21 Femandez- Cornejo, Jorge and Margriet Caswell. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. "The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United Rates." EIB No. 11. April 2006 at 3. LETME &DE For more information: MAKEWLABEUMTBELaw WEEI: www.foodandwaterwatch.org E -MAIL: info@fwwatch.org PHONE: (202) 683 -2500 (DC) - (415) 293 -9900 (CA) Copyright 0 September 2012 Food & Water Watch Genetically Engineered Food An Overview IV 4' foodawater Watch Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water food &WBte Watt and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control. Food & Water Watch California Office 1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 25 Stillman Street, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 San Francisco, CA 94107 tel: (202) 683 -2500 tel: (415) 293 -9900 fax: (202) 683 -2501 fax: (415) 293 -8394 info @fwwatch.org info- ca @fwwatch.org www.foodandwaterwatch.org Copyright ® May 2012 by Food & Water Watch. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded at www.foodandwaterwatch.org. Genetically Engineered Food An Overview Executive Summary ............................ ............................... Introduction......................................... ............................... A Background on Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology What Are the GE Crops? ..................... ............................... The Next Frontier: Genetically Engineered Animals.......... Insufficient Protection ......................... ............................... Safeto grow? ....................................... ............................... Safe for the environment? ................... ............................... Safeto eat? .......................................... ............................... Impact on Consumers .......................... ............................... Impact on the Food System ................. ............................... Imnart nn Farmarc Debunking Monsanto's Myths ............. ............................... Conclusion........................................... ............................... Recommendations ............................... ............................... Appendix: The U.S. Regulatory System for GE Food........... Endnotes............................................. ............................... .. ............................... 2 .. ............................... 3 .. ............................... 3 .. ............................... 5 .. ............................... 7 .. ............................... 8 .. ............................... 9 .. ............................... 9 .. .............................10 ............................... .... ................ 10 . .............................12 . .............................13 . .............................15 . .............................17 .............................. 17 . .............................18 ') z EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For centuries, farmers were able to use generations' worth of knowledge to breed seeds and livestock for the most desirable traits. However, technological innovation has gradually made this method of breeding nearly ob- solete. Today, most soybeans, corn and cotton have been genetically engineered — altered with inserted genetic material — to exhibit traits that repel pests or withstand the application of herbicides. Mergers and patent restrictions have increased the mar- ket power of biotechnology companies. The onslaught of genetic engineering has not only diminished the ability for farmers to practice their own methods of seed selection, but also turned another sector of agriculture into a business monopolized by a few corporations. Farmers, who now depend on the few firms that sell seeds and affiliated agrochemicals, face higher prices and patent infringement lawsuits if a patent is allegedly violated. Genetic contamination is a serious threat to the livelihoods of non -GE and organic farmers who bear the financial burden for these incidents. GE crops can take a toll on agriculture and surround- ing wildlife as well. The environmental effects of GE crops include intensified agrochemical use and pollu- tion, increased weed and insect resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and gene flow between GE and non -GE crops. Once GE products are on the market, no labeling is re- quired. This means that U.S. consumers blindly eat and drink GE ingredients every day and are not given the knowledge or choice to do otherwise. Several studies point to the health risks of GE crops and their associ- ated agrochemicals, but proponents of the technology promote it as an environmentally responsible, profitable way for farmers to feed a growing global population. Yet the only ones experiencing any benefits from GE crops are the few, massive corporations that are control- ling the food system at every step and seeing large profit margins. New technologies — like genetic engineering — create uncertainties and risk that should be carefully evaluated rather than being rapidly pushed onto the market. The existing regulatory framework for GE foods simply does not measure up. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency and Food & Drug Administration have failed to protect the environment, the food system or public health from GE foods. Food & Water Watch recommends: • A moratorium on new approvals of genetically engi- neered plants and animals; • Use of the precautionary principle for the evaluation of GE crops, animals and food; • A new regulatory framework for GE crops, animals and food; • Improved agency coordination and increased post - market regulation of GE foods; • Mandatory labeling of GE foods; and • Liability for GE contamination that rests with seed patent holders. Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview 19 Since the 1996 introduction of genetically engineered crops — crops that are altered with inserted genetic material to exhibit a desired trait — U.S. agribusiness and policymakers have embraced biotechnology as a silver bullet for the food system. The industry promotes biotechnology as an environmentally responsible, profitable way for farmers to feed a growing global population. But despite all the hype, genetically engineered plants and animals do not perform better than their traditional counterparts, and they raise a slew of health, environmental and ethical concerns. The next wave of the "Green Revolution" promises increased technology to ensure food security and mitigate the effects of climate change, but it has not delivered. The only people who are experiencing security are the few, massive corporations that are controlling the food system at every step and seeing large profit margins. Additionally, a lack of responsibility, collaboration or organization from three U.S. federal agencies — the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — has put human and environmental health at risk through inadequate review of genetically engineered (GE) foods, a lack of post- market oversight that has led to various cases of unintentional food con- tamination and to a failure to require labeling of these foods. Organic farming, which does not allow the use of GE, has been shown to be safer and more effective than using modified seed. Moreover, public opinion sur- veys indicate that people prefer food that has not been manipulated or at least want to know whether food has been modified.' A Background on Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Biotechnology involves manipulating the genetic makeup of plants or animals to create new organisms. Proponents of the technology contend that these altera- Food & Water Watch • May 2012 tions are improvements because they add new desirable traits. Yet this manipulation may have considerable unintended consequences. Genetic engineering uses re- combinant DNA technology to transfer genetic material from one organism to another to produce plants, ani- mals, enzymes, drugs and vaccines.' GE crops became commercially available in the United States in 1996 and now constitute the vast majority of corn, cotton and soybean crops grown in the country.3 More recently, biotechnology firms have developed genetically engi- neered animals, including food animals such as hogs and salmon .4 Genetic engineering modifies the genetic material of crops to display specific traits.' Most commercial biotech crops are developed to be either herbicide toler- ant, allowing herbicides to kill weeds without harming crops, or insect resistant, which protects plants from de- structive pests.6 Although biotech firms have long prom- ised additional traits such as high- yielding GE seeds, to date these products are not commercially available.' Farmers have bred their best livestock and saved seeds from their most productive crops for thousands of years. Selective crop breeding was accelerated by the develop- ment of crop hybridization, which cross -bred plants that had desirable traits and helped reverse the stagnating corn yields of the 1930s. By 1960, 95 percent of U.S. corn acreage was cultivated with hybrid seed.' Biotechnology has challenged traditional breeding methods for desirable crop and livestock traits .9 Hybrid seeds were bred within the same plant species until the discovery of the human genome in the 1950s. This breakthrough spurred the development of genetic engineering techniques, which allow breeders to splice genes from very different spe- cies.10 Genetic engineering can insert a specific gene from any plant, animal or microorganism into the DNA of a host organism of a different species." One GE tomato even used a fish gene to make the tomato frost-resistant. 12 However, splicing different organisms together could pose risks to consumers that have allergies to the added traits — in this case, consumers with seafood allergies could be exposed inadvertently to an allergen in the tomato .13 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% In 2011, more than 395 million acres of GE crops were cultivated in 29 countries — representing more than 10 percent of global cropland.14 The United States is the world leader in GE crop production, with 170 million acres, or nearly half of global production.15 U.S. GE cultivation grew rapidly from only 7 percent of soybean acres and 1 percent of corn acres in 1996, to 94 percent of soybean and 88 percent of corn acres in 2011.11 Inserting desirable genetic traits from one organism into the embryo of another produces so- called "transgenic" animals." Additionally, the technology of cloning cre- ates artificially reproduced plants or animals that identi- cally replicate the original animal without DNA modi- fication. In the United States, cloning is used primarily to produce rodeo bulls and other non -food animals, but several hundred cloned food animals also are believed to exist in the country."' Today, cloning primarily dupli- cates conventional livestock animals, but in the future could be used to copy transgenic animals. Cloning could be used to replicate livestock that have superior meat or milk yields or to mass - produce animals with market- Biotech Share of U.S. Cultivation 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: USDA 4 Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview able traits such as lower cholesterol or fat content.19 Although no meat or milk in the United States has been disclosed as coming from clones, cloned animals un- doubtedly already have entered the food supply.20 Transgenic animals have been developed to promote faster growth, disease resistance or leaner meat, as well as to minimize the impact of animal waste .21 By 2004, the largest biotech firms had filed 12 patents for GE animals .22 As of this writing, no transgenic food animals had been approved in the United States, although some animal- derived products, such as pharmaceuticals, had been approved .21 The USDA National Organic Program prohibits GE crops to be utilized in certified organic crops for food and animal feed .24 What Are the GE Crops? The United States has approved a host of GE commodi- ties, including fruits and vegetables. Bioengineered crops fall into three broad categories: crops with traits to deter pests and disease; crops with value -added traits to provide nutritional fortification; and crops with indus- trial traits for use in biofuels or pharmaceuticals .25 Herbicide - tolerant or insect - resistant commodities — corn, canola, cotton and soybeans — make up the over- whelming majority of GE crops.26 Other GE crops that have been approved for field trials but are not commer- cially available include rice, sugar beet, melon, potato, apple, petunia, millet, switchgrass and tobacco.27 GE papaya, flax, tomatoes, potatoes and squash have made it through the field trial approval process, although they are not necessarily currently commercially available .28 Herbicide - tolerant and insect- resistant crops: Her- bicide- tolerant crops are designed to withstand specific herbicides. Co- branded herbicides designed to work with specific herbicide - tolerant seeds kill weeds without damaging GE crops. Most of these crops are resistant to Food & Water Watch • May 2012 the herbicide glyphosate (sold commercially as Round- up and produced by the agrichemical company Monsan- to).29 In 2010, about 90 percent of U.S. soybeans and 70 percent of U.S. corn and cotton were "Roundup Ready" crops .30 Other herbicide - tolerant crops include Bayer's Liberty Link corn and Calgene's BXN cotton." Insect - resistant crops contain genes that deter insects. The most common variety contains a Bacillus thuringi- ensis (Bt) soil bacterium gene that is designed to repel the European corn borer and several cotton bollworms.32 However, key pests already have developed resistance to Bt crops. A University of Missouri entomologist found that corn rootworms could pass on Bt resistance to their offspring.33 And University of Arizona research- ers found that within seven years of Bt cotton introduc- tion, cotton bollworms developed Bt resistance that they later passed on to offspring, meaning that the resistance was dominant and could evolve rapidly.34 Value -added crops: Some GE crops alter the nutritional quality of a food and are promoted by the biotech in- dustry as solutions to malnutrition and disease. "Golden Rice" — rice enhanced with the organic compound beta - carotene — has been engineered to reduce the preva- lence of vitamin A deficiency in the developing world .35 GE canola and soybean oils are manipulated to have lower polyunsaturated fatty acid levels and higher mono- unsaturated fatty acid (oleic acid) content.36 In 2010, the USDA approved a Pioneer -brand soybean that is modi- fied to produce more oleic acid .37 Because soybean oil is the most commonly consumed vegetable oil in the United States, the industry maintains that the reduced -fat oil could provide significant health benefits .31 Industrial and pharmaceutical crops: Other GE crops contain genes that are useful for the energy and phar- maceutical industries. The USDA has approved amylase corn, which produces an enzyme that is suitable for Notable GE Crops ALFALFA: The USDA approved Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa in 2005.41 Alfalfa is an important forage crop for grazing animals and is used for making hay that is distributed for livestock feed. In 2007, organic alfalfa producers challenged USDA's approval on grounds that GE alfalfa could contaminate and wipe out non -GE alfalfa .42 Alfalfa is an open - pollinated crop, meaning that wind or insects can pollinate and contaminate non -GE alfalfa field S.43 Because this poses special risks for organic alfalfa and for organic dairy farms whose crops may be contaminated, a California district court ruled to prohibit GE alfalfa sales and plantings until the USDA performed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).44The USDA's 2010 EIS demonstrated the potential negative economic impacts for organic and conventional alfalfa farmers, including increased costs needed to prevent contamination, reduced demand and lost markets due to contamination .45 Nonetheless, the USDA approved GE alfalfa without any planting restrictions in January 2011.46 CORN: In 2011, the USDA approved Syngenta's amylase corn, which produces an enzyme that facilitates ethanol production .41 Although the corn is intended specifically for ethanol use, the USDA determined that it was also safe for food and animal feed, allow- ing it to be planted alongside GE corn destined for the human and animal food supply.48 Contamination of corn destined for the food supply is possible, especially without a buffer zone to minimize wind pollination.49 Even the USDA admits that contamination of high -val- ue organic, blue, and white corns may produce "undesirable effects" during cooking, like darkened color or softened texture .50 PAPAYA: In 1999, the EPA approved two papaya varieties that are resistant to the papaya ringspot virus.51 GE papayas constituted 30 percent of Hawaii's papaya cultivation in 1999, rising to 77 percent by 2009.52 The USDA approved a third ringspot- resistant papaya in 2009.53 POTATO: In 1995, the EPA and FDA approved Monsanto's Colorado potato beetle- resistant NeWLeaf potato. 14 Monsanto withdrew the potato from the market in 2001 but maintains it may return to po- tato research in the future.55 In 2010, the European Union approved German chemical company BASF's Amflora potato for cultivation, although the crop is designed for industrial paper and textile use, not for food.56 Amflora was the EU's first GE approval since 1998.57 RICE: In 1982, the Rockefeller Foundation launched the Golden Rice initiative to combat vitamin A deficiency, which annually causes blindness in a quarter - million malnourished children worldwide." The first Golden Rice strain failed to deliver enough biofortified beta - carotene to address vitamin A deficiency.59 In 2004, Syngenta field- tested Golden Rice 2 at Louisiana State University.60 Golden Rice must undergo field tests and receive approval by Bangladesh and the Philippines' regulators before being released into target markets in the developing world.61 SAFFLOWER: In 2007, the USDA approved field tests for a saf- flower variety engineered by the Canadian company SemBioSys to produce proinsulin, a precursor to human insulin.62 Although safflower primarily self - pollinates, insects could still cross - pollinate conventional safflower crops with GE pharmaceutical traits.63 Gene flow also can occur if birds carry the GE seeds outside of the testing area.64 Despite the contamination risk, SemBioSys has an applica- tion pending to bring the GE pharmaceutical to market and is continuing field trials in the United States." SUGAR BEET: USDA approved Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beet in 2005 after determining that cultivation poses no risks to other plants, animals or the environment.66 In 2008, the Center for Food Safety and the Sierra Club challenged the approval in court on grounds that the USDA's Environmental Assessment (EA) ignored important environmental and economic impacts.67 In 2009, a U.S. District Court directed the USDA to develop a more in -depth Environmental Impact Statement .61 The USDA expects to finalize the EIS by April 2012 but issued a 2011 interim partial deregulation until then, allowing farmers to resume root production but not seed production planting S..61 SWEET CORN: In 2011, Monsanto announced that its Roundup Ready sweet corn would be available for planting.70 Although sweet corn is Monsanto's first commercialized GE vegetable, the USDA swiftly approved it since the seed's traits - insect resistance and glyphosate tolerance - were previously approved for other crops in 2005 and 2008.11 TOMATO: In 1991, DNA Plant Technology Corporation used a gene from the winter flounder (a type of flatfish) to create a cold - tolerant tomato. 12 The crop was approved for field trials but was never ap- proved for sale or commercialized.73 In 1992, Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato, engineered to stay fresher longer, was the first GE food on the market.74 It later was withdrawn from the market due to harvesting problems and lack of demand.75 WHEAT: In 2002, Monsanto petitioned the USDA to approve Roundup Ready red spring wheat, the first GE crop designed primar- ily for human food consumption rather than for livestock feed or for a processed food ingredient.76 Given that Japan and the EU have different restrictions for GE food crops, the large -scale cultivation of GE wheat could damage options for U.S. wheat exports. A 2004 Iowa State study forecasted that approving GE wheat could lower U.S. wheat exports by 30 to 50 percent and depress prices for both GE and conventional wheat.77 Because of export concerns, Mon- santo abandoned GE wheat field trials before obtaining commercial approval, although the company resumed research in 2009.78 Genetically Modified Foods 101 producing ethanol, a key biofuel.39 Plants also are engi- neered to mass - produce certain vaccines or proteins that can be used in human drugs. For example, the USDA has approved field tests for a safflower variety that is engineered to produce a precursor to human insulin that can be used in the treatment of diabetes.40 The Next Frontier: Genetically Engineered Animals There are fewer transgenic animals than GE crops, but the number of new GE animals that are awaiting government approval has accelerated. Genetically engi- neered animals and biotechnology livestock treatments are designed either to boost production or to insert traits that may compensate for the negative impacts of factory - farmed livestock .79 Dairy products were the first bioengineered animal products in the food supply.80 In 1990, the FDA deter- mined that chymosin, a cheese - manufacturing enzyme produced using a "safe" strain of genetically engineered E. coli bacteria, was "generally recognized as safe;" by 2001, the bioengineered enzymes were used to produce 60 percent of hard cheese in the United States.81 In 1993, the FDA approved the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), to increase milk pro- duction in cows.82 Although dairy cows naturally produce BST, artificially elevating the hormone levels with rBGH injections can lead to increased milk production and significant animal health problems. Cows injected with rBGH can have significant health problems, including higher rates of mastitis, an udder infection that requires antibiotic treatment. 83 In turn, the use of antibiotics in industrial dairies contributes to the growth of antibiotic - resistant bacteria, a growing public health problem .84 rBGH injections also increase the production of the pasteurization- resistant growth hormone called IGF -1. The European Commission found that consumption of milk from rBGH- treated cows increases human intake of IGF -1.85 IGF -1 has been linked to breast and prostate cancer.86 RBGH has never been approved for commer- cial use in Canada or the EU due to concerns about the drug's impact on animal health .87 By 2007, the use of rBGH was on the wane, especially on small farms.88 U.S. factory- farmed dairies with more than 500 cows are over four times as likely to use rBGH than small dairies with fewer than 50 cows." Genetically engineered livestock also have been devel- oped in an attempt to mitigate the problems of manure pollution from factory farms. One Canadian university is developing transgenic Enviropigs that produce the phosphorus- absorbing enzyme phytase as a way to decrease the phosphorus levels from manure that com- monly pollutes waterways.90 The United States and China are potentially lucrative Enviropig markets, and researchers already have applied for FDA and Canadian Food Inspection Agency approval to market the pig.91 Yet changing the chemical content of the Enviropig's manure would not reduce total manure discharges from factory farms. An alternative solution to achieve the same phosphorus reduction in manure would be to use phytase as a feed supplement. In reality, the only beneficiaries of Enviropigs would be factory farms. Engineering livestock to fit the factory farm model fails to address the systemic problem of overcrowded, poorly regulated livestock operations that overwhelm the land's ability to utilize manure for crop production. Researchers are developing transgenic animals that allegedly reduce the spread of disease in animals and humans as well. The University of Edinburgh has engi- neered chickens that cannot spread H5N1 avian flu to other birds.92 The USDA has funded research that would prevent cattle from developing infectious prions that can cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat the tainted beef. 93 And U.K. biotechnology company Oxitec has engineered sterile mosquitoes to combat the spread of dengue fever in the developing world .94 Yet genetically engineered livestock will merely treat the symptoms of a poorly regulated food safety sys- tem. They will not adequately combat disease. More- over, current GE regulatory approval processes do not account for health impacts that may accompany the intended modifications. A 2011 USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report on regulatory control over GE animals and insects urged the agency to revise its regulations and improve over- sight of animal research. 95 Without a clear framework, research projects have led to breaches of the food sup- ply and to untracked field releases .96 The OIG reported that between 2001 and 2003, the University of Illinois allowed at least 386 GE pigs from a study to be slaugh- tered and sold for human consumption, even though GE pigs have never been approved for U.S. consumption. 17 Food & Water Watch • May 2012 7 Biotechnology Regulatory Timeline 1930: The Plant Patent Act of 1930 provided 17 -year patent protection for plant varieties, including hybrid S.106 1952: The Patent Act of 1952 extended broader patent rights to agricul- tural developments to "any new and useful [ ... ] composition of matter" including chemicals and processes.101 1961: The International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants established an intergovernmental organization that providing intellectual property rights to the breeders of new plant varieties.108 1970: The Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 provided plant variety breeders with exclusive patent rights for 18 years.109 It included a "farmer's exemption" that allowed farmers to save seed and to sell saved seeds to other farmers.110 1980: The U.S. Supreme Court decision Diamond v. Chakrabarty extend- ed patent rights to genetically engineered oil- eating bacteria."' The Court ruled that laboratory- created living things were not "products of nature" under the 1952 Patent Act and were thus patentable. This watershed decision bestowed patent protection on GE plants, animals and bacteria. 1981: The first transgenic mice were produced for tissue manipulation and experimentation .112 1985 -88: A series of rulings by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarde patent protection to plants and nonhuman animals. 113 1985: The first transgenic sheep and pigs were modified to display enhanced growth .114 1986: The Reagan White House determined that no new laws were necessary to regulate biotechnology since it did not pose any special or unique risks.115 1986: The Technology Transfer Act allowed the USDA to share publicly financed research and technology with private businesses. 116 1987: The USDA authorizes field trials of GE plants. 117 1992: The USDA approves the first GE commercial cultivation, Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato.118 1994: The United States ratified the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, which extended plant patents to 20 years for most crops and prohibited farmers from selling saved patented seed without the patent owner's permis- sion.119 1995: The EPA registered the first pest - protected plant, Monsanto's NewLeaf potato. 120 1996: The U.S government approved commercial cultivation of GE soybeans and Bt corn .121 2000: GE Starl-ink corn, approved for animal feed, unintentionally contaminated the human food system before being approved for human consumption .122 2001: FDA released guidance allowing food companies to voluntarily label GE or non -GE foods, provided that the labels are not false or misleading .123 2009: FDA announces that GE animals would be regulated as veteri- nary drugs instead of food (known as Guidance 187) and defined transgenic animals as veterinary drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. 124 Genetic engineers commonly use fish as research subjects because their external eggs simplify the manipulation of DNA.98 Transgenic fish are being produced for food, for use in pharmaceuticals, and to test water quality.99 In 2010, the FDA considered ap- proving the first GE fish for human con - sumption.'00 This is despite that fact that a 2004 National Research Council report con- cluded that GE seafood posed food safety risks either by the introduction of known or unknown allergens."' The GE fish under consideration is Aqu- abounty's AquAdvantage salmon, which combines genes from the ocean pout (a member of the eel family) and the chinook salmon to create an Atlantic salmon that grows to market size twice as fast as non - GE salmon.10' In its submission to the FDA, Aquabounty acknowledges that it cannot guarantee that its transgenic fish will not escape from salmon farm S.103 Although the biotech salmon purportedly would be sterile, the large, voracious GE salmon could out - compete wild fish for food, habitat and mates but then fail to suc- cessfully reproduce, effectively driving wild salmon to extinction. 104 Moreover, carnivo- rous farmed fish eat pellets made from wild fish, among other ingredients.105 GE salmon would require more wild- caught fishmeal feed than non -GE fish, putting more strain on ocean fish populations to provide feed. Insufficient Protection The patchwork of federal agencies that regulates genetically engineered crops and animals in the United States has failed to adequately oversee and monitor GE prod- ucts. Lax enforcement, uncoordinated agen- cy oversight and ambivalent post - approval monitoring of biotechnology have allowed risky GE plants and animals to slip through the regulatory cracks. Federal regulators approve most applica- tions for GE field trials, and no crops have been rejected for commercial cultivation."' Although some biotechnology companies have withdrawn pending applications, 8 11 Genetically Modified Foods 101 Biotech Crop Regulatory Approval Process Notification or Pert for Field Trials Gr ,Ied Fnv� rme��tal Assessment Completed Petition for Deregulation Approved 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 i USDA GE Field Test Determinations 1987 -2005 Approved Denied Source: USDA federal regulators approve most GE crops despite widespread concerns about the risk to consumers and the environment. 126 Nonetheless, the biotech industry has pressed for lighter regulatory oversight. Between 1999 and 2009, the top agricultural biotechnology firms spent more than $547 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to ease GE regulatory oversight, push for GE approvals and prevent GE labeling. 121 The current laws and regulations to ensure the health and environmental safety of biotechnology products were established before genetic engineering techniques were even discovered. 128 The agencies responsible for regulating and approving biotechnology include the USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the FDA. Although the missions of these agencies overlap in some areas, it is the responsibility of the USDA to ensure that GE crops are safe to grow, the EPA to ensure that GE products will not harm the environ- ment and the FDA to ensure that GE food is safe to eat. Safe to grow? The USDA is responsible for protecting crops and the environment from agricultural pests, diseases and weeds, including biotech and conventional crops .'2' The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) oversees the entire GE crop approval process, including allowing field testing, placing restrictions on imports and interstate shipping, approving commercial cultiva- tion and monitoring approved GE crops. 130 The USDA reviews permit applications and performs environmental assessments to decide whether GE plants will pose environmental risks before field trials may begin. 131 The USDA has approved most of the applica- tions for biotech field releases it has received, giving the green light to 92 percent of all submitted applications between 1987 and 2005.132 Once field trials are com- plete, the USDA can deregulate a crop, allowing it to be grown and sold without further oversight. 133 By 2008, the USDA had approved nearly 65 percent of new GE crop deregulation petitions. 134 Safe for the environment? The EPA regulates pesticides and herbicides, including GE crops that are designed to be insect resistant. 135 A pesticide is defined as a substance that "prevents, de- stroys, repels or mitigates a pest," and all pesticides that are sold and used in the United States fall under EPA jurisdiction. 136 The EPA also sets allowable levels of pesticide residues in food, including GE insect - resistant crops. Between 1995 and 2008, the EPA registered 29 GE pesticides engineered into corn, cotton and potatoes .137 Bioengineered pesticides are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), first enacted in 1947.138 New pesticides — including those designed for insect - resistant GE crops — must demonstrate that they do not cause "unreason- able adverse effects on the environment," including pol- luting ecosystems and posing environmental and public health risks.139 The EPA must approve and register new GE insect - resistant crop traits, just as the agency does with conventional pesticides. 140 Biotech companies Food & Water Watch • May 2012 9 must apply to field test new insect - resistant GE crop traits, establish permissible pesticide trait residue levels for food and register the pesticide trait for commercial production. 141 Safe to eat? The FDA is responsible for the safety of both conven- tional and GE food, animal feed and medicines. The agency regulates GE foods under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, which also gives the FDA authority over the genetic manipulation of animals or products intend- ed to affect animals .141 GE foods, like non -GE foods, can pose risks to consumers from potential allergens and toxins. 141 The FDA does not determine the safety of proposed GE foods; instead, it evaluates whether the GE product is similar to comparable non -GE products .114 The biotechnology industry self - regulates when it comes to the safety of GE foods. In seeking approval, a company participates in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, and the agency classifies the GE substances either as "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) or as a food additive. So far, only one GE product has ever been through the more rigorous "food - additive" process; the FDA has awarded GRAS status to almost all (95 percent) of foods and traits in food since 1998145 The FDA also enforces tolerances set by the EPA for pesticidal residues in food.146 The FDA does no independent safety testing of its own and instead relies on data submitted by biotech companies. The FDA also regulates genetically engineered animals as veterinary medicines. In 2009, the agency decided that the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act definition of veteri- nary drugs as substances "intended to affect the structure of any function of the body of man or other animals" includes genetically altered animals .'41 As of early 2012, only GE salmon and Enviropig have been considered for commercial approval, but no transgenic animals have been approved to enter the food supply.148 (See Appendix for more about the U.S. regulation of GE food.) Impact on Consumers Uncertain Safety Despite the FDA's approval of common GE crops, ques- tions about the safety of eating these crops persist. GE corn and soybeans are the building blocks of the indus- trialized food supply, from livestock feed to hydroge- nated vegetable oils to high- fructose corn syrup. Safety studies on GE foods are limited because biotechnology companies prohibit cultivation for research purposes in their seed licensing agreement.158 Some of the independent, peer- reviewed research that has been done on biotech crops has revealed some trou- bling health implications. A 2009 International Journal of Biological Sciences study found that rats that con- sumed GE corn for 90 days developed a deterioration of liver and kidney functioning. 159 Another study found irregularities in the livers of rats, suggesting higher metabolic rates resulting from a GE diet.110 And a 2007 study found significant liver and kidney impairment EU Regulation Biotechnology regulation in the European Union is far stricter than in the United States and operates under the "precautionary principle," assessing each food's safety before approving its commercialization .149 The EU has approved more than 30 GE products for sale in the region, most of which is GE soy and corn (maize) in animal feed.150 Only two GE crops are currently approved for cultivation in the EU: Mon- santo's insect - resistant corn and BASF's high- starch potato. 151 Moreover, domestic GE production is very limited in Europe. In 2009, only 0.05 percent of European fields were growing GE crops, or less than 1 percent of global genetically modified cropland .152 Despite having separate regulation for novel food, EU biotechnology regulation still allows some GE products to fall through the cracks. EU law requires that all foods and feeds with any GE content bear labels, including those with more than 0.9 percent accidental biotech content. GE products considered "processing aids," like GE enzymes used to make cheese, are exempt from the labeling process.153 In this way, the majority of GE use, including soy and corn imports, is hidden from consumers in unlabeled meat and milk from GE -fed livestock. European consumers, who have widely opposed GE foods, have been duped into believing that these products have been withdrawn from the food chain when consumers are in fact unwittingly supporting the GE industry via imported animal feed .154 European consumers are skeptical of the safety of GE foods. A 2010 biotechnology survey performed by the European Commission reported that 59 percent of Europeans think that GE food is unsafe for their health and that of their family, and 61 percent do not think that the de- velopment of GE food should be encouraged .155 These opinions are reflected in the nearly one - quarter of EU member countries that are oper- ating bans on GE products despite agribusiness and World Trade Organization pressure. 156 Under the EU's Deliberate Release Directive, which regulates GE crops that go on the market, a "safeguard clause" allows member countries to restrict or prohibit GE use or sale, provided there is evidence that the crop poses significant risks. 157 300 250 200 150 100 50 FDA Food Determinations GRAS Approved GRAS Withd rawn GE Additive Approved GE Additive Rejected Source: FDA of rats that were fed insect - resistant Bt corn, conclud- ing that, "with the present data it cannot be concluded that GE corn MON863 is a safe product. 1'161 Research on mouse embryos showed that mice that were fed GE soybeans had impaired embryonic development. 162 Even GE livestock feed may have some impact on consumers of animal products: Italian researchers found biotech genes in the milk from dairy cows that were fed a GE diet, suggesting the ability of transgenes to survive pasteurization. 163 The Roundup Ready trait lowers the nutritional con- tent of crops by inhibiting the absorption of nutrients including calcium, iron, magnesium and zinc, making plants more susceptible to disease .161 Studies indicate that fusarium — a soil -borne pathogen that infects plant roots — becomes more prevalent when crops are treated with Roundup.165 Moreover, some evidence suggests that the most common GE- affiliated herbicide, glyphosate, may pose animal and human health risks. A 2010 study published in Chemical Research in Toxicology found that glyphosate -based herbicides caused highly ab- normal deformities and neurological problems in vertebrates."' Another study found that glyphosate caused DNA damage to human cells even at lower exposure levels than those recommended by the herbi- cide's manufacturer. 167Nevertheless, glyphosate use on Roundup Ready crops has grown steadily, with applica- tion doubling between 2001 and 2007.161 The potential long -term risks from eating GE food are unknown. The FDA contends that there is not sufficient scientific evidence demonstrating that ingesting these foods leads to chronic harm .161 But GE varieties became the majority of the U.S. corn crop only in 2005 and the majority of the U.S. soybean crop only in 2000.170 The potential cumulative, long -term risks have not been studied. These considerations should be critical in determining the safety of a product prior to approval, and not left to attempt to assess once the product is on the market. GE insect - resistant crops may contain potential aller- gens. One harmless bean protein that was spliced onto pea crops to deter pests caused allergic lung damage and skin problems in mice. 171 Yet there are no definitive methods for assessing the potential allergenicity of bio- engineered proteins in humans.172 This gap in regulation has failed to ensure that potential allergenic GE crops are kept out of the food supply. In 1998, the EPA approved restricted cultivation of Aventis' insect - resistant StarLink corn, but only for domestic animal feed and industrial purposes because the corn had not been tested for human allergenicity.173 However, in 2000, StarLink traces were found in taco shells in U.S. supermarkets.174 The EPA granted Aven- tis's request to cancel StarLink's registration, helping to remove the GE corn from the food supply.175 The StarLink episode is a cautionary tale of the failure of the entire regulatory system to keep unapproved GE crops out of the human food supply. Insufficient Labeling The FDA governs the proper labeling of U.S. food prod- ucts. However, because the agency views GE foods as indistinct from conventional foods, the FDA does not re- quire the labeling of GE food products as such. The FDA does permit voluntary GE labeling as long as the infor- mation is not false or misleading.176 Food manufacturers can either affirmatively label GE food or indicate that the food item does not contain GE ingredients (known as "absence labeling "). Virtually no companies disclose that they are using GE ingredients under this voluntary scheme. Moreover, consumers in the United States blindly consume foods that contain GE ingredients. 177 For consumers to have the opportunity to make in- formed choices about their food, all GE foods should be labeled. A 2008 CBS /New York Times poll found that more than half of American consumers would choose not to buy GE foods, and 87 percent wanted all GE in- gredients to be labeled.17' A 2010 Consumers Union poll found that 95 percent of U.S. consumers favor manda- tory labeling of meat and milk from GE animals.179 Yet despite this overwhelming support, the FDA will not require labeling of food that comes from genetically modified animals such as the AquaAdvantage salmon.-1110 Food & Water Watch • May 2012 11 Impact on the Food System Superweeds In the 15 years since herbicide - tolerant crops were first introduced, weeds already have become resistant to GE- affiliated herbicides. Ubiquitous application of Roundup has spawned glyphosate- resistant weeds, a problem that is driving farmers to apply more toxic herbicides and to reduce conservation tilling to combat weeds, according to a 2010 National Research Council report.101 At least eight weed species in the United States (and 15 worldwide) have been confirmed to be resistant to glyphosate'202 including aggressive crop weeds such as ragweed, mare's tail and waterhemp.201 A 2009 Purdue University study found that glyphosate- tolerant mare's tail could "reach staggering levels of infestation in about two years after it is first detected. 11201 Even biotech com- pany Syngenta predicts that glyphosate- resistant weeds will infest one - fourth of U.S. cropland by 2013.205 Research shows that higher densities of glyphosate- resistant weeds reduce crop yields .211 Purdue University scientists found that Roundup- resistant ragweed can cause 100 percent corn -crop losses .207 Patent Power and Seed Consolidation Only a few biotechnology companies dominate the U.S. seed industry, which once relied on universities for most research .108 Farmers depend on the few firms Biotech Industry Tries to Block Milk Labels When the FDA approved the synthetic growth hormone rBGH to enhance milk production in cows, it stated that because there was no distin- guishable difference between the milk that comes from cows treated with rBGH and milk that does not, it could not require any label on milk that was produced using the hormone. 181 Given the amount of controversy surrounding rBGH, this decision was surprising, and dairies that were not using the artificial hormone quickly began labeling their products as "rBGH- free." However, the FDA made any attempts at labeling the absence of rBGH extremely difficult when it issued a 1994 guidance suggesting that the simple phrase "rBGH- free" was misleading.182 The guidance also recommended that producers include on any rBGH -free label a lengthy qualify- ing sentence stating that: "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST- treated and non -rbST- treated COWS. "183 Just days after the FDA released the document, Monsanto filed suit against two dairy farms that had labeled their milk "rBGH - free. "184 The FDA also got involved and sent warning letters to several dairies that had labeled their milk "hormone- free," stating that they were violating the fed- eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for misbranding .185 Monsanto even complained to the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission about allowing any rBGH - related labels to appear on milk, claiming that the practice was damaging its business. 186 Ben & Jerry's was one company that made an immediate and significant push to label its products as free of rBGH. The Vermont -based ice cream manufacturer first included an rBGH -free label on its products in February 1994.157 It aggressively defended that decision by continually modifying the label in order to withstand challenges, 188 as well as by suing the state of Illinois to protect its right to label its products.189 Illinois was one of the first states to ban any labeling of an absence of rBGH, essentially making it impossible for Ben & Jerry's to market its products nationwide as not produced with rBGH.190 Varying state labeling requirements effectively prevent national dairy manufacturers and milk retailers from truthfully labeling their products as rBGH -free, since it is easier to have no label than to develop a different label for each state.191 Ben & Jerry's settlement with the state of Illinois in 1997 enabled that company and others to market and label their products nationwide as not produced with rBGH provided that they include the disclaimer: "The FDA has said no significant difference has been shown and no test can now distinguish between milk from rBGH treated and untreated COWS. "192 In 2007 and 2008, several additional states, at the urging of groups backed by Monsanto, 193 made significant moves to restrict the type of rBGH - free labeling that could appear on dairy products. Some states, such as Utah, 194 developed proposals that were modeled after FDA guidelines, while others, including Ohio, issued more specific requirements regarding the type, size, and location of the FDA disclaimer. 195 Missouri and Penn- sylvania went even further by attempting to ban any mention of an absence of rBGH.196 In Pennsylvania, the Secretary of Agriculture attempted to create an outright ban on any rBGH labeling, but this was reversed in response to consumer backlash and was reduced to a rule that was similar to the original FDA proposal .197 A bill introduced in Missouri was met with a similar reaction, and in response to consumer protest the original bill had to be modified 198 before eventually dying in committee.199 Despite years of grappling with the issue, most attempts made by state legislatures and agriculture departments to ban rBGH labeling have been unsuccessful. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against portions of Ohio's restrictive limits on affirmative "rBGH- free" labeling and Ohio finally abandoned its regulation to restrict such labeling in October 2011.200 that sell seeds, and these companies have raised the prices of seed and affiliated agrochemicals as the market has become increasingly concentrated. High levels of concentration can raise seed prices for farmers .209 Biotech corn seed prices increased 9 percent annually between 2002 and 2008, and soybean seed prices rose 7 percent annually.210 Between 1996 and 2007, Monsanto acquired more than a dozen seed companies .211 The two largest firms sold 58 percent of corn seeds in 2007 and 60 percent of soybean seeds in 2005.212 Biotechnology firms control how their patents are used, form joint ventures and impose stringent requirements on farmers who grow patented seeds. Mergers combined with patent restrictions have increased the market power of biotechnology companies .211 Strict patents protect genetically engineered seeds .214 These seeds were not even considered patentable until the 1980s, when several court cases extended patent rights to GE organisms.215 Biotech companies further leverage the limited patent monopoly of their seeds through joint ventures and cross - licensing agree - ments.216 The patent owner controls how partnering companies use and combine the traits .217 Consequently, although there are numerous seed companies, most of the available corn, soybean and cotton seeds include Monsanto - patented traits that have been cross - licensed to other seed companies .211 By 2009, nearly all (93 per- cent) of the soybeans and four -fifths (80 percent) of the corn cultivated in the United States were grown from seeds covered by Monsanto patents .219 Farmers pay licensing fees and sign contracts for limited permission to plant GE seeds .221 The licenses typically prohibit farmers from saving the seeds from harvested crops to plant the next season; they also delineate spe- cific farming practices, mandate specific sales markets and allow the company to inspect farmers' fields .221 Indeed, farmers must buy new seeds every year because they face patent infringement suits if they run afoul of GE seed - licensing agreements by saving seed .222 And biotech companies zealously pursue farmers that alleg- edly violate their patents. Monsanto has hired private investigators to videotape farmers, infiltrate community meetings and interview informants about local farming activities .221 By October 2007, Monsanto had filed 112 patent infringement lawsuits, recovering as much as $160.6 million from farmers .114 Impact on Farmers Contamination The USDA prohibits the use of GE material — includ- ing enzymes, seeds, or veterinary treatments — in any product that carries the agency's "certified organic" label .115 Certified organic farmers can face significant economic hardship if biotech traits contaminate their organic crops or organic livestock feed. Contamina- tion can occur either when GE seeds are inadvertently mixed with non -GE seeds during storage or distribu- tion, or when GE crops cross - pollinate non -GE crops."' A Union of Concerned Scientists study found that 50 percent of non -GE corn and soybean and 83 percent of non -GE canola seeds in the United States were con- taminated with low levels of GE residue."' It is well documented that a farmer's field can be inadvertently contaminated with GE material through cross- pollina- tion and seed dispersal .228 Even Monsanto admits that "a certain amount of incidental, trace level pollen move- ment occurs. 11229 Liability Farmers who unintentionally grow GE- patented seeds or who harvest crops that are cross - pollinated with GE traits could face costly lawsuits by biotechnology firms for "seed piracy." Farmers who intentionally grow GE crops are not required to plant non -GE buffer zones to prevent contamination unless this is stipulated in the Food & Water Watch • May 2012 13 l K. k r ►� farm's USDA permit .230 Yet even the use of buffer zones farm .217 U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has has proven ineffective because these areas are usually informally discussed creating an insurance fund to com- not large enough to prevent contamination .231 pensate organic growers that have faced economic harm due to transgenic contamination, but there is no telling The USDA's approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa in 2010 how committed he is to this policy idea .211 highlights the significant ramifications that contamination can have for organic producers. Alfalfa is the most im- Global Trade portant feed crop for dairy cows.232 However, GE alfalfa Although the United States has readily approved GE can easily cross - pollinate organic alfalfa crops and cause crops and products, many countries, including key organic farmers to lose their markets if testing reveals export markets, have not done so. Three - quarters of contamination .233 Conventional alfalfa farmers could face consumers in Japan, Italy, Germany and France are seed piracy suits from Monsanto even if their crops are skeptical of the safety of GE foods .239 Europe has been inadvertently pollinated by GE alfalfa. At least one farm- restrictive in its approval of biotech foods because of er contends that he was sued when his canola fields were uncertainty about the safety of the products for human contaminated with GE crops from neighboring farms.234 consumption. 240 Organic dairy farmers already face difficulty secur- Unlike the United States, the EU regulatory framework ing organic feed, and this challenge will only worsen specifically addresses the new properties and risks of if GE alfalfa begins to contaminate organic alfalfa .235 biotech crops and affirmatively evaluates the safety of Organic dairy farmers receive a price premium of $6.69 every GE crop.241 EU member states currently allow (44 percent) for their milk, but they also have produc- animal feed imports to contain up to 0.1 percent of un- tion costs of $5 to $7 more per hundred pounds of milk approved GE material .242 Additionally, the EU requires — 38 percent higher than conventional dairies .236 GE all foods, animal feeds and processed products with contamination could eliminate this premium that covers biotech content to bear GE labels .243 Six EU countries the higher organic production costs, making these farms currently ban GE cultivation altogether: Austria, France, unprofitable. Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg.2" Coun- Organic and non -GE growers bear the financial burden tries that ban GE foods typically impose strict rules to of GE contamination and are fighting to make biotech prevent unauthorized GE imports, which blocks or lim- companies liable for these consequences instead. In its U.S. exports of corn and soybeans that are primarily 2011, the Public Patent Foundation filed suit against GE crops. Japan does not grow GE crops and requires Monsanto on behalf of fanners and organic businesses, mandatory labeling of all GE foods .241 asking the court to determine whether Monsanto has the Despite the advanced grain - handling system in the legal authority to sue fanners for patent infringement if United States, GE grains have contaminated non -GE their GE traits contaminates a conventional or organic shipments and devastated U.S. exports. The Govern - 14 Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview ment Accountability Office (GAO) identified six known unauthorized releases of GE crops between 2000 and 2008.246 In 2000, Japan discovered GE StarLink corn, which was not approved for human food, in 70 percent of tested samples, even though StarLink represented under 1 percent of total U.S. corn cultivation.24' Af- ter the StarLink discovery, Europe banned all U.S. corn imports, costing U.S. farmers $300 million .211 In August 2006, unapproved GE Liberty Link rice was found to have contaminated conventional rice stocks .249 Japan halted all U.S. rice imports and Europe imposed heavy restrictions, costing the U.S. rice industry $1.2 billion .251 In 2007, Ireland impounded imported U.S. livestock feed that tested positive for GE, unapproved in the country.251 The United States is aggressively seeking to force its trading partners to overturn their GE prohibitions. The U.S. Trade Representative is lobbying trading partners to remove "unjustified import bans and restrictions to U.S. biotech products" and is even pressing countries to elim- inate GE labeling requirements .252 The diplomatic push by U.S. biotech interests extends to developing countries as well: in recent years, the U.S. State Department has pressed African nations to lift GE restrictions .253 Debunking Monsanto's Myths MONSANTO MYTH: Everything Monsanto does helps to make agriculture more productive and more profitable for farmers .254 Biotech companies such as Monsanto claim that their products strengthen farm productivity by improving yields and reducing costs.255 Yet the cost savings are largely illusory, and the yield gains have been limited. GE seeds and affiliated herbicides are typically more expensive than conventional products. For example, in 2009, Roundup Ready soybean seeds cost twice as much as non -GE seeds .156 Although biotech companies contend that farmers save on affiliated herbicides, the herbicide savings are less than the increased seed costs. Soybean farmers were able to save between $3 and $20 per acre on reduced herbicide costs,257 but GE soybean seed can cost $23 more per acre than conventional seed .211 In 2008, biotech corn and soybean seeds cost 60 and 52 percent more, respectively, than non - biotech varieties .251 And these higher costs do not generate higher yields. A 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists survey found that herbicide - tolerant corn and soybeans showed no yield increase over non -GE crops, and insect - resistant corn had only a slight advantage over conventional corn .260 A 2007 Kansas State University study found that non - GE soybeans had 10 percent higher yields than biotech soybeans .261 MONSANTO MYTH: Monsanto will help to create more nutritious, vitamin -rich foods for consumers. 112 Some scientists and development advocates have pro- moted biotechnology as a means to combat malnutri- tion. Scientists in Spain, for example, are attempting to engineer beta - carotene, folate and vitamin C into African corn.111 One well -known biofortification project, Golden Rice, adds beta - carotene to rice to help fight the vitamin A deficiency that causes blindness in a quarter million children annually.264 Yet engineering crops with beta - carotene may not even reduce vitamin A deficiency be- cause consumption alone does not ensure absorption. 165 Diets of malnourished people often lack the fats and oils crucial to absorbing vitamin A."' One of the few clini- cal trials on humans to examine Golden Rice's nutrition effects studied only five, healthy American volunteers, hardly representative of the target population.267 Development agencies, foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and biotech companies are investing in uncertain technological solutions to a problem that needs a more practical solution. Develop- ing new biotech crops is expensive, challenging, time consuming and regionally specific. To date, no bioforti- fied crops have been successfully commercialized .268 Vitamin A deficiency can instead be combated by con- suming conventionally grown orange - colored produce (sweet potatoes, carrots or mangos) and dark leafy green vegetables, supplemented with fats and oils.261 Provid- ing low- income rural families with the capacity to grow crops that provide balanced nutrition is a more practical approach than asking them to spend more money for seeds that may not have better yield or bear more nutri- tious food. MONSANTO MYTH: Monsanto will help farmers do more with less.270 Most GE crops are designed to be tolerant of spe- cially tailored herbicides, the most common of which is glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup. 171 Farmers can spray the herbicide on their fields, killing the weeds without harming their GE crops. Monsanto's Roundup Ready (herbicide - tolerant) corn, soybeans and cotton were planted on 150 million Food & Water Watch • May 2012 15 U.S. acres in 2009.272 Glyphosate use on Roundup Ready crops has grown steadily. Between 2001 and 2007, annual U.S. glyphosate use doubled to 185 million pounds.213 Ubiquitous Roundup application has spawned glypho- sate- resistant weeds, driving farmers to apply even more toxic herbicides, according to a 2010 National Research Council report.274 Farmers may resort to other herbi- cides to combat superweeds, including 2,4 -D (an Agent Orange component) and atrazine, which have been as- sociated with health risks including endocrine disruption and developmental abnormalities.275 Monsanto's solution to the emerging Roundup- resistant weeds has been to offer certain farmers "residual control" rebates of up to $20 per acre to apply additional herbi- cides after Roundup fails.27' Biotech companies also are developing seeds that are tolerant of multiple herbicides to cope with weed resistance. Dow has developed a GE corn variety that is tolerant of 2,4 -D and glufosinate27 — which could be dangerous to eat because a metabolite of 2,4 -D is known to cause skin sores, liver damage and sometimes death in animals.278 Monsanto, meanwhile, has developed a dicamba- tolerant soybean .219 MONSANTO MYTH: Monsanto squeezes more food from a raindrop."' Biotechnology proponents contend that high -tech solu- tions can reduce poverty and hunger in the developing world, but high - priced seeds and herbicides are ill suited to poor farmers in the developing world. The prestigious 2009 International Assessment of Agriculture Knowl- edge, Science and Technology for Development, a report written by more than 400 scientists and sponsored by the United Nations and World Bank, concluded that the high costs for seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and potential to undermine local food security makes bio- technology a poor choice for the developing world."' Monsanto uses cotton expansion in India as an example of improving food security.282 Indian farmers, wooed by Monsanto's marketing, have widely adopted GE cot- ton .2111 Many take out high- interest loans to afford the GE seeds, which can be twice as expensive as conven- tional seeds .281 Half of all pesticides applied in India are now used on cotton, and some farmers significantly over -apply the chemicals, making agricultural workers highly vulnerable to health problems."' More than half of Indian farmers lack access to irrigation, leaving them dependent on a punctual rainy season for a good crop.288 And when GE cotton crops fail, farmers are often un- able to repay the substantial debt. The steeper treadmill of debt with GE crops contributes to a rising number of farmer suicides in India — exceeding 17,000 in 2009.287 By contrast, a 2006 study published in Environmental Science and Technology found that low -input farms in developing countries had significant yield gains .21' And a 2007 University of Michigan study found that organic farming in the developing world had higher yield gains than conventional production and could feed the global population without increasing the amount of cultivated land .289 Despite the huge public relations campaigns, biotechnology is not solving our sustainability problems — it's making them worse and creating more. MONSANTO MYTH: Monsanto will help to mitigate climate change impacts by enabling farmers to adapt to the changing environment.29" Global warming, drought and catastrophic weather events will affect agriculture for decades to come .291 Biotech firms have promised high -yield and drought - resistant GE seeds, but by 2012 only one variety of drought- tolerant corn was approved .292 Crop research has yet to achieve the complex interactions between genes that are necessary for plants to endure environmen- tal stressors such as drought .293 Monsanto's approved drought - tolerant corn has overestimated yield benefits and there is insufficient evidence that it will outperform already available conventionally -bred alternatives.291 Traditional methods of breeding for stress tolerance produce crops that are more resilient to disruption and climate change than GE crops because these crops complement and thrive in nutrient -rich and biodiverse soil.295 The development of patented drought - tolerant crops allows biotechnology companies to control any viable seeds, potentially putting new seeds out of reach for poor farmers. MONSANTO MYTH: Monsanto makes the most efficient use of important resources in order to help farmers sustain our planet. 296 Expanding thirsty GE crops to more and developing countries will exacerbate water scarcity. The develop- ing world faces the most pronounced environmental degradation.29' Global agriculture uses nearly 2 quadril- lion gallons of rainwater and irrigation water annually — enough to flood the entire United States with two feet of water .2911 In the developing world, 85 percent of water withdrawals go toward agriculture .299 Already, parts of northern India pump 50 percent more water than the aquifers can refill .300 Even Nobel Laureate 16 Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview Norman Borlaug, the godfather of the Green Revolution, noted that the rapid rise of ill- planned irrigation schemes to accommodate new crops in Asia often led to waterlogged or salty fields, which reduced agricultural productivity.301 In the United States, irrigated corn acreage increased 23 percent and irrigated soybean acreage increased 32 percent between 2003 and 2008.302 The rising U.S. culti- vation of GE corn and soybeans further threatens the strained High Plains Aquifer, which runs beneath eight western states and provides nearly a third of all ground- water used for U.S. irrigation.303 Ninety -seven percent of High Plains water withdrawals go to agriculture, and these withdrawals now far exceed the recharge rate across much of the aquifer .304 The worldwide expansion of industrial -scale cultivation of water - intensive GE commodity crops on marginal land could magnify the pressure on already overstretched water resources. But these are the crops the biotech industry has to offer. Conclusion The U.S. experiment with GE food has been a failure. Impacts on the environment, food system and public health are not fully documented but are clearly not worth it. It is time for a new approach to biotechnology in the food system. Recommendations • Enact a moratorium on new U.S. approvals of genetically engineered plants and animals. Institute the precautionary principle for GE foods: Currently in the United States, most GE foods, donor organisms and host organisms are generally consid- ered safe for consumption and the environment until proven otherwise .305 The United States should enact policy that would more rigorously evaluate the poten- tially harmful effects of GE crops before their com- mercialization to ensure the safety of the public. • Develop new regulatory framework for biotech foods: Congress should establish regulations specifi- cally suited to GE foods. Improve agency coordination and increase post - market regulation: The EPA, USDA and FDA should create mechanisms for coordinating informa- tion and policy decisions to correct major regulatory deficiencies highlighted by the GAO.116 Additionally, the agencies should adequately monitor the post -mar- ket status of GE plants, animals and food. Require mandatory labeling of GE foods: An af- firmative label should be present on all GE foods, ingredients and animal products. Shift liability of GE contamination to seed patent holders: The financial responsibility of contamination should be on the patent holders of the GE technology, rather than on those who are economically harmed. The patent - holding biotechnology company should financial- ly compensate farmers whose crops are contaminated. Food & Water Watch • May 2012 17 Appendix: The U.S. Regulatory System for GE Food USDA The USDA is responsible for protecting crops and the environment from agricultural pests and weeds, includ- ing biotech and conventional crops. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) oversees the entire GE crop approval process, from field tests to commercial cultivation .317 Biotech companies must either enter a "notification" or "permit" process before GE field trials begin .308 Under the streamlined notification process, companies sub- mit data showing that the new GE plant will not harm agriculture, the environment or non - target organisms, and the USDA either approves or denies the field - testing application within one month .309 If the USDA denies the notification application, the company can re -apply under the more involved permit process .310 The notification process does not require either an Environmental As- sessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement Industry judges crop to be low -risk, prepares application for notification process USDA U M U SDA prepares USDA Environmental appli Assessment decide! or deny USDA reviews application, decides to grant or deny field trials "a' K Den (EIS) for GE crops that are neither new species nor new modifications."' Under the more rigorous permit application process, the USDA determines if the GE field trial poses signifi- cant environmental impact before issuing a permit .312 The USDA reviews scientific submissions for four months before granting or denying the field test permit request.313 If approved, the permit imposes restrictions on planting or transportation to prevent the GE plant material from escaping and posing risks to human health or the environment .314 The USDA approved the vast majority — 92 percent — of the applications for biotech field releases between 1987 and 2005.315 The apply- ing company is required to submit field -trial data to the USDA within six months of the test, demonstrating that the crop poses no harm to plants, non- target organisms or the environment.316 If the applicant violates the per- mit, the USDA can withdraw it.317 Industry judges crop to be higher risk, prepares application for permit process Industry petitions USDA for deregulated status :i of crop 18 Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview The USDA must complete an EA and /or EIS before ap- proving any new crop release (including biotech crops) that will affect the environment under the National En- vironmental Policy Act.318 The EA determines whether the GE crop will pose significant risks to human health or the environment if cultivated.319 If there is no sig- nificant risk, the USDA issues a "finding of no signifi- cant impact" (FONSI).320 But if the USDA finds more significant environmental implications, it must also perform a more thorough EIS.321 The USDA already relies on company - supplied data for many of its EAs, but a 2011 proposed pilot project threatens to further compromise the scientific rigor of the process. The two -year pilot project allows consul- tants that are funded by a cooperative services agree- ment between the biotech company and APHIS to per- form EAs, giving firms more influence over the safety designation of their own products. 322 If a field trial does not reveal significant risks, the com- pany can petition for nonregulated status, allowing the crop to be cultivated and sold commercially without fur- ther oversight .323 The USDA solicits public comments on the deregulation for 60 days .311 After reviewing Crop trait is new and unregistered or has a registered trait with an unregistered use Applies for experimental use permit and requests a temporary tolerance level Yes available data, the USDA makes a final decision within six months."' By 2008, the USDA had approved nearly 65 percent (73 of 113) of new GE crop deregulation petitions, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress .326 After GE crops are approved, the USDA performs almost no post - release oversight and has no program for monitoring approved GE plants .321 Instead, the USDA's primary post- market role with GE crops is through the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which helps fa- cilitate the export of transgenic crops by verifying their genetic identity.328 The AMS does not test for GE pres- ence in grains; it only works with interested shippers who participate in a voluntary verification program .329 EPA Pesticide residue standards: The EPA establishes al- lowable pesticide residue limits for food or feed crops and is required to meet all food and feed safety stan- dards enforced by the FDA .331 These tolerance levels, or safe levels of pesticide residues, are based both on im- mediate exposure risks and on the potential accumulated risk from consuming pesticide residues over time .311 Crop trait has already been registered Registers for general or restricted use permit, depending on relative toxicity Petitions Petitions AND for a for a proposed OR tolerance EPA EPA reviews EPA approves petition and the exemption establishes, if the chemical modifies, or poses a low risk rejects the to human tolerance health FDA Biotech Food & Water Watch • May 2012 19 The EPA pesticide tolerances appear generous. A 2010 National Institutes of Health cancer risk study reported criticism by environmental health professionals and advocates that agribusiness influence at EPA deterred the agency from establishing sufficiently strong pesti- cide limits.332 The EPA can even exempt pesticides from establishing tolerances if it finds a low probability of risk to public health .133 Theoretically, tolerance exemp- tions allow food to contain any amount of that pesticide residue .334 Field trials and final approval: The EPA considers any substance that "prevents, destroys, repels or mitigates a pest" a pesticide, including insect - resistant crops, which the agency terms "plant incorporated protectants.11335 All new pesticides must be registered with the EPA .311 Additionally, the EPA reviews and grants experimental use permits for field tests of unregistered pesticides or of registered pesticides tested for an unregistered use.337 Biotech companies must apply for an experimental use permit for insect - resistant GE crops if they are grown on more than 10 acres of land .338 Experimental use permits typically limit field trials to one year .33' Biotech compa- nies must submit all test data detailing a plant's toxicity and environmental risk to the EPA within six months of the field trial's completion .311 If the test demonstrates that the crop poses acceptable risks, the company can apply to register the new crop for commercial distribu- tion. The EPA may solicit expert scientific input as well as public comment on pending applications .341 Applications for permit registration must include man- agement plans that describe any limitation on cultivating the new insect - resistant GE crops .342 The management plans often require the designation of a non- insect- resistant seed buffer refuge along the border of the GE crop.343 This "refuge" is intended to give pests access to non - pesticidal plants so that a pest does not develop resistance to the pesticide .344 Biotech seed companies are responsible for ensuring that farmers follow these management plans. For example, in 2010, the EPA imposed a $2.5 million fine on Monsanto for selling GE 20 Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview seed between 2002 and 2007 without informing Texas farmers about EPA - mandated planting restrictions.345 FDA In most cases, the biotechnology industry self - regulates when it comes to the safety of genetically engineered foods. In 1992, the FDA issued guidance that gave the biotech industry responsibility for ensuring that new GE foods are safe and compliant with the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. 346 In 2001, the FDA proposed a rule requiring companies to submit data and informa- tion on new biotech - derived foods 120 days before com- mercialization.34' As of early 2012, the decade -old rule still had not been finalized and the industry data submis- sions remained voluntary. For whole foods (intact foods such as a whole apple or potato), safety responsibility is on the manufacturer and no FDA premarket approval is necessary.348 However, for substances added to food, such as biotech traits, the FDA classifies them as "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) or as food additives.349 The FDA grants GRAS determinations to GE- derived foods that are considered equivalent to the structure, function or composition of food that is currently considered safe .350 A com- pany may voluntarily submit a GRAS notification and scientific documentation to the FDA, but it is not a requirement .351 If the FDA determines that the GE food or ingredient is GRAS, it is not required to make a pre - market safety determination to approve the substance the way it would for a food additive .35' The FDA has awarded "generally recognized as safe" status to almost all —95 percent — of the GRAS applications submitted for food since 1998, according to the agency's GRAS Notice Inventory.353 By contrast, the FDA must pre- approve food additives before they can be sold. However, the FDA trusts bio- technology companies to certify that their new GE foods and traits are the same as foods currently on the market. The company may send information on the source of the genetic traits (i.e., which plants or organisms are being combined) and on the digestibility and nutritional and compositional profile of the food, as well as documen- tation that demonstrates the similarity of the new GE substance to a comparable conventional food .354 The FDA evaluates company- submitted data and does not do safety testing of its own .355 The agency can approve the GE substance, establish certain regulatory condi- tions (such as setting tolerance levels) or prohibit or discontinue the use of the additive entirely.356 The FDA evaluates the safety of all additives, but it has evaluated only one GE crop trait as an additive, the first commer- cialized GE crop, Flavr Savr tomatoes .351 Once a GE food product has been approved and is on the market (either by GRAS designation or as a food additive), the FDA is responsible for its safety. Until re- cently, the agency could ask companies to recall danger- ous food products only voluntarily; however, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 recently granted the FDA mandatory recall authority.358 Generally, the FDA has awaited outbreaks of foodborne illness before taking action, rather than vigorously monitoring and inspecting food manufacturers.359 This reactive approach has been ineffective in preventing foodborne illnesses. The FDA did pressure a company to recall one GE food product — StarLink corn, which was unapproved for human consumption — when it entered the food supply.360 The FDA's lack of post- market monitoring can expose the public to unapproved GE traits in the food supply. GE Animals The federal government regulates genetically engi- neered animals the same as veterinary medicines. In 2009, the FDA decided that the Food, Drug and Cosmet- ics Act definition of veterinary drugs as substances "in- tended to affect the structure of any function of the body of man or other animals" includes genetically altered animals."' This allows the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine to approve GE animals under a procedure that is unsuited for the complex interactions of transgenic animals with other livestock and the environment. This regulatory interpretation (known as Guidance 187) was released in the same year as some companies publicly announced their intentions to bring transgenic food animals to market .362 The FDA must approve a New Animal Drug application before it can be commercialized. The application must demonstrate the GE animals' safety and efficacy as well as contain methods for detecting residues in food -pro- ducing animals, a description of manufacturing practic- es, and any proposed tolerance levels .363 Veterinary drug manufacturers that are introducing their products for investigational use are exempt from new animal drug approval requirements .314 A transgenic investigational animal or animal product requires an investigational food -use authorization from both the FDA and the USDA in order to enter the food supply.365 The biotech company must also prepare an Food & Water Watch • May 2012 21 Environmental Assessment for investigational GE ani- mals.3s6 In 2009, the FDA used the investigational use process to approve the first commercial biologic from a GE animal, the anticlotting agent ATryn produced with transgenic goat milk .367 Many of the FDA's processes involving drugs are exempt from disclosure, making it difficult for the public to participate fully in regulatory decisions concerning GE animals. 368 Once the FDA approves the production of experimental GE animals, the USDA must consider if and under what restrictions these animals can be slaughtered, processed and enter the food supply.369 As of the beginning of 2012, GE salmon and Enviropig had been considered for commercial approval, but no transgenic animals had been approved to enter the food supply. Industry submits a New Animal Drug Application (NADA) to the FDA demonstrating safety and efficacy of GE animal It seems unlikely that the USDA will keep meat prod- ucts derived from GE livestock out of the food supply, based on the FDA's tacit approval of food from cloned livestock. In 2008, the FDA determined that there are no risks associated with eating meat from cloned livestock or meat from the offspring of clones .370 The USDA then asked producers of cloned animals, several hundred of which were believed to be on the market at the time, to abide by a voluntary moratorium on selling meat or milk from cloned animals.371 The moratorium was supposed to allow time for a proposed USDA study on the poten- tial economic impacts of cloned animals on U.S. agri- culture and international trade .372 As of early 2012, that study had not been completed, and there are no known FDA efforts to ensure that owners of cloned animals comply with the moratorium on sales of meat or milk. Industry submits a notice of claimed investigational exemption for a New Animal Drug to the FDA 22 Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview ENDNOTES 1 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. "Review of Public Opinion Re- search! November 16, 2006 at 9 -10. 2 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. "Guide to U.S. Regulation of Geneti- cally Modified Food and Agricultural Biotechnology Products" September 2001 at i; Vogt, Donna and Mickey Parish. Congressional Research Service. "Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues." (RL 30198). January 2001 at 2. 3 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service (ERS). 'Adoption of Bioengineered Crops." Available at http: / /www.ers.usda.gov/ Data /BiotechCrops/ and on file. Accessed September 9, 2009. 4 University of Guelph. "EnviropigTM" Available at http: / /www.uoguelph.ca/ enviropig/ and on file. Accessed March 3, 2011; AquaBounty Technologies. "Press Room." Available at http: / /www.aquabounty.com /PressRoom /. Ac- cessed on February 8, 2011. 5 Fernandez - Cornejo, Jorge and Margriet Caswell. USDA ERS. "The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States." EIB No. 11. April 2006 at 1. 6 Shoemaker, Robbin (Ed). USDA ERS. "Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotech- nology." AIB -762. 2001 at 9. 7 To date, the United States has only approved herbicide tolerant and insect tol- erant canola, corn, cotton and soybeans as well as virus resistant squash and papayas. Fernandez - Cornejo, Jorge. "Rapid growth in adoption of genetically engineered crops continues in U.S" Amber Waves. Vol. 6, Iss. 4. September 2008 at 6; International Service for the Acquisition of Agri- Biotech Applica- tions (ISAAA). "Biotech crops poised for second wave of growth" [Press release]. February 11, 2009. 8 Fernandez - Cornejo, Jorge. USDA, Economic Research Service. "The Seed Industry in U.S. Agriculture." AIB -786. January 2004 at 2. 9 Ibid. 10 National Research Council. "Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Ap- proaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects" 2004 at 19, Figure 1 -1. 11 57 Fed. Reg. 22984, (May 29, 1992). 12 Lemaux, Peggy G. "Genetically engineered plants and foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part 1). Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. Iss. 59. 2008 at 780. 13 National Research Council (2004) at 117 -118. 14 James, Clive. ISAAA. "ISAAA Brief 42 -2010: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech /GM Crops: 2010." 2011 at 7 of Executive Summary; James, Clive. ISAAA. "ISAAA Brief 43 -2011: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech /GM Crops: 2011." 2012 at Table 1 of Executive Summary. 15 James (2012) at Table 1 of Executive Summary. 16 USDA. Office of Inspector General, Southwest Region. "USDA's Role in the Export of Genetically Engineered Agricultural Commodities" Audit Report No 50601- 14 -Te. February 2009 at 7; USDA ERS. "Adoption of Genetically Engi- neered Crops in the U.S." From Corn and Soybean spreadsheets. Accessed July 6, 2011. Available at http: / /www.ers.usda.gov /Data /BiotechCrops /. Updated July 1, 2011. 17 Cowan, Tadlock. Congressional Research Service. "Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture: Status and Current Issues." (RL33334). September 2010 at 3. 18 ViaGen. "Bovine." Available at http: / /www.viagen.com /benefits /bovine /. Accessed on January 31, 2011; Weiss, Rick. "FDA Says Clones Are Safe to Eat." Washington Post. December 29, 2006. 19 Vogt and Parish (2001) at 4. 20 Martin, Andrew and Andrew Pollack. "F.D.A. Says Food From Cloned Animals Is Safe." New York Times. December 29, 2006; Doering, Christopher. "Clones' offspring may be in food supply: FDA." Reuters. September 2, 2008. 21 Cowan (September 10, 2010) at 3. 22 USDA ERS. "Agricultural Biotechnology Intellectual Property: Utility patents held by U.S. companies (excluding subsidiaries), by technology class and sub- class." Available online at http: / /www.ers.usda.gov /Data /AgBiotechIP /Data/ Table 12_ Top1000SNonUSCompSummarySubs .htm. Updated May 27, 2004. Accessed April 26, 2011. 23 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). "Consumer Q &A" Accessed on January 4, 2011. Available at http:// www. fda .gov /Anima[Veterinary /Develop- mentApproval Process /GeneticEngineering /Geneti cal IyEngineeredAni mall/ ucm113672.htm. 24 7 CFR 205.105, § §205.2 see "excluded methods." 25 Fernandez - Cornejo and Caswell (2006) at 1. 26 Shoemaker (2001) at 10. 27 USDA. "Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS as of July 18, 2011." Available at http: / /www.aphis.usda.gov /biotechnology/ not_reg.html. Accessed on July 26, 2011.; USDA. Public Data of Permit Infor- mation. April 28, 2011. On file and available at http: / /www.aphis.usda.gov/ biotech nology /status. shtm I. 28 Ibid. 29 Fernand ez - Cornejo (2004) at 4. 30 Neuman, Williams and Andrew Pollack. "Farmers Cope with Roundup- Resis- tant Weeds." New York Times. May 3, 2010. 31 Shoemaker (2001) at 10. 32 Fern andez - Cornejo (2004) at 4. 33 Wenzel, Wayne. "Refuge Angst" Farm Journal. October 5, 2007. 34 "Insect shows resistance to Bt crops." Appropriate Technology. Vol. 35, No. 1. March 2008 at 49. 35 Ye, Xudong et al. "Engineering the Provitamin A (0-carotene) Biosynthetic Pathway into (Carotenoid -Free) Rice Endosperm." Science, vol. 287. Jan 14, 2000 at 303. 36 World Health Organization (WHO). "Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin." Report of a Joint FAO /WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. 2000 at 8. 37 75 Fed. Reg. 32356. (Jun. 8, 2010). 38 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). "Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests as Adequate, but FDA's Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced." Report to Congressional Requesters. (GAO -02 -566). May 2002 at 6. 39 76 Fed. Reg. 8708. (February 15, 2011). 40 73 Fed. Reg. 8847 -8848. (Feb. 15, 2008); SemBioSys. "Our Solution for Diabe- tes" 2010. Available at http: / /www.sembiosys.com /Products /Diabetes.aspx. Accessed on December 17, 2010. 41 76 Fed. Reg. 5780 -5781. (Feb. 2, 2011). 42 Geertson Seed Farms et al., v. USDA. Memorandum and Order. United States District Court for the Northern District of California. No. C 06 -01075 CRB. February 13, 2007 at 1, 3. 43 USDA. "Glyphosate- Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and J163: Request for Non - regulated Status." Record of Decision. January 27, 2011 at 9. 44 Geertson Seed Farms et al., v. USDA. Memorandum and Order. United States District Court for the Northern District of California. No. C 06 -01075 CRB. February 13, 2007 at 1,3. 45 USDA. "Glyphosate- Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and J163: Request for Non - regulated Status." Final Environmental Impact Statement. December 2010 at S- 39 -41. 46 76 Fed. Reg. 5780 -5781, (Feb. 2, 2011); USDA. "Glyphosate- Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and J163: Request for Nonregulated Status." 2011 at 5, 7 -8. 47 76 Fed. Reg. 8708. (February 15, 2011). 48 USDA. "Syngenta Seeds, Inc. Alpha - Amylase Maize Event 3272, Draft Envi- ronmental Assessment" November 6, 2008 at 34 -35; USDA. "National Envi- ronmental Policy Act Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact, Syngenta Seeds Inc., Alpha- Amylase Maize, Event 3272." 2011 at 10. 49 USDA. "Syngenta Seeds, Inc. Alpha - Amylase Maize Event 3272, Draft Environ- mental Assessment" 2008 at 21. 50 Ibid. at 32 -33. 51 Fernandez- Cornejo and Caswell (2006) at Table 2; Manshardt, Richard M. University of Hawaii, College of Tropic Agriculture & Human Resources. "'UH Rainbow' Papaya: A High - Quality Hybrid with Genetically Engineered Disease Resistance." July 1999 at 1. 52 Fernandez - Cornejo and Caswell (2006) at Table 2; Manshardt (1999) at 1; USDA -NASS. "Hawaii Papayas." October 27, 2009 at 6. Available at http: // www. nass.usda.gov /Statistics_by_State /Hawaii /Publications /Fruits_and_ Nuts /papaya.pdf 53 74 Fed. Reg. 45163. (September 1, 2009). 54 Monsanto. "The NewLeaf Potato." 2010. Available at http: / /www.monsanto. com /newsviews /Pages /new - leaf- potato.aspx. Accessed on January 3, 2011. 55 Ibid. 56 BASF. "European Commission approves Amflora starch potato." [Press Release]. March 2, 2010. Available at http: / /www.basf.com /group/ pressrelease /P -10 -179 57 Voosen, Paul. "E.U. Approves First Modified Crop for Planting in 12 Years." New York Times. March 2, 2010. Food & Water Watch • May 2012 23 58 Ye et al. (2000) at 303; Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. "Frequently Asked 87 Dohoo et al. (1998) at section 7; Groves, Martha. "Canada Rejects Hormone Questions." 2010. that Boosts Cows' Milk Output." Los Angeles Times. January 15, 1999; Euro- 59 Brown, Paul. "GM rice promoters 'have gone too far "' Guardian. February 10, pean Commission (1999). 2001. 88 USDA APHIS. "Dairy 2007: Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Man - 60 Schultz, Bruce. LSU AgCenter. "'Golden Rice' Could Help Malnutrition." News agement Practices in the United States, 2007." October 2007 at 79. Release. October 13, 2004. 89 Ibid. 61 International Rice Research Institute. Golden Rice Project Brief. April 2011. 90 University of Guelph. "Enviropig- Commercialization and Regulatory." Available 62 73 Fed. Reg. 8847 -8848. (Feb. 15, 2008). at http : / /www.uoguelph.ca /enviropig /# and on file. Acccessed November 29, 63 USDA. "Environmental Assessment: In response to permit application (06- 2010. 363- 103r), received from SemBioSys, Inc. for a field -test to produce human 91 Ibid. proinsulin (line 4438 -5A) in genetically engineered safflower (Carthamus 92 Jha, Alok. "GM chickens created that could prevent the spread of bird flu." The tinctorius) seeds." 2007 at 10 -11. Guardian (United Kingdom). January 13, 2011. 64 Cummings, John L. et al. "Dispersal of viable row -crop seeds of commercial 93 Richt, Jurgen A. et al. "Production of cattle lacking prion protein." Nature agriculture by farmland birds: implication for genetically modified crops." Biotechnology. Vol. 25, January, 2007 at 132; USDA FSIS. "Bovine Spongiform Environ. Biosafety Res., Vol. 7, 2008 at 248. Encephalopathy - Mad Cow Disease." March 2005. Available at http://www. 65 SemBioSys (2010); USDA- APHIS - Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Public fsis.usda.gov /factsheets/ bovine_ spongiform _encephalopathy_mad_cow_dis - Permit Data. April 28, 2011. ease /index.asp and on file. Accessed August 15, 2010. 66 70 Fed. Reg. 13007 - 13008. (March 17, 2005). 94 Connor, Steve. "GM mosquitoes deployed to control Asia's dengue fever." The Independent (London). January 27, 2011. 67 Center for Food Safety v. Thomas J. Vilsock. No. C 10 -04038 JSW 15 (N.D. Cal 2010). 95 USDA Office of Inspector General. "Controls over Genetically Engineered Animals and Insect Research." Audit Report. May 2011 at 3. 68 USDA. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). "Questions and Answers: Environmental Impact Statement on GE Sugar Beets." Factsheet. 96 Ibid. at 14. June 2010. 97 Ibid. 69 USDA APHIS (2010); USDA. "APHIS Determination Decision regarding the Peti- 98 Borgatti, Rachel and Eugene Buck. Congressional Research Service. "Geneti- tion for Partial Non - Regulated status for Monsanto /KWS glyphosate tolerant cally Engineered Fish and Seafood." 2004 at 2. (Roundup Ready) 117 -1 sugar beets (a "Partial, i.e., Conditional, Deregula- 99 Ibid. tion)." February 4, 2011 at 3 -4. 100 Pollack, Andrew. "Genetically Altered Salmon Get Closer to the Table." New 70 Gillam, Carey. "Monsanto launching its first biotech sweet corn" Reuters. York Times. June 25, 2010. August 4, 2011. 101 National Research Council (2004) at 117 -119. 71 Monsanto. "Safety Summaries for Monsanto's Breeding Stack Products." 102 "AquaBounty Technologies Admission to Trading on AIM." March 15, 2006. Accessed August 16, 2011 at http: / /www.monsanto.com /products /Pages/ stacked - product - safety- summaries.aspx; USDA APHIS. "USDA /APHIS Decision Pages 18 and 124. on Monsanto Petition 04- 125 -01P Seeking a Determination of Nonregulated 103 AquaBounty. "Environmental Assessment" 2010 at 72. Status for Bt cry3Bb1 Insect Resistant Corn Line MON 88017" December 14, 104 Muir, William and Richard Howard. "Possible Ecological Risks of Transgenic Or- 2005 at Appendix F; USDA APHIS. "Determination of nonregulated status for ganism Release When Transgenes Affect Mating Success: Sexual Selection and corn event MON 89034." July 15, 2008 at 1. the Trojan Gene Hypothesis." Ecology. November 1999; Muir, Bill, " Transgenic 72 USDA. "Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact" fish could threaten wild populations." Purdue News. April 2000. Accessed Permit Number 91- 079 -01. 1991. Accessed on February 8, 2011. Available at October 18, 2010, available at http: // news .uns.purdue.edu /html4ever /0002. http: / /www,isb.vt.edu /documents /ea /9107901r.ea.pdf Muictrojan.html 73 USDA. Biotechnology Regulatory Services. "All Release Permit Applications." 105 Tacon, Albert et al. "Use of Fishery Resources as Feed Inputs to Aquaculture Accessed on February 8, 2011. Available at http: / /www.aphis.usda.gov /brs/ Development: Trends and Policy Implications." FAO Fisheries Circular No. status /relday.html; USDA. "Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or 1018, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2006 at Pending by APHIS as of July 18, 2011." V. 74 Shoemaker (2001) at 21. 106 Fernandez - Cornejo (2004) at 19. 75 Ibid. 107 Ibid.; 35 U.S.C. 101 76 Waters Bass, Gwenell L. Congressional Research Service. "Status of Genetically 108 Fernandez - Cornejo (2004) at 19. Engineered Wheat in North America." Report. November 4, 2004 at 3; Gillis, 109 7 U.S.C. 2483; USDA. "Plant Variety Protection Act and Regulations and Rules Justin. "Monsanto Pulls Plan to Commercialize Gene - Altered Wheat" Wash- of Practice." 2005 at 14, note 30. ington Post. May 11, 2004. 110 7 U.S.C. 2543; USDA. "Plant Variety Protection Act and Regulations and Rules 77 Wisner, Robert. Iowa State University. "Round -Up® Ready Spring Wheat: of Practice" 2005 at 19. It's potential short -term impacts on U.S. wheat export markets and prices" 111 447 U.S. 303. (1980). October 2004 at Executive Summary. 112 Costantini, Franklin and Elizabeth Lacy. "Introduction of a rabbit B- globin gene 78 Wisner, Robert. Iowa State University. "Round -Up® Ready Spring Wheat: It's into the mouse germ line." Nature. 294, Vol. S. November 1981 at 91 -93. potential short-term impacts on U.S. wheat export markets and prices." Octo- ber 2004 at 1; Monsanto. "Frequently Asked Questions about Monsanto and 113 Fernandez - Cornejo (2004) at 19. Wheat" Available at http: / /www.monsanto.com /products /Pages /wheat -faq. 114 Hammer, Robert et al. "Production of transgenic rabbits, sheep and pigs by aspx. Accessed on February 7, 2011. microinjection." Nature Vol. 315. June, 1985 at 680. 79 Vogt and Parish (2001) at 1; University of Guelph. "Enviropig." 115 51 Fed. Reg. 23302. (June 26, 1986). 80 Vogt and Parish (2001) at 5. 116 Shoemaker (2001) at 7. 81 Ibid. 117 USDA APHIS. "Biotechnology Regulatory History." Available at http://www. 82 "Monsanto's BST barely beat tomato to market" Chicago Sun- Times. March aphis. usda. gov / biotechnology /about_history.shtml. Accessed on January 4, 20, 1994 at 28. 2010. 83 Dohoo, Ian, DesCouteaux, Luc, Leslie, Ken, Shewfelt, Wayne, et al. Health 118 Shoemaker (2001) at 21; USDA APHIS. "Biotechnology Regulatory History." Canada, Drug and Health Products. "Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medi- 119 Fern andez-Cornejo (2004) at 19; Shoemaker (2001) at 9. cal Association expert panel on rBST." November 1998. 120 USDA APHIS. "Biotechnology Regulatory History." 84 Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. "Putting Meat on the 121 Gurian- Sherman, Doug. Union of Concerned Scientists. "Failure to Yield." April Table." 2008. 2009 at 15. 85 European Commission. Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protec- 122 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Draft White Paper. Concerning di- tion. "Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin." etary exposure to CRY9C protein produced by Starlink0 corn and the potential In Food Safety —From Farm to Fork. March 1999. risks associated with such exposure. October 16, 2007. 86 Yu, H., and T. Rohan. Review: Role of the Insulin -like Growth Factor Family in Cancer Development and Progression. Journal of the National Canter Institute 92:1472 -89. 2000. 24 Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview 123 FDA. Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods 157 European Parliament and the Council (2001) at L 106/13, Article 23. Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Draft Guidance. 158 Pollack, Andrew. "Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are 2001. Available at http: / /www.fda.gov/ Food /GuidanceComplianceRegulato- Thwarting Research." New York Times. February 20, 2009. rylnformation /G uida n ceDocu m ents /Food La bel ingN utrition /u cm059098. htm. 159 de Vendomois, Joel Spiroux et al. ';4 Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Accessed December 15, 2010. Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health." International Journal of Biological Sci- 124 FDA. Center for Veterinary Medicine. "Guidance for Industry 187: Regulation ences, vol. 5, iss. 7. 2009 at 716 -718. of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable Recombinant DNA 160 Malatesta, Manuela et al. "Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immuno- Constructs." Final Guidance. January 15, 2009 at 5. cytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically 125 USDA. Public Data of Permit Information. April 28, 2011; USDA. "Petitions for Modified Soybean." Cell Structure and Function. Volume 27, 2002 at Abstract. Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS as of July 18, 2011." 161 Seralini, Gilles -Eric, Dominique Cellier and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois. "New 126 USDA. Public Data of Permit Information. Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals 127 Food & Water Watch analysis of Center for Responsive Politics data, available Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity." Archives of Environmental Contamination and at www.opensecrets.org. See Food & Water Watch. "Food and Agriculture Toxicology. Vol. 52. 2007 at 596 and 601. Biotechnology Industry Spends More Than Half a Billion Dollars to Influence 162 Cisterna, B. et al. "Can a genetically- modified organism - containing diet influ- Congress." Issue Brief. November 2010 at 1. ence embryo development? A preliminary study on pre - implantation mouse 128 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 2. embryos." European Journal of Histochemistry. 2008 at 263. 129 USDA. Biotechnology Regulatory Services. "APHIS Biotechnology: Permitting 163 Agodi, Antonella et al. "Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in Progress Into Tomorrow." Factsheet. February 2006 at 1. milk from the Italian market" International Journal of Hygiene and Environ- 130 7 U.S.C. §7701(3) (2000); USDA Biotechnology Regulatory Services (2006) at mental Health. January 10, 2006 at Abstract. 1 -4. 164 Huber, Don M. "Ag Chemical and Crop Nutrient Interactions- Current Update." 131 7 CFR §372.5 (b)(3) (1995). Proceedings Fluid Fertilizer Forum (Scottsdale, Ariz.). Vol. 27. Fluid Fertilizer Foundation. February 14 -16 2010 at 3. 132 Fernandez - Cornejo and Caswell (2006) at 3. 165 Ibid. at 8; Johal, G.S. and D.M. Huber. "Glyphosate effects on diseases of 133 7 CFR §340.6(a) (2008); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at plants." European Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 31. 2009 at 144.; Kremer, Robert 11 -12. J. and Nathan E. Means. "Glyphosate and glyphosate- resistant crop interac- 134 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). "Genetically Engineered Crops: lions with rhizosphere microorganisms." European Journal of Agronomy, Vol. Agencies Are Proposing Changes to Improve Oversight, but Could Take Ad- 31. 2009 at 153. ditional Steps to Enhance Coordination and Monitoring." Report to the Com- 166 Paganelli, Alejandra et al. "Glyphosate -Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate. (GAO- 09 -60). Nov. Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Reinoic Acid Signaling." Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2008 at 11. Vol. 23, August 2010 at 1586. 135 7 U.S.C. 136(u)(1); 40 CFR 174.3. See "plant- incorporated protectant." 167 Benachour, Nora and Gilles -Eric Seralini. "Glyphosate Formulations Induce 136 7 U.S.C. 136(u)(1). Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells." 137 GAO (2008) at 11. Chem. Res. Toxicol. Vol 22. 2009 at 97. 138 7. U.S.C. prec. 121; EPA. "FIFRA Amendments of 1988." [Press Release]. Octo- 168 Aspelin, Arnold L. EPA. "Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 1994 and 1995 ber 26, 1988. Estimates." August 1997 at Table 8; Grube et al. EPA. "Pesticides Industry Sales 139 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). and Usage: 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates." February 2011 at Table 3.6 140 40 CFR 152.1(a). 169 GAO (2002) at 30. 141 40 CFR 172.3(a), 40 CFR 180, 40 CFR 152.1(a); Pew Initiative on Food and 170 USDA ERS. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S." Updated Biotechnology (2001) at 13 -14. July 1, 2011. 142 21 U.S.C. 301 (2002); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at I5. 171 Young, Emma. "GM pea causes allergic damage in mice." New Scientist. November 21, 2005. 143 GAO (2002) at 9. 172 EPA (2007) at 7. 144 21 CFR 170.35(c)(1)(iii); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 173 Ibid. at 9. 20 -21. 145 Pew Initiative (2001) at 21, note 15.; FDA. GRAS Notice Inventory. Accessed 174 Ibid. at 10. April 28, 2011. Data on file and available at http: / /www.accessdata.fda.gov/ 175 Ibid. at 1. scripts/ fcn/ fcnNavigation.cfm ?rpt= grasListing 176 FDA (2001). 146 EPA (2007) at 6. 177 Fernandez - Cornejo and Caswell (2006) at 1. 147 FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (2009) at 4 -5. 178 CBS News Poll Database. "CBS News /New York Times Poll, Apr. 2008." 148 Biotechnology Industry Organization. "Genetically Engineered Animals Fre- Available online at http: / /www.cbsnews.com /stories /2007 /10/12 /politics/ quently Asked Questions." October 22, 2009 at 2 -4. main 3362530.shtml ?tag= cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea. Updated April 2008. Ac- 149 European Parliament and the Council. "Directive 2001 /18 /EC of the European cessed May 6, 2011. Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release 179 Consumers Union. "FDA will not require labeling of meat or fish from geneti- into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council cally engineered animals" [Press Release]. January 15, 2009. Directive 90 /220 /EEC." Official Journal of the European Communities. March 180 Ibid.; FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine. Guidance for Industry. "Regulation 12, 2001 at 7,25. of genetically engineered animals containing heritable recombinant DNA 150 Europa- European Commission "EU Register of Genetically Modified Food and constructs." January 15, 2009 at 23. Feed." 2011. See http: / /ec.europa.eu/ food /dyna /gm_register /index_en.cfm 181 "Interim guidance on the Voluntary Labeling of Milk and Milk Products From 151 Ibid. Cows That Have Not Been Treated With Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin." 152 European Commission. "Agriculture in the EU: Statistical and Economic Infor- 59 Fed. Reg. 6279. (February 10, 1994). mation Report 2010." March 2011 at 43, 381; James (2010) at 3, 7. 182 Ibid. 153 European Parliament and Council. "Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the 183 Ibid. European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically 184 Rosenfeld, Steven P. "Dairy cooperative says it will fight Monsanto suit" As- modified food and feed." Official Journal of the European Union. October 18, sociated Press. February 21, 1994. 2003 at Article 12.2. 185 FDA. "FDA Warns Milk Producers to remove 'hormone free' claims from the 154 Pew Global Attitudes Project. "Broad opposition to genetically modified labeling of dairy products." [Press release]. September 12, 2003. foods." June 20, 2003. 186 Hedges, Stephen J. "Monsanto having a cow in milk label dispute" Chicago 155 Special Eurobarometer 341 /Wave 73.1. "Biotechnology." Report. October Tribune. April 15, 2007 at C1. 2010 at 18. 187 McCarthy, Colman. "Monsanto's cash cow trips milk alarm." Washington Post. 156 Europa- European Commission. "Rules on GMOs in the EU- Ban on GMOs March 1, 1994 at D20. Cultivation." Available at httP:Hec.europa.eu /food /food /biotechnology/ 188 Gilgoff, Henry. "Dairy labels go sour; it's hard to milk antihormone sentiment." gmo_ban_cultivation_en.htm; Ivanova, Irina. "Bulgaria parliament bans GMO New York Newsday. March 24, 1994 at A49. crops to soothe fears" Reuters. March 18, 2010; Kovalyova, Svetlana. "Italy regions push minister for official GM ban." Reuters. September 30, 2010. Food & Water Watch • May 2012 25 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 26 Wu, Olivia. "Dairy companies sue Illinois to allow change in labels." Chicago Sun - Times. May 8, 1996 at A14; Berselli, Beth. "Settlement reached in hor- mone labeling case." Washington Post. August 15, 1997 at A22. Ibid. "Ben and Jerry's, state in accord on growth hormone statement" Chicago Tribune. August 14, 1997 at BU4; Berselli (1997). Berselli (1997). Melcer, Rachel. "Lawmakers consider bill to restrict labels on milk containers." St. Louis Post- Dispatch. April 17, 2008 at Bl. "Utah proposes rules on milk labels." Associated Press State & Local Wire. February 28, 2008. Lewis, Zachary. "State eases label rule for hormone in cows." Cleveland Plain Dealer. March 27, 2008 at Cl. Melcer (2008); Avril, Tom. "Hormone labeling of Pa. milk to end" Philadelphia Inquirer. December 23, 2007 at A01. Malloy, Daniel. "State reverses on dairy labeling, allows hormone claims" Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. January 18, 2008 at Al. Melcer (2008). Actions on Missiouri SB 1279 (2008). Available at: http: / /www.senate. mo.gov /08info /BTS_ Web / Actions .aspx ?SessionType= R &BillID= 154026. Ac- cessed April 1, 2009. International Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Boggs, 622 F.3d 628, 632 (2010); Clapp, Stephen. "State of Ohio abandons regulations against'rBST -free' claims." Food Chemical News. November 2, 2011. National Research Council. "The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States." April 13, 2010 at S -3 and S -13. (Pre - Publication Copy). Clapp, Stephen. "Canadian Researchers find suspected glyphosate- resistant weed." Food Chemical News. May 18, 2009. Clapp. May 18, 2009; Wilson, Mike. "Multiple- resistance weeds coming to a field near you ?" Western Farmer Stockman. February 28, 2008. Clapp, Stephen. "Herbicide diversity called critical to keep Roundup effective. Food Chemical News. July 20, 2009. Syngenta. "Leading the fight against glyphosate resistance" 2009. On file and available at http: / /www.syngentaebiz. com /DotNetEBiz /lmageLibrary/WR %20 3 %20 Le ad i n g %20th a %20Fight. p df Clapp, Stephen. "Study says farmers relying on Roundup may weaken ben- efits." Food Chemical News. April 20, 2009. Ibid. Howard, Phil. Michigan State University. "Seed Industry Structure, 1996- 2008." 2009. Available online at https:// www .msu.edu /–howardp /seedindus- try.html and on file. Accessed September 8, 2009; Fernandez - Cornejo (2004) at 25 -26 and Table 18. Howard Phil. Michigan State University. "Seed Industry Structure, Cross - Licensing Agreements for Genetically Engineered Traits." 2009; Fernandez - Cornejo (2004) at 40. Food and Water Watch Analysis of data from USDA National Agricultural Sta- tistics Service (NASS). 2000 -2008 Price Paid for Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans. Data available at http: / /www.nass.usda.gov /. Organization for Competitive Markets. "Monsanto Transgenic Trait Dominance in US Market, 1996 - 2007." June 2008; Fernandez - Cornejo (2004) at 34. Hendrickson, Mary and Bill Heffernan. Department of Rural Sociology, Uni- versity of Missouri - Columbia. "Concentration of Agricultural Markets." April 2007. Shoemaker (2001) at v. Hari, Neil E. Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor of Agriculture and Professor of Economics, Iowa State University. "The Structural Transformation of Agriculture." Presentation at 2003 Master Farmer Ceremony, West Des Moines, Iowa. March 20, 2003 at 10. Fernandez - Cornejo (2004) at 19. Ross, Douglas. 'Antitrust enforcement and agriculture." Address before the American Farm Bureau Policy Development Meeting. Kansas City, Missouri. August 20, 2002 at 9. Monsanto Inc. "Monsanto Challenges Unauthorized Use of Roundup Ready® Technology by DuPont" [Press Release]. May 5, 2009; Monsanto Inc. "Mon- santo — Why we're suing DuPont." Available at http: / /www.monsanto.com/ dupontlawsuit/ and on file. Accessed December 8, 2009. Monsanto, Inc. Securities and Exchange Commission. 10K Filing. October 27, 2009 at 6; Schimmelpfennig, David E. et al, "The impact of seed industry con- centration on innovation: A study of U.S. biotech market leaders." Agricultural Economics. Vol. 30, Iss. 2. March 2004 at 159. 219 Whoriskey, Peter. "Monsanto's dominance draws antitrust inquiry." Washing- ton Post. November 29, 2009. 220 Fernandez - Cornejo (2004 at 21. 221 Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG). "Farmers' Guide to GMOs." February 2009 at 9. 222 Pollack, Andrew. "As Patent Ends, a Seed's Use Will Survive." New York Times. December 18, 2009; Cowan, Tadlock. Congressional Research Service (CRS). "Agricultural Biotechnology: Background and Recent Issues." (RL32809). September 2, 2010 at 27; Monsanto. "Technology Use Guide: 2011." 2011 at 2. Available at http: / /www.monsanto. com/ SiteCollectionDocuments/Technol- ogy- Use- Guide.pdf 223 Barlett, Donald L. and James B. Steele. "Monsanto's harvest of fear." Vanity Fair. May 2008. 224 Center for Food Safety. "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers." November 2007 at 1 -2. 225 7 CFR 205.2. 226 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). "Gone to Seed: Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply." 2004 at 28. 227 Ibid. at 24. 228 FLAG at page 29 -31; Ellstrand, Norman. "Going to Great Lengths to Prevent the Escape of Genes That Produce Specialty Chemicals." Plant Physiology. August 2003. 229 Monsanto. "Technology Use Guide: 2011" at 7. 230 7 CFR 205.2; Conner, David S. "Pesticides and Genetic Drift: Alternative Prop- erty Rights Scenario." Choices. First Quarter 2003 at 5. 231 Conner (2003) at 5. 232 Mallory- Smith, Carol and Maria Zapiola. "Gene flow from glyphosate- resistant crops." Pest Management Science. Vol. 64, 2008 at 434. 233 Ibid. 234 FLAG at page 29 -31; Ellstrand (2003). 235 Dimitri, Carolyn and Lydia Oberholtzer. USDA ERS. "Marketing U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends From Farms to Consumers." Bulletin Number 58, Sep- tember 2009 at Abstract. 236 McBride, William D. and Catherine Greene. USDA ERS. "A Comparison of Conventional and Organic Milk Production Systems in the U.S." Prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting (Portland, Ore.). July 29- August 1, 2007 at 13, 17; Food & Water Watch analysis of average consumer price data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index — Average Price Data. Farmgate prices from USDA NASS Agricultural Prices Annual Summary. 237 Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto Co. United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Complaint. March 29, 2011 at 2, 5. 238 Hagstrom, Jerry. "Vilsack idea: Insurance to compensate organic producers for GMO seed drift." The Hagstrom Report. April 7, 2011. 239 Pew Global Attitudes Project. "Views of a Changing World." June 2003 at 90- 91. 240 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. October 18, 2003 at L 268/9. 241 Shoemaker (2001) at 32. 242 Henshaw, Caroline. "EU to Admit GM Material in Animal Feed" Wall Street Journal. February 22, 2011. 243 European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 at Article 12.2. 244 European Commission. "GMOs in a nutshell." See "Which EU countries ban the cultivation of GMOs ?" Accessed March 9, 2011. Available at http:// ec.europa.eu/ food / food / biotechnology /qanda /d4_en.htm #d 245 Dr. Sato, Suguro. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agriculture Informa- tion Network. "Japan Biotechnology Annual Report 2008." July 15, 2008 at 3. 246 GAO (2008) at 14. 247 EPA (2007); Pollock, Kevin. "Aventis Gives Up License To Sell Bioengineered Corn." New York Times. October 13, 2000; GAO (2008) at 16; Carter, Colin A. Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis. Statement before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. March 13, 2008 at 2. 248 Leake, Todd. Dakota Resource Council Statement before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Commit- tee. March 13, 2008 at 2. 249 Howington, Harvey. Vice President U.S. Rice Producers Association. Statement before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. March 13, 2008 at 1. 250 Ibid. at 3. Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 McConnell, Sean. "Animal feed containing illegal GM maize impounded." The Irish Times. May 21, 2007. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. "2010 Report on Sanitary and Phytos- anitary Measures." 2010 at 20. Gathura, Gatonye. "US pushed for passing Biosafety Act" The Daily Nation (Kenya). March 13, 2011. Monsanto. "Research and Development Pipeline" Brochure. 2011 at 2. Avail- able at http: / /www.monsanto.com /products /Documents /pipeline- brochures/ pipeline_2011.pdf Monsanto. "Do GM Crops Increase Yield ?" 2009. Available at http: / /www. monsanto.com /newsviews/ Pages /do -gm- crops- increase - yield.aspx. Accessed February 26, 2011. "Non- biotech soybean acreage increasing in the United States." Food Chemi- cal News. August 17, 2009. Price, Gregory K., William Lin et al. USDA ERS. "Size and Distribution of Market Benefits from Adopting Biotech Crops." Technical Bulletin No. 1906. Novem- ber 2003 at 3. Food Chemical News. August 17, 2009; Whigham, Kieth, Iowa State University. "How to lower soybean seed costs." Integrated Crop Management. IC- 480(23). October 12, 1998; it takes about 1.3 bags of soybean seeds per acre (assuming the most common 3,000 seeds per pound and a target 200,000 seeds per acre). USDA NASS. Quickstats: Price Paid for Row Crops, Biotech and Non - Biotech Corn and Soybean. On file and available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statis- tics_by_Subject /index. ph p ?sector = ECONOMICS. Gurian- Sherman (2009) at 22 and 33. Gordon, Barney. "Manganese nutrition of glyphosate- resistant and conven- tional soybeans." Better Crops. Vol. 91, No. 4. 2007 at 12. Monsanto. "Nutrition." Available at http : / /www.producemoreconservemore. corn. Accessed February 26, 2011. Naqvi et al. "Transgenic multivaitamin corn through biofortification of endo- sperm with three vitamins representing three distinct metabolic pathways." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 106, No. 19. May 12, 2009 at 7762. Ye et al. (2000) at 303. Krawinkel, Michael. "o-Carotene from rice for human nutrition ?" Am J Clin Nutr. Vol. 90. 2009 at 696. Ibid. at 696; Burgess, Ann and Peter Glasauer. Food and Agriculture Organiza- tion of the United Nations (FAO). "Family Nutrition Guide." 2004 at 22. Krawinkel (2009) at 696; Tang et al. "Golden Rice is an effective source of Vitamin A." Am J Clin Nutr. Vol. 89. 2009 at 1776 -1778. USDA. "Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS as of July 18, 2011." Burgess and Glasauer (2004) at 22. Monsanto. "Do GM Crops Increase Yield ?" 2009. Available at http://www. monsanto.com /newsviews /Pages /do -gm- crops- increase - yield.aspx. Accessed February 26, 2011. Monsanto. "Monsanto Biotechnology Trait Acreage: Fiscal Years 1996 - 2009." 2009. On file and available at http: / /www.monsanto.com /investors /docu- ments /2009 /g4_biotech_acres.pdf; USDA NASS Quick Stats, Acres Planted, Corn and Soybeans; Monsanto. Roundup Power Max Herbicide. Brochure. 2008 at 4. Monsanto. "Monsanto Biotechnology Trait Acreage: Fiscal Years 1996 - 2009." 2009. Aspelin, Arnold L. EPA. "Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 1994 and 1995 Estimates." August 1997 at Table 8; Grube et al. EPA. "Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates." February 2011 at Table 3.6. National Research Council (2010) at S -3 and S -13. Ibrahim et al. "Weight of the Evidence on the Human Carcinogenicity of 2,4 -D." Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 96. 1991 at 213; Hayes, Tyrone et al. "Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 99, No. 8. April 2002 at 5476; Stoker, Tammy E. et al. "Maternal exposure to atrazine during lactation suppresses suckling- induced prolactin release and results in prostatitis in the adult offspring." Toxicological Sciences. Vol. 52. 1999 at 68; EPA. "2,4 -D: Chemical Summary." 2007 at 1 and 5. Monsanto. "Monsanto Outlines New Weed Management Platform Under the Roundup Ready PLUS Brand." [Press Release]. October 19, 2010. USDA. "Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS as of July 18, 2011. "; Kaskey, Jack. "Dow Plans New Trait to Combat Roundup - Resistant Weeds." Bloomberg Businessweek. May 5, 2010. Laurent, Francois et al. "Metabolism of [14C]- 2,4- dichlorophenol in edible plants." Pest Management Science. Vol. 62, 2006 at 558. 279 USDA. "Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS as of July 18, 2011." 280 Monsanto. "How can we squeeze more food from a raindrop ?" 2008. On file. 281 international Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). "Executive Summary of Synthesis Report "April 2008 at 8 -9. 282 Steiner, Gerald. Statement of the Executive Vice President, Sustainability and Corporate Affairs, Monsanto Company, before the House Foreign Affairs Com- mittee. July 20, 2010 at 1. 283 Gentleman, Amelia. "Despair takes toll on Indian farmers - Asia- Pacific- Interna- tional Herald Tribune." New York Times. May 31, 2006; Sengupta, Somini. "On India's farms, a plague of suicide." New York Times. September 19, 2006. 284 Sengupta(2006). 285 Kuruganti, Kavitha. "Effects of pesticide exposure on developmental task per- formance in Indian children." Children, Youth and Environments. Vol. 15, Issu 1. 2005 at 86; Thakur, J.S. et al. "Epidemiological Study f High Cancer Among Rural Agricultural Community of Punjab in Northern India." International Jour- nal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol. 5, Iss. 5. 2008 at 405. 286 Sengupta(2006). 287 Sainath, P. "17,368 farm suicides in 2009." The Hindu. December 27, 2010. 288 Pretty, J.N. et al. "Resource- Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Devel- oping Countries." Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.40, No. 4. 2006 at 1114. 289 See Badgley, Catherine et al. "Organic agriculture and the global food supply." Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. Vol. 22, Iss. 2. 2007 at 86 -108. 290 Monsanto. "Climate Change." Available at http://www.producemoreconserve - more.com /climate- change /. Accessed February 26, 2011. 291 IAASTD. "Agriculture at a Crossroads." Global Report. 2009 at 285. 292 To date, the United States has only approved herbicide tolerant and insect tolerant canola, corn, cotton and soybeans as well as virus resistant squash and papayas. Fernandez- Cornejo (2008) at 6; ISAAA "Biotech crops poised for second wave of growth" [Press release]. February 11, 2009; USDA. "Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS as of February 1, 2012." 293 IAASTD (2009) at 161. 294 Brasher, Philip. "Monsanto to test seed that might beat drought" Des Moines Register. May 21, 2011 295 IAASTD (2009) at 10. 296 Monsanto. "Natural Resources." Available at http://www.producemorecon - servemore.com /natural- resources /. Accessed February 26, 2011. 297 IAASTD (2009) at 9. 298 Hoekstra, A.Y. and A.K. Chapagain, "Water Footprints of Nations: Water Use by People as a Function of Their Consumptive Pattern," Water Resource Man- agement, Vol. 21, 2007 at 38; USDA ERS. "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002." Economic Information Bulletin 14. May 2005 at Abstract. 299 World Bank. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. 2007 at 64. 300 Ibid. 301 Borlaug, Norman E. "The Green Revolution and the Road Ahead." Special 30th Anniversary Lecture. The Nobel Institute. Oslo. September 8, 2000 at 5, 7. 302 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). "2007 Census of Agriculture: Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2008)." Vol. 3, Pt. 1. July 2010 at Table 27. 303 Dennehy, Kevin F. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). "High Plains regional ground- water study." USGS Fact Sheet, FS- 091 -00. August 2000 at 2. 304 Gurdak, Jason J. et al. USGS. "Water Quality in the High Plains Aquifer, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, 1999 - 2004." Circular 1337. 2009 at 10; McGuire, V.L. USGS. "Changes in Water Levels and Storage in the High Plains Aquifer, Predevelop- ment to 2007." 2009. 305 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2001) at 20 -21. 306 GAO (2008) at 4. 307 7 U.S.C. §7701(3) (2000); USDA. Biotechnology Regulatory Services. "APHIS Biotechnology: Permitting Progress Into Tomorrow." 2006 at 1 -4. 308 7 CFR §340.3 (a) -(b) (2008) 309 7 CFR §340.3 (b)- (c),(e)(4) (2008); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 11. 310 7 CFR §340.3 (e)(5) (2008); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 11. 311 7 CFR 340.3; 7 CFR § §372.5 (c) -(d) (1995); Pew Initiative on Food and Bio- technology. "Issues in the Regulation of Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals." April 2004 at 33. 312 7 CFR §340.4(b) (2008); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 10. Food & Water Watch • May 2012 27 313 7 CFR §340.4(b) (2008); USDA. Biotechnology Regulatory Services. "APHIS Biotechnology: Permitting Progress Into Tomorrow." (2006) at 3. 314 7 CFR §340.4(f)(2008); USDA. Biotechnology Regulatory Services. "APHIS Biotechnology: Permitting Progress Into Tomorrow." (2006) at 2. 315 Fernandez- Cornejo and Caswell (2006) at 3. 316 7 CFR §340.4(f)(9) (2008). 317 7 CFR §340.4(8) (2008). 318 7 CFR §372.5 (b)(3) (1995). 319 USDA Biotechnology Regulatory Services. "National Environmental Policy Act and Its Role in USDA's Regulation of Biotechnology." Factsheet. February 2006 at 2. 320 7 CFR §372.9 (a); USDA. Biotechnology Regulatory Services. "National Environ- mental Policy Act and Its Role in USDA's Regulation of Biotechnology." (2006) at 2. 321 7 CFR §372.8(b)(1) (1995). 322 76 Fed. Reg. 19309 -19310 (April 7, 2011) 323 7 CFR §340.6(a) (2008); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 11 -12. 324 7 CFR §340.6(d)(2) (2008). 325 7 CFR §340.6(d)(3) (2008). 326 GAO (2008) at 31. 327 Taylor, Michael R. and Jody S. Tick. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. "Post- Market Oversight of Biotech Foods - Is the System Prepared ?" April 2003 at 19. 328 USDA. GIPSA. "Grain, Rice & Pulses: Biotechnology." Accessed on February 9, 2011. On file and Available at http: / /www.gipsa.usda.gov /GIPSA /webapp ?are a= home &subject=grpi &topic =rd -bi 329 67 Fed. Reg. 50853 - 50854. (August 6, 2002). 330 21 U.S.C. 346a(c)(2)(A); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 13. 331 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(ii) (2002). 332 Reuben, Suzanne H. "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now." The President's Cancer Panel: 2008 -2009 Annual Report, Dept of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. April 2010 at 46. 333 21 U.S.C. §346a(c)(2)(A) (2002); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 14. 334 EPA (2007) at 7. 335 7 U.S.C. 136(u)(1); 40 CFR 174.3. See "plant- incorporated protectant" 336 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2004) at 39. 337 40 CFR 172.2(a); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 12. 338 40 CFR 172.3(a),(c). 339 40 CFR 172.5(b). 340 40 CFR 172.8. 341 GAO (2002) at 7. 342 EPA. " Biopesticides Registration Action Document: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Plant- Incorporated Protectants." October 15, 2001 at 17 -18. 343 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Insect Resistance Management Fact Sheet for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Corn Products." Updated February 2011. On file and available at http: / /www.epa.gov /oppbppol /biopesticides /pips/ bt_corn_refuge_2006.htm; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Insect Resistance Management Fact Sheet for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cotton Products." Updated February 2011. On file and available at http: / /www.epa. gov /oppbppol /biopesticides /pips /bt_cotton _refuge_2006.htm 344 EPA (2001) at 17. 345 EPA. "EPA Fines Monsanto for Distributing Genetically Engineered Pesticide." Press Release. July 8, 2010. 346 57 Fed Reg. 22984. (May 29, 1992 at 1). 347 66 Fed. Reg. 4706. (January 18, 2001) 348 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 19 -20. 349 Ibid. at 20. 350 21 CFR 170.30; Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 21. 351 21 CFR 170.35(c)(4), (c)(5); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 20. 352 Cowan (September 10, 2010) at 6. 353 FDA. GRAS Notice Inventory. Accessed April 28, 2011. 354 GAO (2002) at 11 -12. 355 21 CFR 171.1(c). 356 21 CFR 170.38(c). 357 66 Fed. Reg. 4708. (January 18, 2001); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnol- ogy (2001) at 21, note 15. 358 21 CFR 7.4(c); H.R. 2751, 111th Cong. §206 (2010). 359 Shames, Lisa. GAO. Testimony on the Federal Oversight of Food Safety: FDA Has Provided Few Details on the Resources and Strategies Needed to Imple- ment its Food Protection Plan. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Committee on Energy and Commerce. House of Representatives. June 12, 2008 at 1 -3. 360 EPA(2007)9. 361 FDA (2009) at 4 -5. 362 Biotechnology Industry Organization. "Genetically Engineered Animals Fre- quently Asked Questions." October 22, 2009 at 4. 363 21 U.S.C. §360b(b)(1) (2002). 364 21 CFR 511.1, 21 U.S.C. §360b(l). 365 21 CFR 511.1(b)(5); Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001) at 22. 366 21 CFR 25.20 (m). 367 FDA. "FDA Approves Orphan Drug ATryn to Treat Rare Clotting Disorder." [Press Release]. February 6, 2009; Cowan (September 10, 2010) at 2. 368 21 CFR 25.50 (b). 369 FDA (2009) at 11. 370 FDA. "Guidance for Industry 179: Use of Animal Clones and Clone Progeny for Human Food and Animal Feed" January 15, 2008. 371 Knight, Bruce I. "Animal Cloning: Transitioning from the Lab to the Market." Advisory Committee on Biotechology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), Washington, DC. March 5, 2008 at 3. 372 Ibid. 28 Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview National Office food &Water WBICh 1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 tel: (202) 683 -2500 fax: (202) 683 -2501 info @fwwatch.org www.foodandwaterwatch.org 000-ow" Printed on recycled paper using vegetable -based inks and 100% wind pourer. D 4 JD EZZ c 19 9 1 9 %RS,T' 1 L , l-� 9 I A • t w I AY I CORPORATE INFLUENCE OVER UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH loodawaleeWBIC foodawaterWatCh Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control. Food & Water Watch 1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 tel: (202) 683 -2500 fax: (202) 683 -2501 info @fwwatch.org www.foodandwaterwatch.org California Office 25 Stillman Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94107 tel: (415) 293 -9900 fax: (415) 293 -8394 info -ca @fwwatch.org Copyright © April 2012 by Food & Water Watch. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded at www.foodandwaterwatch.org. Executive Summary Since their creation in 1862, land -grant universities have revolutionized American agriculture. These public institutions delivered better seeds, new plant varieties and advanced tools to farmers who deployed scientific breakthroughs to increase agri- cultural productivity. They pioneered vitally impor- tant research on environmental stewardship, such as soil conservation. Land -grant universities partnered with farmers in research efforts, advancing rural livelihoods and improving the safety and abundance of food for consumers. These innovations were spurred almost entirely with public investments from state and federal govern- ments. Starting in the 1980s, however, federal policies including the Bayh -Dole Act of 1982 began encour- aging land -grant schools to partner with the private sector on agricultural research. A key goal was to develop agricultural products such as seeds, which were sold to farmers under an increasingly aggressive patent regime.' By 2010, private donations provided nearly a quarter of the funding for agricultural research at land -grant universities. This funding steers land -grant research toward the goals of industry. It also discourages independent research that might be critical of the industrial model of agriculture and diverts public research capacity away from important issues such as rural economies, environmental quality and the public health implications of agriculture. Private - sector funding not only corrupts the public research mission of land -grant universities, but also distorts the science that is supposed to help farmers improve their practices and livelihoods. Industry - funded academic research routinely produces favor- able results for industry sponsors. Because policy - makers and regulators frequently voice their need for good science in decision - making, industry- funded academic research influences the rules that govern their business operations. Congress should restore the public agricultural research mission at land -grant schools. The Farm Bill can reinvigorate investment in agricultural research and fund research projects that promote the public interest. Reprioritizing research at land -grant univer- sities may not remedy all of the problems in the food system, but it could play a vital role in developing the science and solutions needed to create a viable alternative to our industrialized, consolidated food system. Public Research, Private Gann: Corporate Influence Over University AgriC ItUrol R�serrrch Introduction Public investment in agricultural research through land -grant universities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has provided significant benefits to U.S. farmers, consumers and food companies. This research has produced new seeds, plant varieties, farming practices, conservation methods and food processing techniques — all of which were broadly shared with the public. The federal government created land -grant universi- ties in 1862 by deeding tracts of land to every state to pursue agricultural research to improve American agriculture, "elevating it to that higher level where it may fearlessly invoke comparison with the most advanced standards of the world. 112 Public invest- ments in agricultural research propelled decades of agricultural improvements. Yields and produc- tion increased dramatically, and every public dollar invested in agricultural research returned an average of $10 in benefits .3 Public research brought about the domestication of the blueberry, early varieties of high -yield hybrid corn and widely used tools to combat soil erosion.' Well into the 201h century, seed - breeding programs at land -grant universities were responsible for developing almost all new seed and plant varieties.' The land -grant university system includes some of the largest state universities — including the Univer- sity of California system, Pennsylvania State Univer- sity and Texas Agricultural & Mechanical University. With 109 locations and a presence in every state and territory, the land -grant university system has both the capacity and the mission to respond to the research needs of all sectors of agriculture .6 The USDA distributes the scientific breakthroughs from these land -grant universities through its extension system, in which county extension agents share research with farmers and communicate farmers' research needs with the universities. But over recent decades, the public mission of land - grant universities has been compromised. As public funding has stalled, land -grant universities have turned to agribusiness to fill the void, dramatically shifting the direction of public agricultural research. Land -grant universities today depend on industry to underwrite research grants, endow faculty chairs, sponsor departments and finance the construction Agricultural Extension: Shrinking Support for Sharing Knowledge with Farmers Diminishing USDA support has also undercut agricultural extension services affiliated with land -grant universities that deliver research findings to farmers through outreach, trainings and educational materials.' Real USDA funding of extension services decreased by around 12 percent between 2001 and 2010 (in inflation - adjusted 2010 dollars), diminishing the ability of extension to provide farmers with independent, research -based advice about best agricultural practices.$ An extension officer at a 2011 agri- cultural forum described the impartial role of extension to tell farmers "that this corn is better than this corn" without "any interest other than putting the right product in front of the hands of the American farmer" 9 Lacking this independent voice, farmers are now turning to agribusiness for advice on the best products and practices.10 2 Food & Water Watch • www.foodandwaterwatch.org of new buildings. By the early 1990s, industry funding surpassed USDA funding of agricultural research at land -grant universities." In 2009, corporations, trade associations and foundations invested $822 million in agricultural research at land -grant schools, compared to only $645 million from the USDA (in inflation- adjusted 2010 dollars) .12 Although corporate donations provide needed funding for land -grant schools, they can also create potential, perceived or actual conflicts of interest for land -grant research programs. Some research programs nakedly advance the aims of donors, like the University of California department of nutrition's research into the benefits of eating chocolate, funded by the candy manufacturer Mars.' Similarly, industry- funded research is more likely to deliver favorable research results for donors than independent research. Despite this demonstrated bias, the financial relationships between researchers and their industry sponsors are not always revealed in published scientific papers. 30% - Industry Funding USDA Funding 25% 1 - 20% 15% 10% 1 5% { -- 0%'', u1 �O 1� O Q• O N M a N 0 n O O 0 O O O O O O SOURCE: USDA CRIS Other government money — from states and non -USDA federal sources like the National Institutes of Health — comprises the remaining research funding. (See Endnote 29.) SUURCE: USDA CRIS Public Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research 3 Examples of Corporate Representatives on University Boards Industry- sponsored research effectively converts land -grant universities into corporate contractors, diverting their research capacity away from projects that serve the public good. Agribusinesses use spon- sored land -grant research - with its imprimatur of academic objectivity — to convince regulators of the safety or efficacy of new crops or food products. Growing dependence on corporate funding discour- ages academics from pursuing research that might challenge the business practices of their funders or that irks money- hungry administrators who grant tenure to professors. A 2005 University of Wisconsin survey of land -grant agricultural scientists found that the amount of grant and contract money that profes- sors generate has a significant influence over their tenure and salaries.24 This chilling effect discourages academic research on environmental, public health and food safety risks related to industrial agriculture — and explains the sparse research on alternatives to the dominant agriculture model. Conflict -of- interest policies at public universities and academic journals have failed to address the biasing effect of industry money on science. Agricultural research priorities can be refocused through the Farm Bill, which reauthorizes farm policy every five years, including providing much of USDA's research funding to land -grant universities. The next Farm Bill's Research Title should replenish USDA's research coffers and direct funding toward research that promotes the public good, not private interests. This report details the trends in agricultural research and the corrosive impact of industry funding on public research. Food & Water Watch analyzed USDA databases and reports, grant records from land -grant universities, academic journal articles, court filings, corporate press releases, media coverage and other public documents. (For a more detailed methodology, see page 16.) From Public to Private: Funding Agricultural Research at Land -grant Universities U.S. agricultural research is performed mainly by three entities: the federal government, largely through the USDA; academia, almost entirely through land -grant universities; and the private sector. Since the 1970s, private - sector spending on agricul- tural research has skyrocketed, outstripping total public- sector spending. Between 1970 and 2006, the latest years for which data are available, total private agricultural research expenditures (both in -house research and donations to land - grants) nearly tripled from $2.6 billion to $7.4 billion, in inflation- adjusted 2010 dollars 25 Over the same period, total public funding — going to land -grant universities and the USDA — grew less quickly, rising from $2.9 billion to $5.7 billion.16 Land -grant university funding has mirrored the total expenditures on agricultural research. Federal funding of land -grant schools has stagnated, while industry Food & Water Watch • www.jFoodondwaterwotch.org Corporate Representatives Monsanto, Chiquita, Dole, United Fresh Department and School Center for Produce Safety, University of California at Davis Academic Role Advisory Board 14 Dole, Sysco, Earthbound Farms Center for Produce Safety, University of California at Davis Technical Committee1' Taylor Farms, Produce Marketing Association Center for Produce Safety, University of California at Davis Executive Committee16 Tyson, Walmart Sam W. Walton Business College, University of Arkansas Advisory Board" Novartis (now Syngenta) University of California Research Board (1998 - 2003)18 Cargill, ConAgra, General Mills, Unilever, McDonald's, Coca -Cola Center for Food Safety, University of Georgia Board of Advisors19 Monsanto, Pioneer Hi -Bred Plant Sciences Institute, Iowa State University Board of Advisors20 Iowa Farm Bureau, Summit Group Iowa State University University Board of Regents21 Dole Food University of California University of California Regents22 Kraft Foods Cornell University Cornell University Board of Trustees28 Industry- sponsored research effectively converts land -grant universities into corporate contractors, diverting their research capacity away from projects that serve the public good. Agribusinesses use spon- sored land -grant research - with its imprimatur of academic objectivity — to convince regulators of the safety or efficacy of new crops or food products. Growing dependence on corporate funding discour- ages academics from pursuing research that might challenge the business practices of their funders or that irks money- hungry administrators who grant tenure to professors. A 2005 University of Wisconsin survey of land -grant agricultural scientists found that the amount of grant and contract money that profes- sors generate has a significant influence over their tenure and salaries.24 This chilling effect discourages academic research on environmental, public health and food safety risks related to industrial agriculture — and explains the sparse research on alternatives to the dominant agriculture model. Conflict -of- interest policies at public universities and academic journals have failed to address the biasing effect of industry money on science. Agricultural research priorities can be refocused through the Farm Bill, which reauthorizes farm policy every five years, including providing much of USDA's research funding to land -grant universities. The next Farm Bill's Research Title should replenish USDA's research coffers and direct funding toward research that promotes the public good, not private interests. This report details the trends in agricultural research and the corrosive impact of industry funding on public research. Food & Water Watch analyzed USDA databases and reports, grant records from land -grant universities, academic journal articles, court filings, corporate press releases, media coverage and other public documents. (For a more detailed methodology, see page 16.) From Public to Private: Funding Agricultural Research at Land -grant Universities U.S. agricultural research is performed mainly by three entities: the federal government, largely through the USDA; academia, almost entirely through land -grant universities; and the private sector. Since the 1970s, private - sector spending on agricul- tural research has skyrocketed, outstripping total public- sector spending. Between 1970 and 2006, the latest years for which data are available, total private agricultural research expenditures (both in -house research and donations to land - grants) nearly tripled from $2.6 billion to $7.4 billion, in inflation- adjusted 2010 dollars 25 Over the same period, total public funding — going to land -grant universities and the USDA — grew less quickly, rising from $2.9 billion to $5.7 billion.16 Land -grant university funding has mirrored the total expenditures on agricultural research. Federal funding of land -grant schools has stagnated, while industry Food & Water Watch • www.jFoodondwaterwotch.org donations have grown steadily. Over the past 15 years, industry funding of land -grant schools significantly outpaced federal funding. In 1995, private sector and USDA research funding of land -grant universities stood at about $560 million each (in inflation- adjusted 2010 dollars)?' But by 2009, private sector funding had soared to $822 million, compared to $645 million from USDA 211 The economic recession curbed research funding significantly, but USDA funding for land -grant schools fell twice as fast as private funding between 2009 and 2010 — dropping 39.3 percent and 20.5 percent, respectively. State funding for land -grant schools declined as well, leaving the institutions more dependent on corporate money to fund university research .29 Branding the Campus Agribusiness and food companies exert influence at the highest echelons of the university hierarchy. In addition to directly funding research at land -grant universities, many companies make other generous donations that curry favor with administrators, including laboratory sponsorship, building construc- tion, student fellowships and faculty endowments. Building a Legacy of Corporate Influence Corporate donations for buildings give businesses a literal presence on campus. Monsanto's million- dollar pledge to Iowa State University ensured naming rights to the Monsanto Student Services Wing in the main agriculture building.40 The Univer- sity of Missouri houses a Monsanto Auditorium 41 Monsanto gave $200,000 to the University of Illi- nois's college of agriculture to fund the Monsanto Multi -Media Executive Studio, where industry seminars are held .42 Kroger and ConAgra each have research laboratories named after them at Purdue University's school of food sciences, which advertises other naming opportunities on its Web site .43 Campus buildings reinforce the company's brand identity, promote goodwill among faculty and students and are a powerful recruiting tool. The Corporate Meddling Department Many land -grant university agricultural research programs and departments rely on corporate dona- tions for a sizable portion of their budgets. In addi- tion, agribusiness sponsors fill seats on academic research boards and direct agendas. The University of Georgia's Center for Food Safety offers seats on its board of advisors for $20,000 to industry spon- sors, where they can help direct the center's research efforts.44 Current advisory board members include Cargill, ConAgra, General Mills, Unilever, McDonald's and Coca-Cola .41 Purdue University's Food Science Department openly courts industry by allowing donors to influence curricula and direct research Examples of Schools, Buildings and Departments Funded by Corporations Corporate Donor Land-grant . of : . .. Cargill University of Minnesota $10 million Cargill Plant Genomics Building" Five Rivers Ranch Colorado State University $2.5 million Feed facility for research on environmental benefits of feedlots 3 Walmart University of Arkansas $50 million Sam Walton Business Schoo132 Monsanto Iowa State University $1 million Monsanto Student Services Wing" Monsanto University of Missouri Unknown Monsanto Auditorium and Monsanto Place" Monsanto University of Illinois $200,000 Monsanto Multi -Media Executive Studio35 Kroger and ConAgra Purdue University Unknown Kroger Sensory Evaluation Laboratory and ConAgra Foods, Inc. Laboratory Tyson (includes foundation, corporation University of Arkansas Unknown John W. Tyson Building37 and family member donations) Tyson (includes foundation, corporation University of Arkansas $2.5 million Jean Tyson Child Development Center" and family member donations) Walmart (and Walton Family) University of Arkansas Unknown Bud Walton Basketball Arena 39 Public Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research programs .46 Iowa State University's $30 million plant sciences institute board includes representatives of Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred .47 Some departments are especially reliant on corporate donations: • Purdue University's food science department received 37.9 percent of its research grants, $1.5 million, from private- sector donors between 2010 and 2011, including Nestle, BASF and PepsiCo.41 Texas A &M's soil and crop science department received 55.5 percent of its research grant dollars from private- sector donors between 2006 and 2010, a total of $12.5 million from groups like Cotton Incorporated, Monsanto and Chevron Technology Ventures.49 University of Illinois's crop science department took 44 percent of its grant funding from the private sector, including Monsanto, Syngenta and SmithBucklin & Associates, between 2006 and 2010, amounting to $18.7 million .50 Iowa State University's agronomy department took $19.5 million in research grants from private- sector donors between 2006 and 2010, Examples of Academic Departments Funded by Private Sector (in surveyed states)52 Land-grant Donors Years Grants Dept. University of Illinois Crop Sciences 2006 -10 $18.7 million 44 percent Monsanto, Syngenta, SmithBucklin & Associates University of Illinois Food Sciences and Human Nutrition 2006 -10 $7.7 million 46 percent Pfizer, PepsiCo, Nestle Nutrition University of Illinois Animal Sciences 2006 -10 $6.2 million 33 percent Elanco, Pfizer, National Pork Board University of Missouri Plant Sciences 2007 -10 $16.4 million 42 percent Phillip Morris, Monsanto, Dow Agroscience, SmithBucklin & Associates University of Missouri Veterinary Medicine 2004 -10 $6.1 million 63 percent lams, Pfizer, American Veterinary Medical Association Purdue Agronomy 2010 -11 $2.5 million 31 percent Dow, Deere & Company Purdue University Food Science 2010 -11 $1.5 million 38 percent Hinsdale Farms, Nestle, BASF University of Florida Large Animal 2006 -10 $2.7 million 56 percent Pfizer, Intervet Sciences Clinic University of Florida Small Animal Sciences Clinic 2006 -10 $5.5 million 70 percent Alcon Research, Mars, Vistakon University of California Viticulture 2006 -10 $5.0 million 49 percent Nomacorc, American Vineyard and Oenology Foundation University of California Plant Sciences 2006 -10 $33.6 million 28 percent Chevron Technology Ventures, Arcadia Bioscience University of California Nutrition 2006 -10 $5.0 million 49 percent Mars, Novo Nordisk Iowa State University Agronomy 2006 -10 $19.5 million 48 percent Dow, Monsanto, Iowa Soybean Association Iowa State University Agricultural 2006 -10 $9.5 million 44 percent Deere & Company, Iowa Cattlemen's & Biosystems Engineering Association, National Pork Board Iowa State University Entomology 2006 -10 $3.7 million 52 percent Syngenta, Bayer Iowa State University Plant Pathology 2006 -10 $10.7 million 38 percent United Soybean Board, Dow, Iowa Soybean Association Texas A &M Institute of Plant Genomics 2006 -10 $1.8 million 46 percent Cotton Inc., Chevron Technology National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Texas A &M Animal Science 2006 -10 5.1 million 32 percent National Pork Board, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center Texas A &M Soil and Crop Sciences 2006 -10 $13.0 million 1 56 percent Monsanto, Cotton Inc., Pioneer Hi -Bred rood & water Watch • www.foodandwaterwatch.org representing close to half of its grant funding. Donors included the Iowa Soybean Association, Dow and Monsanto .51 Chairs & Professors Many companies will pay handsomely to endow faculty chairs. Monsanto's name is attached to a professorship at the University of Florida 13; the university requires a $600,000 donation to endow a professorship.54 In 2011, Monsanto gave $500,000 to Iowa State University to fund a soybean breeding faculty chair .51 Pioneer Hi -Bred funds five endowed Iowa State positions, including the distinguished Chair in Maize Breeding.56 Monsanto gave $2.5 million to Texas A &M to endow a chair for plant breeding.57 Kraft Foods gave $1 million to the Univer- sity of Illinois's school of nutrition for a Kraft -named endowed professor, graduate fellowships and under- graduate scholarships.ss Many professors are highly dependent on industry for research funding. Nearly half of land -grant agri- cultural scientists surveyed in 2005 acknowledged to have received research funding from a private company.59 Texas A &M Animal Science Professor Jeffrey Savell took 100 percent of his research grants from industry groups between 2006 and 2010, more than $1 million from groups like National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Swift and Company.60 Texas A &M Soil and Crop Sciences Professor David Baltens- perger took more than $3 million in research grants - almost all of his grant funding - from Monsanto and Chevron between 2006 and 2010.61 University of California Plant Pathology Professor Robert Gilbertson took 89 percent of his nearly $2 million in research grants from private sector sources between 2006 and 2010, including the Chippewa Valley Bean Company and Seminis Vegetable Seeds .62 University of California nutrition professor Carl Keen took $3.9 in private grants between 2006 and 2010, almost all of it from Mars .63 In addition to taking industry research grants, some professors supplement their academic salaries with corporate consulting fees. A 2005 survey found that nearly a third of land -grant agricultural scientists reported consulting for private industry.65 More than 20 University of California, Davis professors have acted as paid consultants for biotech companies, some earning up to $2,000 per month .66 And Now a Word from Our Sponsors Farmers, consumers, policymakers and federal regulators depend on land -grant universities as a source of credible, independent research. But land- Snapshot of Selected Professors at Iowa State University64 Years Professor Department Private Grants Percentage of Examples of Corporate Donorr Total Funding 2006 -10 Kan Wang Agronomy $1.8 million 90.7 percent Pioneer Hi -Bred, Dow 2006 -10 Silvia Cianzio Agronomy $2.6 million 83.9 percent Iowa Soybean Association, United Soybean Board 2006 -10 Stuart Birrell Agricultural & $2.1 million 93.0 percent Deere & Company, Biosystems Engineering Archer Daniels Midland 2006 -10 Gregory Tylka Plant Pathology $1.5 million 97.6 percent Iowa Soybean Association, Monsanto 2006 -10 Antonio Agronomy $1.4 million 92.2 percent Monsanto, Fluid Fertilizer Foundation, Mallarino Iowa Soybean Association 2006 -10 Alison Robertson Plant Pathology $1.2 million 85.3 percent Syngenta, BASF, Iowa Soybean Association 2006 -10 Max Rothschild Animal Sciences $1.3 million 76.5 percent National Pork Board, Pfizer, Monsanto Fund 2006 -10 Leonor Leandro Plant Pathology $1.2 million 99.6 percent Monsanto, DuPont, Iowa Soybean Association 2006 -10 Palle Pedersen Agronomy $1.0 million 94.5 percent Valent, Monsanto, BASF, Bayer Public Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research grant universities' dependence on industry money has corrupted the independence of public science, as academics align their research projects with the ambitions of the private sector. Industry funding also diverts academic resources and attention away from projects that benefit the public, including research that challenges corporate control of food systems. The "Funder Effect" Donors can and do influence the outcomes of research to meet their business needs. More than 15 percent of university scientists acknowledge having "changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source. 1161 Individual examples of pro- industry research abound. A study supported by the National Soft Drink Association found that soda consumption by school children was not linked to obesity; an Egg Nutrition Center - sponsored study found that frequent egg consumption did not increase blood cholesterol levels.68 Candy manufacturer Mars donated more than $15 million to the University of California's Nutrition Department to study things like the nutri- tional benefits of cocoa .69 Mars used this research to tout the benefits of eating chocolate .70 Industry- funded studies are much more likely to arrive at pro- industry conclusions. A peer- reviewed analysis of dozens of nutrition articles on commonly consumed beverages found that industry- funded studies were four to eight times more likely to reach favorable conclusions to the sponsors' interests.' Another study found that around half of authors of peer- reviewed journal articles about the safety of genetically engineered (GE) foods had an identifi- able affiliation with industry."- All of these produced favorable results to industry sponsors, while very few acknowledged having received industry funding.i3 Many scientific journals do not require authors to disclose their source of research funding, despite the well- documented bias that industry funding can introduce .71 The conflict -of- interest disclosures that do exist vary and can be either weak, unenforced or both .75 Corporate Funding Curtails Public Interest Research Corporations have successfully discouraged many academics from critically examining their products and practices. In a 2005 survey, land -grant agricul- tural scientists reported that private- sector funding arrangements restrict open communication among university scientists and create publication delays 76 Seed companies have been particularly effective at quashing unfavorable research by exercising their patent rights. Seed licensing agreements can specifi- cally bar research on seeds without the approval of the corporate patent holder.7, Scientists cannot inde- pendently evaluate patented seeds, leaving crucial aspects of GE crops, like yields and food safety, largely unstudied." When an Ohio State University professor produced research that questioned the biological safety of biotech sunflowers, Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer Hi -Bred blocked her research privileges to their seeds, barring her from conducting additional research .79 Similarly, when other Pioneer Hi -Bred- funded professors found a new GE corn variety to be deadly to beneficial beetles, the company barred the scientists from publishing their findings .80 Pioneer Hi -Bred subsequently hired new scientists who produced the necessary results to secure regulatory approval.41 Scientists that persist in pursuing critical inquiries into biotech seeds can face reprisals. One university Food & Water Watch • www.foodandwaterwatch.org investigator anonymously told the prestigious journal Nature that a Dow AgroScience employee threatened that the company could sue him if he published certain data that cast the company in a bad light .82 A University of California professor, after reporting that transgenic material from GE crops cross - pollinated native corn varieties in Mexico, faced threats and attacks from scientists, government officials and a public relations firm with ties to industry. 83 The rising importance of patents and licenses in research can stifle academic freedom and open scientific discourse. University of California, Berkeley scientists funded by Novartis were reluctant to discuss their research and collaborate with others because of Novartis's licensing rights under the grant.84 One Berkeley scientist noted "the little research that has been undertaken to explore unex- pected and possibly harmful aspects of biotech deployment has been construed as intended to undermine Novartis- funded activities.1185 Public Research for Corporate Commercialization Corporate donors benefit from land -grant univer- sities by poaching scientific discoveries used to develop new products. Land -grant researchers also act as contractors for food and agribusiness compa- nies to perform product and market testing. The landmark 1980 Bayh -Dole Act pushed universities to take a more entrepreneurial role, generating revenue through producing patents that the private sector could commercialize .16 This legislation paved the way for growing industry influence over land -grant research agendas, as schools shifted their research agendas to meet the needs of private- sector partners. Public universities provided breakthrough research in agricultural biotechnology that fueled the develop- ment of Monsanto's signature products, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and RoundUp Ready crops.37 Cornell University scientists invented the first genetic engineering process, but sold it to DuPont in 1990 — essentially privatizing a very valu- able asset."' The biotech industry's use of university research to develop highly profitable products — often of dubious benefits to farmers and consumers — is at odds with the mission of land -grant universities. These university- industry partnerships were expected to generate income for cash - strapped schools through licensing and patent earnings. In practice, corporate sponsors have captured most of the gains. Although most land -grant universities have "technology transfer" offices aimed at capitalizing on university inventions, few of these offices generate much money that can be funneled back into research programs.30 The University of California, Berkeley - Novartis collaboration exemplifies the conflicts and disap- pointments of university- industry partnerships. In 1998, the department of plant and microbial biology entered a $25 million funding agreement with Novartis, then the world's largest agribusiness company (the company's agricultural division is now owned by biotech giant Syngenta).90 Novartis received two of the five seats on the depart- ment's research committee, allowing it to influence the department's research agenda.91 The company maintained the right to delay publication of research results and was also awarded licensing options to 30 percent of any innovations the department developed, even those that it didn't fund. 12 The $25 million yielded little. An external review found that the highly controversial partnership produced "few or no benefits" for either Novartis or the University of California in terms of generating patents, commercial products or income .13 Public Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research Land -grant universities also contract themselves out as de facto corporate laboratories, conducting pre - commercial tests and biotech crop field trials.94 Industry hires land -grant scientists to conduct taste tests to predict consumer response to new foods .95 In 2010, more than half of the 206 grants at Purdue University's Food Science Department went toward "sensory evaluation research," including multiple contracts with Hinsdale Farms, one of the world's largest corndog producers.96 Public Research for Regulatory Approvals While policymakers and regulators demand a scien- tific basis for policy changes and regulatory deci- sions over agriculture, agribusiness is financing the experiments and funding the scientists. The regula- tory approval process requires companies to submit field and laboratory testing data for new food and agricultural products, such as biotech seeds .97 Land - grant research, paid for by industry, lends credibility to corporate regulatory applications, greasing the wheels for approval of safety of controversial, new products. The seed industry funds universities to conduct pre- commercial evaluations, such as field- testing PHOTO BY DORI / COMMONS.WIKIMEDIA.ORG The Morrow Plots, an experimental corn field at the Univer- sity of Illinois at Champaign- Urbana. for biotech crops, banned in other countries out of concern about their safety.911 Almost all the Monsanto grants to the University of Illinois crop science department funded projects like field- testing Monsanto products.99 One Cornell professor was a paid Monsanto consul- tant while also publishing journal articles promoting the benefits of rBGH for dairy farms.100 His research was used in Monsanto's regulatory submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.101 Despite FDA approval, rBGH has not been approved for commer- cial use in the European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan and New Zealand due to concerns about the drug's impact on animal health .102 Conversely, biotech companies prohibit indepen- dent research of their patented products, effectively limiting the public's ability to understand risks and preventing scientists from submitting critical comments to federal regulators, a crucial role that public researchers should play in regulatory and policy development .103 One land -grant professor noted that these restrictions on independent research give companies "the potential to launder the data, the information that is submitted to EPA. 11104 The professor was one of 26 university scientists, most from land -grant universities, who submitted an anonymous letter to the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency in 2009 explaining how restrictive patent and licensing agreements prevent scientists from pursuing objective research necessary to provide impartial guidance to regulators .105 Their letter read: These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their- mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, [insecticide resis- tance management], and its interactions with insect biology. 106 The 26 scientists who wrote to the EPA in 2009 withheld their names for fear of being blacklisted and losing private - sector research funding.10 10 Food & Water Watch • www.foodondwaterwatch.org Regnat Populus: The People Rule in Arkansas-8 Two of the biggest food companies in the world — Arkansas -based Tyson Foods and Walmart — have benefited from their generous donations to the University of Arkansas. The names Tyson and Walton are now emblazoned across the Arkansas campus following hundreds of millions of dollars in dona- tions. The campus's largest research facility is in the school of Poultry Science housed in the John W. Tyson Building.199 The Tyson empire — through Tyson Foods, the non - profit Tyson Foundation and related founda- tions controlled by the Tyson family — has endowed six of the agricultural college's 15 chairs.110 Between 2002 and 2010, Tyson donated more than $15 million to the university, including poultry sciences scholar- ships, an endowed food safety chair and a research center bearing the Tyson name."' This philanthropic giving effectively generates posi- tive public relations and favorable research from the university that supports Tyson's business practices. For example, in 2005, Tyson Foods faced allegations of inhumane poultry slaughtering practices that were caught on tape.12 Tyson responded by conducting an animal welfare study, concluding that its existing slaughtering practices were humane .113 Tyson then hired a professor who held one of its funded chairs at Arkansas (through a $1.5 million endowment) to confirm its findings.1' In 2011, the university launched a new Center for Food Animal Well- Being, funded with $1 million each from Tyson Foods and the family of Walmart founder Sam Walton.1' The center's director openly lauded "large -scale confinement rearing," a euphemism for factory farming, as a "good thing. 11116 Tyson's influence pales in comparison to Walmart and the Walton family. The Arkansas Razorbacks basketball team plays in the Bud Walton arena. "' In 1998, the Walton family donated $50 million to Arkansas's business school, which was renamed the Sam W. Walton Business College; two Tyson and three Walmart executives sit on the advisory board.118 In 2002, the Walmart empire gave $300 million to the university, then the largest donation to a public university ever.19 The money was earmarked to endow research chairs, fund doctoral fellowships and finance research programs in fields including food sciences, biotechnology and the use of electronics in packaging.120 By 2007, the University of Arkansas credited Walmart with donating more than $1 billion. This amount included contributions squeezed from the company's suppliers .121 This philanthropy provides Walmart with a major return on investment. As Walmart rolled out its controversial radio - frequency identification (RFID) supply chain management technology, the Sam Walton Business School provided research in support of the technology.122 Walmart's RFID program mandated that suppliers pay the high cost of installing RFID chips into products or packaging.123 Meanwhile, for the retailer, the RFID chips would reduce inventory costs and allow the company to monitor consumer purchases.124 One study estimated that the average Walmart suppliers would spend $9 million the first year to comply with the RFID regime .121 In contrast, Walmart would see a $287 million annual benefit through automating inventory and price checks .126 After a 2007 Wall Street Journal article reported on the controversy surrounding Walmart's aggressive RFID campaign, Walmart promoted an "independent" study touting RFID's benefits .127 This unnamed study Public Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research 11 appears to come from the University of Arkansas RFID Center, founded with Walmart money and housed in a building owned by a Walmart vendor."" In 2010, the Wall StreetJournal exposed consumer privacy concerns associated with Walmart's RFID chipping of clothing items; in the article, a Walmart- funded Arkansas professor defended the use of RFID .129 South Dakota: Privatizing the Land -Grant University At the South Dakota State University (SDSU), corpo- rate influence extends all the way to the top. SDSU president David Chicoine joined Monsanto's board of directors in 2009 and received $390,000 from Monsanto the first year, more than his academic salary. 130 Simultaneously acting as a director of the world's largest seed company and the leader of South Dako- ta's largest public research institute raised obvious conflict -of- interest concerns .131 One state senator proposed legislation barring Chicoine's corporate appointment, observing that Monsanto was "trying to buy influence at the university by buying influence with the president" and that "makes it look like we're in the hip pocket of Monsanto. "132 Weeks before Chicoine joined Monsanto, the company sponsored a $1 million plant breeding fellowship program at SDSU.133 Chicoine's appoint- ment at Monsanto also coincided with a new SDSU effort to enforce university seed patents by suing farmers for sharing and selling saved seed. A millennia -old practice, saving seed allows farmers to reproduce their strongest plants from previous years and avoid the cost of purchasing seed. Historically, land -grant schools have developed public seeds that farmers freely propagated, saved and shared .134 Recently, however, SDSU joined the Monsanto subsid- iary WestBred in a public - private program called the Farmers Yield Initiative, which sues farmers for seed patent infringements — using private investiga- tors and toll -free, anonymous hotlines to uncover possible illegal use of seeds, such as selling saved seeds .131 These aggressive practices come straight out of playbook of Monsanto, which has filed dozens of PHOTO BY JAKE DEG ROOT/ COMMONS.WIKIMEDIA.ORG patent infringement lawsuits against farmers .136 In 2009, SDSU filed suit against South Dakota farmers for the first time, alleging illegal use of SDSU - controlled seeds .131 One accused farmer called the lawsuit a "rotten scam" in which SDSU purport- edly entrapped him to violate university patents by running a fake "seed wanted" ad in a newspaper. 138 He and four other farmers settled the 2009 cases for more than $100,000.139 In 2011, SDSU settled another lawsuit against a farmer for $75,000.140 Farmers not only paid damages but also consented to allow SDSU inspect their farms, facilities, business records and telephone records for up to five years .141 SDSU is not alone in suing farmers over seed patents. Texas A &M, Kansas State University and Colorado State Univer- sity have pursued similar lawsuits against farmers .142 What makes the university lawsuits against farmers more offensive is the fact that SDSU wheat seeds were developed with farmer and taxpayer dollars .143 South Dakota farmers pay 1.5 cents to the South Dakota Wheat Commission for every bushel of wheat they produce (known as a check -off program) .144 About 40 percent of this check -off money, totaling more than $870,000 in 2009, funds SDSU wheat research. 141 These check -off dollars funded the devel- opment of many SDSU wheat varieties, including the Briggs and Traverse varieties involved in the SDSU farmer lawsuits.146 The USDA, using taxpayer money, has awarded SDSU at least 50 wheat research grants, averaging $108,000 each, some of which also 12 Food & Water Watch • www.foodandwaterwotch.org contributed to the development and registration of the Briggs and Traverse varieties.147 Government Research Dollars The USDA spends around $2 billion a year on agricul- tural research, funding its own scientists and those at land -grant universities.148 Unfortunately, the USDA's research agenda mirrors corporate - funded research, directing dollars toward industrial agriculture. The National Academy of Sciences found that USDA research prioritizes commodity crops, industrialized livestock production, technologies geared toward large -scale operations and capital - intensive prac- tice S.149 For example, the Farm Bill dedicates little funding to more sustainable farming programs like the Organic Agriculture Research and Education Initiative and Specialty Crop Research Initiative (covering fruits and vegetables), which each repre- sent just 2 percent of the USDA's research budget.lso The bias toward industrial agriculture is unfortunate given the USDA's unique position to address public research needs that the private sector will ignore, such as those related to health and the environment. As the National Resource Council notes, "no other public agency has the resources, infrastructure, or mandate to support research focusing on the interface between agriculture and the environ- ment. And this is where private- sector research is highly unlikely to fill the void. "1S1 The USDA prioritizes research dollars for commodity crops like corn and soybeans, which are the building blocks of processed foods and the key ingredients in factory- farmed livestock feed. Although the agency boasts that fruits and vegetables comprise almost half of the total value of crop production, the USDA spends relatively little on fruit and vegetable research.15' In 2010, the USDA funded $204 million in research into all varieties of fruits and vegetables, less than the $212 million that was spent researching just four commodity crops: corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton .113 The USDA also generously funds research into crops that produce oils and sugars that are used to manu- facture processed foods. In 2010, the department spent $18.1 million researching sugar crops (including sugar cane and sugar beets) and $79.4 million on oilseed crops (including soybeans, canola and palm oil).15' The USDA's prioritization of sugar and fat research is disconcerting given the current diet - related epidemics of diabetes and obesity. The USDA dedicates more research to sugars than to nutrition education and healthy lifestyles combined ($15.5 million and $1.3 million, respectively). 155 Much of the research funding for commodity crops implicitly or explicitly goes toward genetically engi- neered (GE) crops because the vast majority of the corn, cotton and soybeans grown in the United States is GE.156 This funding can act as corporate welfare because, for example, Monsanto and DuPont alone control 70 percent of the corn and 59 percent of the soybean seed market.157 At the same time, the USDA has largely failed to investigate potential environmental and food safety risks of GE crops. Between 1994 and 2002, the USDA funded more than 3,000 plant biotechnology studies: none investigated possible unintended toxins and only two examined potential allergens in GE food."" USDA's pro- biotech research bias was highlighted with the 2009 appointment of Roger Beachy, a major biotech advocate with strong ties to Monsanto, to r'ublic Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research 13 lead USDA's main agricultural research program (a position he vacated in 2011).159 Other federal research agencies, like the National Academy of Sciences, have conducted very little food safety research on GE foods — and actually demonstrate a bias toward reporting the benefits of biotechnology, according to one peer- reviewed study.160 This leaves the public in the dark about the potential threats of GE crops, even as other countries limit or prohibit GE cultivation and marketing. Conclusion and Recommendations Like almost every other aspect of the modern food system, the private sector now wields enormous influence over agricultural research. Over the past several decades, industry funding at land -grant universities has eclipsed USDA funding, challenging the public- interest mission of these institutions. And USDA funding appears to do more to further agri- business interests than those of the public. Sound agricultural policy requires impartial and unbiased scientific inquiry. Corporate funding taints the independence and objectivity of agricultural research, distorting scientific inquiry to deliver favor- able results for corporate sponsors. Industry funding unduly influences research agendas, prioritizing the dominant industrial food and agri- cultural production model. USDA - funded research reinforces this model by emphasizing research on commodity crops — including biotech crops — over fruits, vegetables and sustainable production tech- niques. This effectively subsidizes agribusiness by spending public money to advance the industrial agriculture model. Unfortunately, the conflicts of interest between public good and private profits or between independent research and for -hire science remain largely unchallenged by both academia and policymakers. There is a critical role for government to play in supporting research that can spur a financially viable alternative to the industrialized model that dominates American agriculture. To reorient public agricultural research, Food & Water Watch recommends: • Congress should use the Farm Bill to prioritize and fund research to further the public interest. The Farm Bill Research Title should direct funding to provide practical solutions to the day -to -day problems facing farmers and develop alternatives to industrialized production. Congress should emphasize lower -input and sustainable methods, diversified crop and livestock farming, and alternative production like pasture -fed livestock and organic farming. The federal government should shift public research away from projects that culminate in private patents, instead giving money toward developing non -GE seeds that are distributed to farmers without patents and licensing fees. • Congress should fund independent research into the health and environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops. Congress should mandate that public institutions are permitted to research patented biotech seeds to analyze yields, assess food safety and investigate potential 14 Food & Water Watch • www.foodatidwaterwotch.org environmental impacts by prohibiting companies from restricting research in their licensing agree- ments. • Land -grant universities must be more trans- parent about their funding sources, making grant records open to public scrutiny on university Web sites. All sponsored research must specifically disclose the source of financial support for the authors, departments, chairs or universities. The public should not have to formally file records requests — or pay exorbitant sums — to view research grant records at public universities. • Agricultural research at land -grant universi- ties should not be driven by the intellectual property regime created by the Bayh -Dole Act. Congress should reconsider the Bayh -Dole Act's application to agricultural research at public universities and instead encourage schools to pursue public- interest research that can be shared freely with farmers. • Congress should restore funding for extension offices, giving county -level agents the resources they need to communicate research results and research needs between farmers and university researchers. • Agricultural research journals should establish rigorous conflict -of- interest standards. Scien- tific journals should prominently disclose the funding source for the academic work behind every published article, including any author and editor affiliations with the private sector — such as consulting fees, stock holdings, patent holdings, prior or potential future employment, and depart- mental or academic grants. Public Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research 15 Methodology To analyze trends in public research funding, Food & Water Watch used the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Current Research Information Service (CRIS) annual reports; despite the limitations in this dataset, it is the most comprehensive and widely used source of information on agricultural research funding. 161 Food and Water Watch's analysis of public funding focused on federal research dollars provided by the USDA. Although the CRIS reports detail the funding that other federal agencies contribute to agricultural research, there are major limitations in these funding data. These "other federal" agencies, like the National Institutes of Health and Department of Defense, comprised 19 percent of research money at land -grant universities in 2010. Food & Water Watch did not include this funding in this analysis because of significant limitations in this "other federal" funding, including hundreds of millions of dollars in erroneous reporting, confirmed by the University of Minnesota through personal correspondence. The "other federal" funding sources for agricultural research is self- reported by the land -grant universi- ties themselves, and the data appear inconsistent between institutions and between years. In addition, an unknown but likely significant portion of this "other federal" money goes toward non - agricultural research conducted by agricultural schools, such as companion animal (dogs and cats) research, medical research on primates, or human health and disease research that is not clearly agricultural research (such as autism or addiction research). Food & Water Watch focused on USDA's role in funding agricultural research at land - grant universities and did not examine the state funding for these state -based universities. To analyze individual land -grant universities, Food & Water Watch used publicly available records as well as filing state - records requests, which yielded data of varying quality and quantity. Food & Water Watch exam- ined grant records from the University of California, University of Illinois, Iowa State University, University of Missouri, Texas A &M, University of Florida and Purdue University. Food & Water Watch adopted USDA's broad categorization of all non - public funding — from companies, trade groups, marketing orders, foundations and charities — as private- sector funding. A large majority of non - public funding comes from agribusiness interests. Food & Water Watch categorized non - public, private sector as industry funding based on a close examination of available data. To examine the extent to which non - public money going to universities comes from agribusiness interests and agricultural trade associa- tion — and not unaffiliated charities, like the American Heart Association — Food & Water Watch conducted an in -depth analysis of the non - public funding of the most comprehensive university grant records available (the University of California, University of Illinois and Iowa State University) over the most recent five -year period. This analysis found that the majority of private sector, non - public funding of agricultural research came from agribusinesses, agricultural trade associations, agricultural marketing orders and agribusiness - affiliated foundations between 2006 and 2010. These industry groups supplied nearly three - quarters (72 percent) of the non - public research funding to the University of California, University of Illinois and Iowa State University's five largest agricultural research departments (57 percent, 91 percent and 81 percent, respectively). The industry funding at the University of California does not include a $16 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, although this grant includes a private - sector partner, Nutriset, whose nutritional products are a major part of the grant. The company's patented nutritionally fortified foods, designed for the developing world, have been widely criticized by aid groups like Doctors Without Borders because the company's aggressive intellectual property protection has restricted the availability of similar nutritional supplements to malnourished people .162 If this grant were categorized as an industry grant, the percentage of non - public funding from industry to the University of California would rise to 76 percent and the total to all three schools would rise to 81 percent. 16 Food & \Eater Watch • www.foodondwoterwatch.org Endnotes 1 Slaughter, Shelia and Larry Leslie. "Academic Capitalism! The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1997 at 44 to 48, 71; Heisey, Paul et al. United States Depart- ment of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS). "Government Patenting and Technology Transfer." February 2006 at 14; The Bayh -Dole Act of 1980, 35 USC §200 -212 (2000); Fernandez - Cornejo, Jorge. USDA ERS. "The Seed Industry in U.S. Agriculture: An exploration of data and information on crop seed markets, regulation, industry structure, and research and develop- ment." February 2004 at 25 to 26. 2 Morrill, Justin. Speech in House of Representatives. June 6, 1862. Reprinted in Missouri General Assembly. Journal of the Senate of the State of Missouri. Twenty -third general assembly. 1865 -1866 at 253; Morrill Act of 1862. 7 U.S.C. 301. 3 Fuglie, Keith and Paul Heisey. USDA ERS. "Economic returns to public agricul- tural research." USDA ERS. Brief Number 10. September 2007 at 3. 4 Ehlenfeldt, Mark. USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS). "The delightful domesticated American Blueberry." Agricultural Research. May /June 2011; Fern andez - Cornejo, Jorge (2004) at 25; Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. "Report of the Director." Bulletin 243. November 1922 at 177 to 179; Wieschmeier, Walter and Dwight Smith. USDA ARS and Purdue Agricultural Ex- periment Station. "Predicting rainfall- erosion losses from cropland east of the rocky mountains." Agriculture Handbook No. 282. May 1965; Flanagan, D.C. et al. "Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP): Development History, Model Capabilities, and Future Enhancements." American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 100th Anniversary Soil and Water Invited Review Series. 2007 at 1603; Laflen,l.M. and W.C. Moldenhauer. World Association of Soil & Water Conservation. "Pioneering Soil Erosion Prediction." Special Publication No. 1. 2003 at Introduction. 5 Fernandez - Cornejo, Jorge (2004) at 25. 6 USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). "Land -Grant Universi- ties and Universities! at http:// www .csrees.usda.gov /qlinks /part- ners /partners_list.pdf and on file. Accessed August 31, 2011. 7 USDA NIFA. Extension, About Us. Available at http: / /www.csrees.usda.gov/ qlinks /extension.html and on file. Accessed August 31, 2011. 8 Aheran, Mary et al. USDA ERS. "Regional Trends in Extension System Resources." Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 781. April 2003 at 5; USDA annual budgets. Comparison between 2012 budget authority and 2003 budget authority, using total funding to Smith -Lever Grant Money, adjusted to 2003 dollars using the CPI Inflation Calculator from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 9 CropLife America. 2011 National Policy Conference. May 12, 2011 at Tran- script, Question from Sudeep Mathew, at 9 to 10. 10 Aheran, Mary et al. (2003) at 5. 11 Schimmel pfennig, David and Paul Heisey. USDA ERS. "U.S. Public Agricultural Research." March 2009 at 9; USDA NIFA Current Research Information System (CRIS). National Summary. 1993 at Table A. 12 USDA CRIS, National Summary. 2010, at Table A. Food & Water Watch excluded forestry schools and other cooperating institutions from agricul- tural research. Like USDA, Food & Water Watch uses the terms "private" and "industry" funding to describe the "non- federal" money in the CRIS dataset, which includes corporate, foundation and trade association grants to land - grant universities. See Woteki, Catherine. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, "Why Science Matters to Agriculture." January 7, 2011. Industry - affiliated money is defined as industry agreements, sales of research product to industry and other unspecified non - federal funding; See also Fuglie, Keith et al. 'Agricultural Research and Development Public and Private Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions" May 1996 at 9. All funding levels are reported in real, inflation- adjusted 2010 dollars, using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI deflator. 13 Mars, Inc. [Press Release]. "Cocoa Flavanols Could More Than Double Cells As- sociated With Repair & Maintenance Of Blood Vessels, According To Mars, In- corporated Research" July 5, 2010; Food & Water Watch analysis of University of California grants obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. 14 University of California at Davis. Center for Produce Safety. Advisory Board. Available https: // cps. ucdavis .edu /staff /1 /Advisory_Board.html and on file. Ac- cessed November 3, 2011. 15 University of California at Davis. Center for Produce Safety. Technical Commit- tee. Available at https: // cps. ucdavis. edu /staff /2 /Technical_Committee.html and on file. Accessed November 3, 2011. 16 University of California at Davis. Center for Produce Safety. Executive Board. Available at https: // cps. ucdavis. edu /staff /3 /Executive_Committee.htmi and on file. Accessed November 3, 2011. 17 University of Arkansas. Walton College, Office of External Relations. Dean's Executive Advisory Board, 2010 -2011. Available at http: / /waltoncollege.uark. edu /externalrelations /deab.asp and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011, 18 Press, Eyal and Jennifer Washburn. "The Kept University." The Atlantic. March 2000. 19 University of Georgia. Center for Food Safety. Industry Membership, Current Industry Members. Available at http: / /www.ugacfs.org /members /indus- trymembers.htm. 20 Iowa State University. Plant Sciences Institute. Annual Report. 2009 at 10, 11; 2008 at 30; Iowa State University. Plant Sciences Institute. Governance. Avail- able at http: / /www.plantsciences.iastate.edu /governance/ and on file. Ac- cessed August 22, 2011; Iowa State University. Plant Sciences Institute. Board Members. Available at http: / /www.plantsciences.iastate.edu /governance/ board.html and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011. 21 Iowa State University Board of Regents. Board Members, Bruce Rastetter and Craig Lang. Available at http:/ /www. regents .iowa.gov /BoardMembers /rastet- terbio.html and http: / /www. regents. iowa .gov /BoardMembers /langbio.htm1. On file. Accessed August 22, 2011; "Hog, ethanol baron Bruce Rastetter now a Republican kingmaker." WCF Courier. August 4, 2011; Lloyd, Jon. "Residents rally against proposed hog factory farm." Boone News Republican. June 7, 2011, 22 Dole. Board of Directors: Sherry Lansing. Available at http: / /investors.dole. com /phoenix.zhtml ?c= 231558 &p = irol- govBoard_pf and on file. Accessed No- vember 4, 2011; University of California Board of Regents. About the Regents: Sherry Lansing. Available at http:/ /www.universityofcalifornia.edu /regents/ regbios /lansing.htm and on file. Accessed November 3, 2011. 23 Lang, Susan. "Cornell Hillel awards 2010 Tanner Prize to mother - daughter alumnae Irene and Allison Rosenfeld." Cornell Chronicle. June 1, 2010. 24 Goldberger, Jessica et al. Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, Universi- ty of Wisconsin- Madison. "Modern Agricultural Science in Transition: A Survey of U.S. Land -Grant Agricultural and Life Scientists." PATS Research Report No. 14. October 14, 2005 at Table 9. 25 USDA ARS. Agricultural Research Funding in the Public and Private Sectors, 1970 -2008. Dataset updated February 19, 2010; Woteki, Catherine. Presi- dent's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. "Why Science Matters to Agriculture." January 7, 2011. 26 Ibid. 27 USDA CRIS. National Summary. 1995 -2010 at Table A. (NOTE: Excludes fund- ing to forestry schools; includes funding to agricultural experiment stations, 1890 land -grant institutions and veterinary colleges, almost all of these entities are part of the land -grant university system.) (NOTE: State Agricultural Experiment Stations are staffed by academic faculty at land -grant universities, where the stations are located. This report considers Agricultural Experiment Stations as part of the Land -Grant University System. SEE: Fuglie, Keith et al. USDA ERS. 'Agricultural Research and Development" May 1996 at 2, 9; Schim- melpfennig, David and Paul Heisey (2009) at 7. 28 Much of the USDA growth occurred as a result of increased research funding post 9/11. See Ho, Melissa. Congressional Research Service. 'Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and Background." January 3, 2011 at 5. USDA funding of land -grant schools rose between 2000 and 2004 but declined from 2005 to 2009. SEE USDA CRIS. National Summary. 2000 -2010 at Table A. 29 Food & Water Watch's funding analysis is based on USDA CRIS data, which also includes agricultural research funding from "other federal" agencies, like the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense, which com- prised 19 percent of research money at land -grant universities in 2010. Food & Water Watch did not include this funding in this analysis because of significant limitations in this "other federal" funding, including hundreds of millions of dollars in erroneous reporting, confirmed by the University of Minnesota. The "other federal" funding sources for agricultural research at land -grant Public Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research 17 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 schools is self- reported by the universities themselves, and the data appear inconsistent between institutions and between years. In addition, an unknown but likely significant portion of this "other federal" money goes toward non- agricultural research conducted by agricultural schools, such as companion animal (dogs and cats) research, medical research on primates, or human health and disease research that is not clearly agricultural research (such as autism or addiction research). For these reasons, Food & Water Watch did not include other federal funding in its analysis. SOURCE: interview with USDA and University of Minnesota, on file, and analysis of NIH grant database. Available at http: // report. nih.gov /award /organizations.cfm. Accessed October 2011. University of Minnesota. [Press Release]. "U of M Receives $10 Million Gift from Cargill for Microbial and Plant Genomics Building." September 1999; Cargill. "Cargill Timeline, 1865— Present." 2011 at 12. Colorado State University. "Five Rivers Ranch cattle feeding donates southeast- ern Colorado research facility to Colorado State University." August 3, 2005. Honan, William. "Business school at Arkansas U. is getting gift of $50 million." New York Times. October 7, 1998. Miner, Kaitlin. "Renovations underway on Curtiss Hall." Iowa State Daily. June 17, 2011. National Center for Soybean Biotechnology. Announcements for Second and Sixth Annual Soybean Biotechnology Symposiums. Available at www. soybiotechcenter.org; University of Missouri. Life Science Business Incubator at Monsanto Place. Brochure available at http: / /muincubator.com /facility.htmi and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011. Rogers, Louise. "Monsanto Gift Benefits ACES." ACES News (University of Il- linois). June 3, 2002. Purdue Agriculture Food Science. Naming Opportunities. Available at http: // www.ag.purdue.edu /foodsci /Pages /naming_opportunities.aspx and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011. University of Arkansas, Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food & Life Sciences, Poultry Science. "The John W. Tyson Building! at http: // poultryscience .uark.edu /4534.htm and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011. "Tyson $2.5 million gift supports child development center." The University of Arkansas Benefactor. Winter 2010. "Men's Basketball at Bud Walton Arena." University of Arkansas Athletic Me- dia Relations. July 14, 2008, Miner, Kaitlin (2011). National Center for Soybean Biotechnology. Announcements for Second and Sixth Annual Soybean Biotechnology Symposiums. Rogers, Louise (2002). Purdue University. Department of Food Science. Naming Opportunities. Avail- able at http: / /www.ag.purdue.edu /foodsci /Pages /naming_opportunities.aspx and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011. University of Georgia. Center for Food Safety. Industry Membership, Invitation from the Center Director. Available at http : / /www.ugacfs.org /industry.html and on file. Accessed August 4, 2011. University of Georgia. Center for Food Safety. Industry Membership, Current Industry Members. Purdue University. College of Agriculture, Food Science. "Involvement with Industry." Available at http: / /www.ag.purdue.edu /foodsci /Pages /industry.aspx and on file. Accessed August 4, 2011. Iowa State University. Plant Sciences Institute. Annual Report. 2009 at 10, 11; 2008 at 30; Iowa State University. Plant Sciences Institute. Governance. Avail- able at http: / /www.plantsciences.iastate.edu /governance/ and on file. Ac- cessed August 22, 2011; Iowa State University. Plant Sciences Institute. Board Members. Available at http: / /www.plantsciences.iastate.edu /governance/ board.html and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011. Food & Water Watch analysis of Purdue University grants obtained through online databases, 2010 -2011. Texas A &M. Office of Sponsored Research Services, AgriLIFE. Analysis of Activ- ity Reports. Food & Water Watch analysis of University of Illinois grants obtained through Freedom of Information Act request. Food & Water Watch analysis of Iowa State University grant records obtained through Freedom of Information Act request. Food & Water Watch analysis of university grant records obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests of online databases. 53 Woods, Chuck. "Mark Settles appointed to UF's New Vasil- Monsanto Profes- sorship" December 7, 2001. University of Florida. December 7, 2001; Univer- sity of Florida. Faculty Profile of Dr. A. Mark Settles. Available at http: / /hos.ufl. edu /faculty /amsettles and on file. Accessed September 23, 2011. 54 University of Florida, IFAS Development Office. "Share Annual Gift Report." 2009 -2010 at 14. 55 "Iowa State University receives $500k gift from Monsanto! Associated Press. May 27, 2011. 56 Iowa State University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. College of Endowed Chairs. Available at http: / /www.ag.iastate.edu /about /endowed. php and on file. Accessed September 22, 2011; Iowa State University. [Press release]. "Pioneer teams with Iowa State for corn breeding endowment" September 21, 2011. 57 Laws, Forrest. 'At Texas A &M Borlaug honored with endowed chair." Delta Farm Press. February 2, 2007. 58 Donovan, Sharon. "Fahey Named U of I's First Kraft Foods Human Nutrition Professor." ACES News (University of Illinois). September 21, 2006. 59 Goldberger, Jessica et al. (2005) at Table 5. 60 Texas A &M. Office of Sponsored Research Services, Agri LIFE. Analysis of Activ- ity Reports. 61 Ibid. 62 Food & Water Watch analysis of university grant records obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Goldberger, Jessica et al. (2005) at 10. 66 Knudson, Tom and Mike Lee. "Biotech industry funds bumper crop of UC Davis research" Sacramento Bee. June 8, 2004. 67 Martinson, Brian et al. "Scientists behaving badly." Nature. June 2005 at 737. 68 Nestle, Marion. "Food company sponsorship of nutrition research & profes- sional activities: A conflict of interest ?" Public Health Nutrition. 2001 at 1021 to 1022. 69 Food & Water Watch analysis of University of California grants obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. 70 Mars, Inc. (2010). 71 Lesser, Lenard et al. "Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition - Related Scientific Articles." PLOS MEDICINE. January 2007 at Discussion. 72 Diels, Johan. 'Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of geneti- cally modified products." Food Policy. November 22, 2010 at 200 to 201. 73 Ibid. 74 Lesser, Lenard et al. (2007) at Results. 75 Krimskey, Sheldon. "Combating the funding effect in science: What's beyond transparency ?" Stanford Law & Policy Review. Vol. 21. 2010 at 107; Goozner, Merrill. Integrity in Science Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Unrevealed: Non - Disclosure of Conflict of Interest in Four Leading Medical and Scientific Journals." July 12, 2004 at 3 and 8. 76 Goldberger, Jessica et al. (2005) at Table 10. 77 Pollock, Andrew. "Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research." New York Times. February 20, 2009. 78 "Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research" Scientific American. August 13, 2009. 79 Dalton, Rex. "Superweed study falters as seed firms deny access to transgene." Nature. October 17, 2002. 80 Waltz, Emily. "Under Wraps." Nature Biotechnology. October 2009 at 882. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Kuehn, Robert. "Suppression of Environmental Science." American Journal of Law & Medicine. 2004 at 339 to 340; Press, Eyal and Jennifer Washburn (2000). 84 Press, Eyal and Jennifer Washburn (2000); Buchanan, Bob and Ignacio Cha- pela. "Novartis Revisited." California Monthly. February 2002. 85 Buchanan, Bob and Ignacio Chapela (2002). 18 Food & Water Watch • www.foodandwaterwotch.org 86 Heisey, Paul et al. (2006) at 13. 87 Davis, Trey. "UC, Monsanto reach $100 million settlement in growth hormone patent case" University of California. [Press release]. February 27, 2006; "What happened to the Flavr Savr." Chemical & Engineering News. April 19, 1999; Fell, Andy. University of California at Davis. News and Information. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained- biotech startup illustrates campus's shift in attitude about venture research." April 30, 2004. 88 "The Gene Shotgun." Cornell University. Made at CALS. Available at http:// www.cals.cornell.edu /cals/ public /businesspartnerships /made /gene- shotgun. cfm and on file. Accessed August 18, 2011. 89 USDA NIFA. List of Technology Transfer Offices located at land -grant universi- ties. Available at http: / /www.csrees.usda.gov /funding /sbir /sbir tech_trans- fer_offices.html and on file. Accessed August 23, 2011; Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. "University- Industry Relationships: Framing the Issues for Academic Research in Agricultural Biotechnology." November 2003 at 31. 90 Busch, Lawrence et al. "External Review of the Collaborative Research Agree- ment between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. and The Regents of the University of California." Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards (IFAS) Michigan State University. July 13, 2004 at 25, 44, 56; Press, Eyal and Jennifer Washburn (2000). 91 Press, Eyal and Jennifer Washburn (2000). 92 Business- Higher Education Forum. "Working Together, Creating Knowledge; the University- Industry Research Collaboration Initiative." 2001 at 45. 93 Busch, Lawrence et al. (2004) at 111. 94 Waltz, Emily (2009) at 882. 95 Ibid. and Food & Water Watch analysis of Purdue University grants obtained through online databases. 96 Food & Water Watch analysis of Purdue University grants in the Food Science Department obtained through online databases; Hinsdale Farms. Home Web Page. Available at http: / /www.hinsdalefarms.com /index.html and on file. Ac- cessed August 4, 2011. 97 SEE: USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnol- ogy. Program Aid No. 1862. April 2006. 98 European Community. Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parlia- ment and of the Council on Genetically Modified Food and Feed. September 22, 2003; Dr. Sato, Suguro. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricul- ture Information Network. "Japan Biotechnology Annual Report 2008." July 15, 2008 at 3. 99 Food & Water Watch analysis of University of Illinois grants obtained through Freedom of Information Act request. 100 Capper, Judith et al. "The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production." PNAS. July 15, 2008 at Abstract. 101 United States Food and Drug Administration. Freedom of Information Sum- mary: Posilac, NADA Number: 140 -872. 102 Dohoo, Ian et al. Health Canada, Drug and Health Products. "Report of the Ca- nadian Veterinary Medical Association expert panel on rBST." November 1998 at Section 7; Groves, Martha. "Canada Rejects Hormone that Boosts Cows' Milk Output." Los Angeles Times. January 15, 1999; European Commission, Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection. "Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin" March 1999. Available at http: / /ec.europa.eu /food /fs /sc /scv /outl9_en.html; Gray, Thomas. "Dairy Dilemma" USDA Rural Cooperatives. November /December 2006. 103 Public comment to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel. Document ID: EPA- HQ -OPP- 2008 - 0836 -0043. Avail- able at http: / /www. regulations .gov / #!documentDetail;D= EPA- HQ- OPP -2008- 0836- 0043;oldLink =false and on file. Accessed August 26, 2011. 104 Pollock, Andrew (2009). 105 Ibid. 106 Public comment to FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. Document ID: EPA- HQ -OPP -2008- 0836 -0043. Available at http: / /www.regulations. gov / #!documentDetail;D= EPA- HQ -OPP -2008- 0836- 0043;oldLink =false and on file. Accessed August 26, 2011. 107 Pollock, Andrew (2009). 108 State of Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. "Moving to Arkansas, a Tax Guide for New Residents! April 2008. (Arkansas state motto: The People Rule.) 109 University of Arkansas, Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food & Life Sciences, Poultry Science. "The John W. Tyson Building." Available at http: // poultryscience .uark.edu /4534.htm and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011. 110 University of Arkansas, Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food & Life Sciences. Faculty Chairs and Professorships. Available at http://bumperscol - lege.uark.edu/5392.htm and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011; "Tyson Foods Establishes University of Arkansas Chair in Food Safety." Tyson Foods. April 15, 2004. Available at http: / /www.tysonfoods.com /Media- Room /News- Releas- es /2004 /04 /Tyso n- Food s -Esta b I ishes -U n ive rsity -of -Arks nsa s -Ch a i r -i n -Food- Safety.aspx and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011. 111 "John Tyson donates $500k to poultry scholarship fund! Partners. Center for Excellence for Poultry Science. April 2002 at 1 to 2; Tyson Foods (2004); "Tyson Foods Honored." The Poultry Federation. Available at http: / /hesc.uark. edu /5686.htm and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011; University of Arkansas (Winter 2010). 112 "Tyson to probe chicken - slaughter methods." Associated Press. May 25, 2005. 113 Tyson Foods. "Tyson Asks University to Conduct Animal Welfare Research! October 5, 2006. 114 Ibid. 115 "Center for Food Animal Well being established, plans research and outreach" Agricultural Communication Services, University of Arkansas. June 8, 2011. 116 Ibid. 117 "Men's Basketball at Bud Walton Arena! University of Arkansas Athletic Me- dia Relations. July 14, 2008. 118 "Walton Family Gift" University of Arkansas. Available at http://campusmaps. uark.edu /363.php and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011; University of Arkan- sas. Walton College, Office of External Relations. Dean's Executive Advisory Board, 2010 -2011. Available at http: / /waltoncollege .uark.edu /externalrela- tions/deab.asp and on file. Accessed August 22, 2011; Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. SEC filings. 10 -K. 2010 at 4. 119 "University of Arkansas receives $300 million gift, largest in history of U.S. public higher education." University of Arkansas Newswire. Thursday 11, 2002. Available at http: // newswire .uark.edu /ardcle.aspx ?id =12814 and on file. Ac- cessed August 22, 2011. 120 Ibid. 121 Mui, Ylan. "Walmart Backs Eco- Friendly Center." Washington Post. August 30, 2007. 122 University of Arkansas. Walton College. RFID Research Center. Available at http: / /itri.uark.edu /118.asp and on file. Accessed August 4, 2011; Hardgrave, Bill et al. "Does RFID Reduce Out of Stocks? A Preliminary Analysis." University of Arkansas, Walton College, RFID Research Center. November 2005. 123 McWilliams, Gary. "Walmart's Radio - Tracked Inventory Hits Static" Wall Street Journal. February 15, 2006. 124 Nystedt, Dan. "Walmart eyes $287 million benefit from RFID." Washington Post. October 12, 2007; McWilliams, Gary (2006); Bustillo, Miguel. "Walmart Radio Tags to Track Clothing." Wall Streetlournal. July 23, 2010. 125 Bowden, Bill. "RFID Could cost Average Walmart Vendor $9M." Arkansas Busi- ness. April 12, 2004. 126 Nystedt, Dan (2007). 127 McWilliams, Gary (2006); Ford, Rollin. "Walmart: No Static on Radio Tracking! Letter to the Editor. Wall Street Journal. March 7, 2007. 128 Ibid. and Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. "Walmart improves on -shelf availability through the use of electronic product codes." October 14, 2005; Hardgrave, Bill et al. "RFID's Impact on Out of Stocks: A Sales Velocity Analysis" University of Arkansas, Walton College, RFID Research Center. June 2006 at 9, 10, 13; Hardgrave, Bill et al. (2005) at 9,10; Bowden, Bill. "UA Opens RFID Research Center." Northwest Arkansas Business Journal. June 20, 2005; Roberti, Mark. "University Opens RFID Research Center." RFIDJournal. June 13, 2005; Uni- versity of Arkansas; University of Arkansas. "Coverage Opportunity: UA RFID Research Center." Arkansas Newswire. May 24, 2005. 129 Bustillo, Miguel (2010); Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. (2009). 130 Brandert, Melanie. "Relationship between Monsanto, SDSU president ques- tioned." Argus Leader. May 7, 2009. 131 Woodward, Ryan. "Chicoine discusses Monsanto appointment." The Brookings Register. April 30, 2009. 132 Kaus, Austin. "Senator to regents: Fix SDSU conflict." The Daily Republic. June 19, 2009. Public Research, Private Gain: Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research 19 133 Monsanto. "Monsanto Commits $1 Million to Sponsor Plant Breeding Fellow- ships at South Dakota State University." March 19, 2009. 134 Fernandez- Cornejo, Jorge (2004) at 25. 135 "South Dakota State University enforces PVP rights! South Dakota State University. Available at http: / /www.sdstate.edu /news /articles /pvp- rights.cfm and on file. Accessed August 25, 2011; Tonneson, Lon. "Farmer says SDSU lawsuit is 'rotten scam. "' Dakota Farmer. July 16, 2009; Hult, John. "Seed cases break ground in S. Dakota: farmers sued" Argus Leader. December 12, 2010; Farmers' Yield Initiative. Partners. Available at http://www.farmersyieldinitia - tive.com/fyi- partners/ and on file. Accessed August 31, 2011; Farmers' Yield Initiative. Submit a Tip. Available at http: / /www.farmersyieldinitiative.com/ submit -a -tip/ and on file. Accessed August 31, 2011; "Monsanto buys West - Bred assets for $45M." St. Louis Business Journal. July 14, 2009. 136 Barlett, Donald L. and James B. Steele. "Monsanto's harvest of fear." Vanity Fair. May 2008; Center for Food Safety. "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers" Novem- ber 2007 at 1 to 2. 137 Tonneson, Lon (2009). 138 Ibid. 139 United States District Court for the District of South Dakota Sioux Falls Divi- sion. South Dakota Board of Regents v Jim Hauge, 4:09 -cv- 04099 -LLP, (Doc. #13); South Dakota Board of Regents v Dale Zemlicka, 4:09 -cv- 04097 -LLP (Doc. #12); South Dakota Board of Regents v Bannwarth Farms, LLC, 4:09- cv- 04098- LLP (Doc. #15); South Dakota Board of Regents v Brad Bechen, 4:09- cv- 04096- LLP (Doc. #19);; South Dakota Board of Regents v John Coughlin, 4:09 -cv- 04100 -LLP (Doc. #16). 140 Hult, John (2010); South Dakota Board of Regents v Gary Nachtigal, Lowell Den Besten, d /b /a Dakota Best Seed; Maple Leaf Seed Division, dba., Maple Leaf Seeds; Freemont Trading Company, LLC; Gayland Ward Seed Co., Inc.; and John Does 1- 50.4:10 -cv- 04168 -LLP. 141 United States District Court for the District of South Dakota Sioux Falls Divi- sion. South Dakota Board of Regents v Jim Hauge at Doc. #13; South Dakota Board of Regents v Dale Zemlicka at Doc. #12; South Dakota Board of Regents v Bannwarth Farms at Doc. #15; South Dakota Board of Regents v Brad Bechen at Doc. #19; South Dakota Board of Regents v John Coughlin at Doc. #16. 142 Adame, Jaime. "Stamford -area wheat farmers sued in seed protection case." Reporter News. June 16, 2011; Welch, Kevin. "Spearman company wins seed case." Amarillo Globe -News. September 19, 2010. Schrag, Duane. "K- State: Farmers' seed use is illegal." SWRF wins lawsuit in plant variety protection vio- lation. Siftings. May 2007; South Dakota State University. University Relations. "SDSU goes to court to protect its wheat." Printed in the Brookings Register. July 15, 2009. 143 It is unknown how much money public and private sources have contributed to wheat breeding at SDSU. SDSU refused to honor an open- records request from Food & Water Watch without agreeing to an estimated payment of $629. Food & Water Watch refused this payment on the grounds that research grant information is public information and should be freely disseminated. 144 South Dakota Wheat Commission. Government Operations and Audit Com- mittee Review. April 21, 2009 at Document C. 145 Ibid. at Document D. 146 Ibid. at 3; Devkota, Ravindra et al. "Registration of'Briggs' Wheat" Journal of Crop Science. January- February 2007 at 433; South Dakota Wheat Commis- sion. Research: Breeding /Genetics. Available at http: / /www.sdwheat2.org/ html /info.cfm ?ID =1609 and on file. Accessed August 29, 2011; United States District Court for the District of South Dakota Sioux Falls Division. South Da- kota Board of Regents v Jim Hauge at Doc. #1; South Dakota Board of Regents v Dale Zemlicka at Doc. #1; South Dakota Board of Regents v Bannwarth Farms, LLC at Doc. #1; South Dakota Board of Regents v Brad Bechen at Doc. #1; South Dakota Board of Regents v John Coughlin at Doc. #1. 147 South Dakota Wheat Commission (2009) at Document D; USDA CRIS. Analysis of Subject of Investigations 1540 -1545 and 1549 at South Dakota State Univer- sity. Query conducted September 29, 2011 (NOTE: Only four of the 50 grant awards included dollar amounts); See specifically: USDA NIFA. Project Number 0197666. "Spring Wheat Breeding and Genetics" Award Start Date October 1, 2003; Devkota, Ravindra (2006). 148 USDA CRIS. Annual summary report 2009. August 2010 at Table A. 149 National Academy of Sciences. "Publicly funded agricultural research and the changing structure of U.S. Agriculture." National Academies Press. 2002 at 1 to 2, 5, 8, 31 and 42 to 44. 150 See U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture. "2008 Farm Bill Research Title." Fact Sheet. 2008 at 2; USDA. "USDA FY 2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan." 2011 at 116. 151 National Research Council. "Frontiers in Agricultural Science: Food, Health, Environment and Communities." 2003 at 27 to 28. 152 Woteki, Cathie. Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics, USDA. Testimony on Opportunities for Specialty Crops and Organics in the Farm Bill. Agriculture Committee. Senate. July 28, 2011 at 1. 153 USDA CRIS. Table C: National Summary USDA, SAES, and Other Institutions Fiscal Year 2010 Funds (Thousands) and Scientist Years. June 20, 2011. 154 Ibid. 155 Ibid. at Table D. 156 USDA ERS. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. Data table available at http: / /www.ers.usda.gov /Data /BiotechCrops/ and on file. Ac- cessed August 24, 2011. 157 Pollack, Andrew. 'After Growth, Fortunes Turn for Monsanto." New York Times. October 4, 2010. 158 Pelletier, David. "Science, Law, and Politics in FDA's Genetically Engineered Foods Policy: Scientific Concerns and Uncertainties." Nutrition Science and Policy. June 2005 at 216. 159 Stokstad, Erik. "Biotech advocate picked to oversee USDA research grants" Sci- ence Magazine. September 23, 2009; Ledford, Heidi. "US farm - science head quits" Nature News. May 3, 2011; Buchen, Lizzie. "US agriculture research gets priority plan" Nature News. September 29, 2009. 160 Pelletier, David (2005) at 212 to 214. 161 The USDA keeps a detailed database of research projects it funds, but it is not comprehensive. (See USDA CRIS online database at http: / /cris.nifa.usda.gov/ search.html.) Nor is it organized or classified to enable analysis of research funding based on different production practices. For example, it is impos- sible to compare funding of transgenic plant breeding versus non- transgenic plant breeding or confined animal feeding operations (factory farms) versus non - confined animal agriculture operations. (Caswell, Margriet and Kelly Day - Rubenstein. USDA ERS.'Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators; Agricultural Research and Development." EIB -16. 2006 at 61.) One USDA CRIS employee informed Food & Water Watch that the database "isn't the best resource to get an accurate account of NIFA funding." Because method of production is key to analyzing different models of agriculture, the database could be greatly strengthened through a production method classification. 162 Zirulnick, Ariel. "Somalia famine revives debate: is it acceptable to patent aid." Christian Science Monitor. October 3, 2011; Rice, Andrew. "The Peanut Solu- tion:' New York Times. September 10, 2010; Adu- Afrwuah, Seth et al. 'Accept- ability of lipid -based nutrient supplements (LNS) among Ghanaian infants and pregnant or lactating women." Maternal and Child Nutrition. 2010 at 1 and 12; Hess, Sonja. "Acceptability of zinc - fortified, lipid -based nutrient supplements (LNS) prepared for young children in Burkina Faso" Maternal and Child Nutri- tion. 2010 at 1 and 10; "UC Davis Receives $16 Million Gates Foundation Grant to Support Research to Prevent Childhood Malnutrition." UC DAVIS News and Information. November 18, 2008. 20 Food & Water Watch • www.foodandwoterwatch.org f00daweterW8ICh National Office 1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 tel: (202) 683 -2500 fax: (202) 683 -2501 info @fwwatch.org www.foodandwaterwatch.org cp m-