Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Authors:||Callies, David L.|
|Issue Date:||Nov 2015|
|Publisher:||Zoning and Planning Law Reports|
|Citation:||Callies, D. (2015). GMO Regulation. 38 No. 10 Zoning and Planning Law Reports NL 1, 1-12|
|Abstract:||The development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is not a particularly new scientific endeavor. Particularly popular and well-known in the development of hybrid strains of corn, GMO’s have been with us for decades. However, the recentexponentiallyincreased use and development of GMOs coupled with the relatively recent various natural foods movements have focused attention on the difference between such so-called “natural” foods and foods which have been scientifically modified. Complicating the issue is the use of pesticides on GMO crops to test their resistance to pesticides which can be used to eliminate plants not part of the crop cycle (weeds, previous crop volunteers, and so forth) as well as insects in a particular field. Both the pesticides and seeds from GMO fields often make their way onto neighboring land, resulting in claims of injury to residents exposed to pesticides and damage to non-resistant nearby crops and/or contamination of “natural” field crops thereby arguably reducing their market value to natural food vendors. While there have been so far no reported cases deciding the merits of GMOs or the damage caused to neighboring properties, a number of cases have been decided on the question of which level of government—federal,state or local—is the appropriate one to regulate (or in some instances label) GMOs. 1 Most are decided on the relatively arcane theories associated with preemption. Most have so far also been decided in one state: Hawaii.|
|Appears in Collections:||Callies, David L.|
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org if you need this content in an alternative format.
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.