Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Noncompliance History

Last Modified: 

Print

The following is a summary of major incidents of noncompliance with APHIS

biotechnology regulations from 1995 through present. 

In each case, APHIS and the companies took remedial actions in order to protect

agriculture, the food supply, and the environment and no adverse effects were

reported. Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) thoroughly investigated each
incident. None of the incidents, except those by one company, included field tests of

plant-made pharmaceuticals or industrials.

2016

Company/Institution: Monsanto Company and Montana State

University’s Southern Agricultural Research Center

On July 14, 2014, APHIS was notified that suspected GE wheat had been discovered

growing at the Montana State University’s Southern Agricultural Research Center

(SARC) in Huntley, Montana, where Monsanto Company and researchers grew GE

wheat as part of field trials between 2000 and 2003. These field tests were

conducted under APHIS authorization.

APHIS conducted an investigation that confirmed that the wheat was genetically

engineered to resist glyphosate. Monsanto and Montana State University/SARC were

issued warning letters for failing to adhere to required performance standards for

field trials. 

2015

Company/Institution: Monsanto Company

On August 21, 2014, APHIS was informed by a Monsanto Company (Monsanto)

seasonal employee of heavy rain storms that required the removal of regulated

dicamba-tolerant soybean plants that had washed out from authorized field trials

into neighboring fields and creek beds in Redwood and Renville counties,

Minnesota.  Based on its assessment of the situation and the origin of the

allegations, APHIS inspected 41 dicamba-tolerant soybean field sites in these two

counties and referred the incident to APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services

(IES). IES initiated an investigation into the incident in August 2014.

APHIS alleges that Monsanto: Failed to apply appropriate safeguards to prevent

escape and dissemination of regulated articles in eight locations in Redwood and

Renville counties, Minnesota, where Monsanto conducted field trials involving

dicamba-tolerant soybeans under an APHIS-issued permit.  Specifically, Monsanto

allowed soybean plants in reproductive stages to grow within or outside of the

required fallow zone surrounding the regulated material, thus failing to maintain the
regulated articles separate from other organisms, in violation of the Permit

Conditions.

Resolution: On September 21, 2015, under a settlement agreement, Monsanto paid

a civil penalty of $81,200 to resolve alleged violations of the APHIS biotechnology

regulations (7 CFR part 340).  The investigation is now closed.

2014

Company/Institution/Permittee: Responsible Party

APHIS inspectors discovered that the responsible party of a regulated apple tree

field trial in the state of Washington had failed to maintain appropriate isolation

distances from the regulated apple trees to non-regulated trees.

Resolution: On November 12, 2013, the responsible party entered into a settlement

agreement with APHIS.  Under the settlement agreement, the responsible party

agreed to pay a civil penalty.

2011

Company/Institution: Ventria Bioscience

On March 31, 2011, Ventria Bioscience (Ventria) entered into a settlement

agreement with APHIS to resolve alleged violations of APHIS biotechnology

regulations (7 CFR part 340). The incident involved the movement of dedicated

equipment for the storage of regulated pharmaceutical/industrial rice that occurred

in January 2010. Upon discovering this incident, APHIS requested an investigation

and located the equipment. APHIS inspected the equipment and found that it

contained no regulated rice.

APHIS alleges that Ventria: Moved and sold a dedicated seed storage bin before

APHIS could certify the bin had been properly cleaned prior to use in the storage of

nonregulated materials.

Resolution: Under the settlement agreement, Ventria agreed to pay a civil penalty.

Company/Institution: Dow AgroSciences
On January 25, 2008, APHIS was informed by Dow AgroSciences (DAS) that the

company detected extremely low levels of an unapproved event in commercial

hybrid corn seed lines. The incident involved the presence of an unapproved

genetically engineered (GE) plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), known as Event 32,

in three of DAS' commercial GE hybrid corn seed lines that occurred in 2007. DAS

immediately conducted an internal investigation to determine the causal factors and

applied measures to track and secure all affected seed. APHIS initiated an

investigation to validate DAS' findings in February 2008 and issued an Emergency

Action Notice to formally secure and quarantine all potentially affected seed.

On May 30, 2011, DAS entered into a settlement agreement with APHIS to resolve

alleged violations of APHIS biotechnology regulations (7 CFR part 340). Specifically,

APHIS alleges that in 2007, DAS moved and sold small quantities of corn seed

containing extremely low levels of the unapproved Event 32.

Resolution: Under the settlement agreement, Dow AgroSciences agreed to pay a

civil penalty.

2010

Company/Institution: Monsanto Company

On February 17, 2010, Monsanto Company entered into a settlement agreement

with APHIS to resolve alleged violations of APHIS biotechnology regulations (7 CFR

part 340). The incident involved regulated cotton that occurred in November, 2008.

Specifically, APHIS alleges that Monsanto:

Allowed regulated cotton to be harvested with non-regulated cotton.

Failed to notify APHIS of an accidental/unauthorized release within the required

time period.

Resolution: Under the settlement agreement, Monsanto agrees to pay a civil penalty

of $18,690.

2008

Company/Institution: Syngenta Seeds, Inc.
On April 2, 2008, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement with

APHIS to resolve alleged violations of APHIS biotechnology regulations (7 CFR part

340). The incident involved regulated corn seed and it occurred in December, 2006.

Specifically, APHIS alleges that Syngenta:

Failed to notify APHIS of an accidental/unauthorized release within the required

time period.

Failed to contain or devitalize 29 pounds of regulated corn seed when it was no

longer in use. This corn seed was subsequently misidentified and disseminated

in transit.

Was responsible for an unauthorized introduction that occurred when corn seed

was accidentally released into the environment while in transit.

The regulated parental line was granted non-regulated status in March, 2007.

Resolution: Under the settlement agreement, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. agrees to pay a

civil penalty of $13,125.

2007

Company/Institution: The Scotts Company LLC

On November 26, 2007, in response to an administrative complaint filed against it,

The Scotts Company, LLC entered into a settlement agreement with APHIS to resolve

alleged violations of APHIS biotechnology regulations (7 CFR part 340). Specifically,

APHIS alleges that Scotts:

Failed to comply with performance standards for field trials of glyphosatetolerant creeping bentgrass (GTCB) conducted under notifications from 1999 to

2005 at multiple test sites located in 19 states,

Violated supplemental permit conditions for a 2005 Idaho field trial of GTCB by

failing to remove immature seed heads, and

Failed to conduct a 2003 Oregon field trial in a manner that ensured the GTCB

and/or its offspring would not persist in the environment.

In a related incident, APHIS also alleges that Scotts improperly moved GE

Kentucky bluegrass seed heads.

Resolution: Under the settlement agreement, Scotts agrees to pay a civil penalty of

$500,000. In addition, Scotts agrees to conduct three public workshops within 1 year
to present best management practices and technical guidance for other potential

developers of GE plants and all interested parties on the identification and prompt

resolution of biotechnology incidents. The workshops will take place:

In Oregon, to address current and ongoing efforts to monitor and destroy GTCB

in and around the Oregon Control District,

At a national conference of seed producers or turfgrass specialists, and

At a location selected by Scotts, with APHIS approval.

Scotts has already implemented measures to comply with performance standards

and permit conditions related to these allegations. In addition, Scotts is carrying out

monitoring and mitigation actions in Oregon to locate and remove the regulated GE

material that was accidentally released during the 2003 field trial. These actions

were required by APHIS beginning in 2004 to address past allegations that Scotts

failed to notify APHIS of the accidental release of the GTCB in 2003. The current

allegations address the ongoing persistence in the environment related to the

accidental release.

Company/Institution: Bayer CropScience

APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES), in coordination with USDA's

Office of the Inspector General (OIG), conducted an investigation into the release of

regulated genetically engineered (GE) material detected in 2 varieties of commercial

long-grain rice. APHIS initiated the investigation in August 2006 after Bayer

CropScience reported that regulated GE LLRICE601 had been detected in the longgrain rice variety Cheniere. This investigation was expanded in February 2007 to

include the discovery of regulated GE material, later identified as LLRICE604, in the

long-grain rice variety Clearfield 131 (CL131). Both GE rice lines have the same

added protein which has been safely used in other deregulated products for more

than 10 years.

Resolution: Investigators were able to determine that the presence of LLRICE601

was limited to the long-grain rice variety of Cheniere and that the presence of

LLRICE604 was limited to the long-grain variety CL131. No short- or medium-grain

rice varieties tested positive for either LLRICE601 or LLRICE604. Investigators had

hoped to identify how each GE rice line entered the commercial rice supply, but the

exact mechanism for introduction could not be determined in either instance.

However, direct cross-pollination was probably not a factor for LLRICE604's entry
point into CL131.

Based on the findings of the investigation, APHIS is not taking any enforcement

action against Bayer. Given the lack of available information and evidence, APHIS

was unable to make any definitive determinations that could have resulted in

enforcement action. LLRICE601 was deregulated in November 2006, and as such no

longer falls under APHIS oversight. In March 2007, APHIS issued emergency action

notifications to stop the further distribution and planting of CL131 rice seed to

minimize the spread of LLRICE604. The investigation is now closed.

Company/Institution: ProdiGene

On July 26, 2007, ProdiGene, Inc., and APHIS entered into a settlement agreement

regarding alleged violations of 7 CFR part 340.4(f), which states that a person who is

issued a permit must comply with those permit conditions. Specifically, APHIS

alleged that ProdiGene failed to monitor for volunteers associated with a 2004 GE

field test of a corn variety modified to produce pharmaceutical compounds. APHIS

also alleged that the company did not manage the fallow zone properly and allowed

oats being grown in the fallow zone to be harvested and baled for use as on-farm

animal feed. These alleged violations arose from APHIS inspections of the field test,

in which the inspector found volunteer corn growing and flowering within the fallow

zone surrounding the field trial and in a nearby sorghum field planted within a 1-mile

isolation distance. An APHIS inspector and compliance officer also discovered that

oats growing in the border rows immediately surrounding the regulated article had

been cut and baled.

Resolution: ProdiGene destroyed all volunteers in the 1-mile isolation zone, and

plowed under the sorghum field. All suspect oat bales were quarantined and later

destroyed. An APHIS inspector supervised the destruction of the regulated plant

material. The case was referred to IES for investigation. In addition to paying a civil

penalty, ProdiGene, Inc., has agreed that it and its successors in interest will never

again apply to BRS for a notification or permit to introduce GE organisms.

2006

Company/Institution: BASF
On June 15, 2006, BASF, Research Triangle Park, NC and APHIS entered into a

stipulation to settle alleged violations of 7 CFR part 340.4(f)(4). APHIS alleged that

BASF failed to maintain the regulated article only in areas and premises specified in

the permit. These alleged violations arose from an APHIS inspection of the field test,

in which the inspector noted that the corn was planted in a different location from

what was approved in the permit.

Resolution: The case was referred to IES. BASF paid a civil penalty.

Company/Institution: ArborGen, LLC

On July 17, 2006, ArborGen, LLC, Summerville, SC, and APHIS entered into a

settlement agreement regarding alleged violations of 7 CFR part 340.3(c)(3) and

340.3(d)(2)(ii)(b). APHIS alleged that ArborGen, LLC failed to maintain the identity of

trees of a genetic construct introduced in field trials and failed to follow procedural

requirements for notifying APHIS of identification of a regulated article in the

notification. These alleged violations arose from a self disclosure by the company

that several trees were of a genetic construct not listed on their notification.

Resolution: The trees have been cut and removed from the location. The stumps are

being monitored for re-sprouting and will be treated as appropriate. The case was

referred to IES. In addition to paying a civil penalty, ArborGen, LLC employed a thirdparty consultant to review quality control measures for the management of product

identity and inventory. Based on this consultation, ArborGen, LLC presented a

written plan to BRS describing how ArborGen, LLC will improve and implement

quality control measures. The measures will enhance the genotypic and phenotypic

identification of all products that are, will, or may, be regulated articles subject to 7

CFR part 340 regulations, including those received from outside contractors.

2005

Company/Institution: Syngenta Seeds, Inc.

On March 24, 2005, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Research Triangle, NC, and the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) entered into a Stipulation Agreement to

settle alleged violations of 7 CFR part 340.4 (b) (c). APHIS alleged that Syngenta

planted and moved interstate genetically engineered corn seed without obtaining

USDA APHIS permits. These alleged violations arose from a disclosure made by the
company to APHIS. Specifically, Syngenta mistakenly produced and distributed a

limited amount of its genetically engineered Bt 10 corn, which had not complete the

Federal government's full regulatory review.

Resolution: EPA and USDA reviewed the scientific information and concluded that

there are no human or animal health or environmental concerns with Bt10 corn due

to the limited amount in the environment, the results of the review of product

characterization information, and the close similarity of the Bt10 corn line and

another Bt corn line which had cleared regulatory review. EPA and USDA coordinated

their investigative efforts. All plants of Bt10 corn were destroyed, seed stocks were

quarantined, and their disposal was then overseen by USDA. In addition to paying a

civil penalty, the Stipulation Agreement required Syngenta to sponsor a training

conference for other members of the regulated community that focused on

compliance with APHIS rules regulating biotechnology crops (7 CFR Part 340). The

conference goals were:

1. Develop best management practices or technical guidelines for insuring no

contamination or cross contamination of biotech genes in the seed

development and breeding program; and

2. Develop best management practices or technical guidelines to identify,

promptly address, and implement corrective measures to resolve unintended

biotech releases.

2004

Company/Institution: Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc.

On September 30, 2004, Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc., Oxnard, CA, and APHIS

entered into a stipulation to settle alleged violations of 7 CFR part 340.3 (c) (1).

APHIS alleged that Seminis shipped small amounts of genetically engineered tomato

seeds to the University of California (UC), Davis, without proper identification. APHIS

also alleged that UC inadvertently shipped these seeds to multiple US and

international investigators. Seminis retrieved seeds and documented seed locations.

In addition to paying a civil penalty, the company was required to implement

training and procedures to prevent future violations.

Company/Institution: The Scotts Company
On August 3, 2004, the Scotts Company of Marysville, OH, and APHIS entered into a

stipulation to settle alleged violations of permit conditions requiring the immediate

notification upon discovery of accidental or unauthorized releases of regulated

articles. [7 CFR part 340.4 (f)(10)(i)]. APHIS alleged that, on two occasions, Scotts

failed to notify APHIS about the accidental release of glyphosate-tolerant, or

Roundup Ready, Creeping Bentgrass (GTCB), which resulted from unanticipated

wind events at a field test site in Jefferson County, OR that carried dried GTCB seed

heads beyond the field test location.

Resolution: Scotts provided a mitigation plan and committed to additional control

measures outlined in a Compliance Agreement with BRS. In addition to paying a civil

penalty, Scotts was required to implement training and procedures to prevent future

violations.

2003

Company/Institution: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

IES initiated an investigation in May of 2003 after tests required by the

Environmental Protection Agency indicated a small amount of genetically

engineered corn had cross contaminated surrounding genetically engineered corn

being grown at the research nursery. Of the 337,000 leaf and seed samples

collected from the surrounding research fields, 12 leaf samples indicated cross

contamination had occurred. All of the corn planted at the Pioneer nursery was for

use in research breeding trials and was not to be used for food or feed.

Resolution: The cross-contaminated research corn was destroyed immediately upon

discovery. Following a thorough investigation into Pioneer Hi-Bred International,

Inc.'s adherence to BRS-imposed confinement conditions, IES determined that no

conditions of the APHIS permit were violated. In addition, no unapproved corn plants

entered the food or feed supply. The investigation is now closed.

2002

Company/Institution: ProdiGene

Location 1: APHIS inspectors found volunteer corn growing within a soybean field

that had been a field test site for a pharmaceutical-producing plant in the previous
season. Commercial corn surrounded the site within the appropriate isolation

distance. ProdiGene failed to notify APHIS of volunteers with tassels within 24 hours

of discovery.

Remedial measures: ProdiGene destroyed all corn seed and plant material within

1320 feet of the previous year's test plot. APHIS inspectors supervised the

destruction of the regulated corn seed and plant material.

Location 2: At a second location, APHIS inspectors found volunteer corn from the

previous year's test sites with tassels growing in a soybean field. APHIS required the

company to remove all the volunteer corn to prevent its harvesting, along with the

soybeans. Despite APHIS notification of appropriate volunteer corn removal, the

soybean field was harvested with volunteer corn plants standing in the field. The

soybeans were sent to a grain elevator where they were mixed with 500,000 bushels

of soybeans.

Remedial measures: APHIS and the company stopped movement of all the soybeans

at the elevator. USDA destroyed the 500,000 bushels of soybeans.

Joint Resolution: IES investigated both incidents and through a formal administrative

proceeding, ProdiGene is paying a $250,000 penalty to resolve the allegations.

ProdiGene also entered into a consent decision with USDA. ProdiGene agreed to

reimburse USDA for the cost of moving and destroying 500,000 bushels of soybeans

and provided proof of financial responsibility of $1 million trust fund. In addition, the

company agreed to develop a new compliance implementation program and engage

in an audit by a third party; ProdiGene must comply with the auditor's

requirements. 

2001

Company/Institution: North Carolina State University

USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) inspected field test sites of transgenic

tobacco engineered for virus resistance and determined that the N.C. State

researcher did not have a current permit. The field test was near completion when

OIG discovered the infraction.

Resolution: APHIS required the researcher to monitor the site in the following year.

IES investigated the case and North Carolina State University paid a stipulated
penalty of $1,250.

Company/Institution: Monsanto

Monsanto failed to monitor for corn volunteers in the year following a GE crop field

test on an insect-resistant corn variety. The company allowed the volunteers to

release pollen within commercial corn planted over the field test site. Consultants

and other field workers reported the issue of corn planted on the previous test site

to Monsanto, but the company failed to take immediate action or report the situation

to APHIS.

Resolution: Monsanto destroyed all the corn planted on the site of the previous

years' test crop. Monsanto also purchased and destroyed all the corn growing within

the isolation distance. IES investigated and Monsanto paid stipulated penalty of

$12,500. Patriot Seed, their cooperator, paid a stipulated penalty of $3,750.

Company/Institution: Monsanto

Monsanto did not follow APHIS' permit conditions for border rows of cotton. The

border rows on this field test were too small.

Resolution: Once the infraction was detected, Monsanto destroyed all of the cotton.

IES investigated and Monsanto paid a stipulated penalty of $25,000. Monsanto's

cooperators paid the following stipulated penalties: University of Tennessee $3,750;

Delta and Pine Land $15,000; University of Georgia $3,750.

1998

Company/Institution: University of Hawaii

Contrary to assigned permit conditions, 15 papaya plants genetically engineered for

virus resistance were allowed to grow on an experimental plot. APHIS was notified

after the plants had been present for 3 to 5 months. Pollen from these 15 plants

would have been able to fertilize nontransgenic trees. An APHIS inspector was sent

to the site to investigate and determined that the nearest papaya trees were onequarter of a mile away, which is an adequate isolation distance to prevent fertilizing

nontransgenic plants. The inspector also took immediate steps to cut down the 15

plants and remove all flowering parts containing pollen.
Resolution: IES investigated the case and the University of Hawaii paid a stipulated

penalty of $500. A written warning had already been sent to the permit holder for

infractions at another test site.

Company/Institution: Monsanto

Monsanto planted three GE crop field tests in Puerto Rico and one GE crop field test

in Illinois without notifying APHIS. Several field tests included plants engineered with

insect resistance. Other field tests included plants engineered with glyphosate

resistance. The company also moved regulated GE material without notifying APHIS.

Resolution: Monsanto accounted for all the GE corn seed. All the GE corn seed was

either in storage or planted as a regulated article under a new APHIS permit.

Monsanto destroyed any regulated articles in the field not under an APHIS permit.

Monsanto improved their experimental tracking database and provided training for

the relevant field personnel. IES investigated and Monsanto paid a stipulated penalty

of $2,500.

1997

Company/Institution: Monsanto

Monsanto failed to monitor for canola volunteers in the year following a GE crop field

test that modified the corn's oil profiles at numerous locations. The company also

failed to notify APHIS within 24 hours once the lapse in monitoring was detected.

Resolution: Monsanto removed the canola using herbicides. At one location, the

volunteers were located within the isolation distance of a commercial birdseed

canola crop. APHIS required the company to purchase and destroy the crop that

could have been pollinated by the volunteers. APHIS also required Monsanto to

monitor the sites for one year and destroy any additional volunteers. IES

investigated the case and Monsanto paid a stipulated penalty of $3,300.

1995

Company/Institution: Harvey Campbell and Associates, Inc.

The company planted cotton seed with genetically engineered herbicide resistance

in California without obtaining a permit or requesting permission to release the
cotton into the environment. In addition, the company had received APHIS

permission to move the cotton, but provided inaccurate information about the name

and address of the person receiving the GE cotton seed. The 40-foot border rows of

nontransgenic cotton surrounding the field test were harvested and pressed for oil,

which was used in animal feed.

Resolution: An APHIS officer visited the site to verify that all of the GE cotton plants

were destroyed. All of the cotton seed and lint that was harvested from the GE crop

was also ordered to be seized and destroyed. As a result of cross pollination, the 40-

foot border rows of nontransgenic cotton could have contained some GE material,

however, the cotton seed oil would have been free of all GE proteins. The case was

referred to IES, and Harvey Campbell and Associates paid a stipulated penalty of

$500.

Related Links

How to Report an Unauthorized or Accidental Release