It was a good year for progressive agriculture initiatives in the Statehouse.
The Vermont House became the first legislative body in the U.S. to pass a bill that would require the labeling of foods derived from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The General Assembly also lifted a ban on growing hemp, despite a federal prohibition on producing the low-potency cannabis — the same plant genus that yields marijuana.
House bill 112 defines genetically engineered foods as those created from organisms in which the genetic material has been changed via in vitro nucleic acid techniques or cellular fusion. Foods for sale in the retail marketplace produced “entirely or partially” using these methods would be labeled under this legislation.
Raw GMO foods would require a label that says: “produced with genetic engineering” or “genetically engineered.” Processed foods that contain one or many GE ingredients would be labeled “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.”
Under the legislation, GMO foods could not be advertised as: “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” “all natural,” or use any similar descriptions that “have a tendency to mislead a consumer.”
The one big exemption in the bill is for food derived or consisting of an animal that has not been produced by genetic engineering itself. This provision mirrors legislation in Europe.
While the bill received overwhelming support in the House, it must pass through a more moderate Senate next year in the second half of the legislative biennium, if it is to become law.
House opponents of the bill took issue with the potential lawsuit such a law would likely bring. The chief legal concerns expressed were that the law could run afoul of the First Amendment by compelling speech, and it could preempt federal authority under the Constitution’s supremacy clause by enacting a law that the Federal Drug Administration has not.
The Attorney General’s Office did not take a stance on the bill this session, but it estimates such a lawsuit would cost taxpayers more than $5 million.
Hemp
If Gov. Peter Shumlin signs the hemp deregulation bill passed by both bodies of the Legislature, the statutory change would end a prohibition on producing hemp in Vermont.
Senate bill 157 would replace a Vermont statute that bans the growing of industrial hemp unless federal regulation permits it.
Under the bill, hemp is defined as cannabis sativa with a tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, concentration of 0.3 percent or less. The bill touts the plant for its long-standing market presence and strength in industries such as textiles, clothing, bio-fuel, paper, cosmetics and more. According to the Hemp Industries Association, annual retail sales for hemp products in 2012 reached $500 million.
Both branches of Congress are entertaining hemp-legalization bills, but for now the practice of growing this crop is essentially illegal on the federal level. Cannabis of any kind is considered a “Schedule I” drug by the DEA, and the federal administration requires registration to grow such plants. Meanwhile, less than a handful of applicants have been given the green light to grow hemp since 2000.
If a Vermonter seeks to grow hemp, he or she would have to register with the Agency of Agriculture and may be assessed a $25 fee. The grower would submit to the Secretary of Agriculture his or her name and address, a statement that the cannabis variety does not exceed the state potency threshold, and the location and acreage of the hemp parcels.
The Vermont registration literature would also come with the following caveat: “Federal prosecution for growing hemp in violation of federal law may include criminal penalties, forfeiture of property, and loss of access to federal agricultural benefits, including agricultural loans, conservation programs, and insurance programs.”
