Vermont has asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit challenging the state’s GMO labeling law.
Friday was the deadline for the Attorney General’s Office to respond to a federal court lawsuit brought by several food manufacturer trade associations that claims the state’s law requiring the labeling of products containing genetically modified organisms is unconstitutional.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents cereal-maker General Mills, among others, is leading the effort to overturn Act 120, which will go into effect in 2016. The other groups are the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers. The groups filed suit in U.S. District Court in Vermont in June.
The trade organizations contend there is no evidence that GMO ingredients are harmful to human health and argue the law violates their freedom of speech, or the freedom not to speak in the case of a mandated label.
Attorney General Bill Sorrell countered all the elements of the lawsuit in asking for dismissal.
“The State’s motion makes the case that Vermont’s labeling law withstands all five challenges to its constitutionality made by Plaintiffs and that the Court should dismiss the suit without requiring the State to answer the Complaint or engage in further litigation,” Sorrell said in a news release.
The request for dismissal also claims three state officials named in the food manufacturers’ brief should not be included as defendants in the case.
Sorrell’s filing argues “that both of the Act’s essential requirements (labeling GE foods and not describing such foods as ‘natural’ are appropriate under the First Amendment and serve legitimate state interests. It also asserts that Plaintiffs cannot show that the statute is impermissibly vague. Next, the motion argues that Act 120 does not run afoul of the Commerce Clause, as Plaintiffs have not alleged a significant burden on interstate commerce, let alone any burden that would outweigh the law’s local benefits. Finally, the motion contends that Act 120 is not expressly or impliedly preempted by any of the four federal statutes identified by Plaintiffs; on the contrary, it is a valid exercise of the State’s regulatory power.”
Sorrell also contends that Gov. Peter Shumlin, who signed the bill into law in May, Health Commissioner Harry Chen and Finance Commissioner Jim Reardon should not be named in the lawsuit. The attorney general says the law makes him responsible.
The state has established a defense fund to seek private donations to help fight the lawsuit, which could cost as much as $8 million, Sorrell has said.
The fund had $168,000 as of Friday afternoon. A commitment from Ben & Jerry’s to pledge $1 to the fund from every pint of “Food Fight Fudge Brownie” sold at its locations in Burlington and Waterbury during July fetched the maximum of $5,000, officials said Friday. That check had not been received. Donations can be made at foodfightfundvt.org/.
