Editor’s note: This article is by Bob Audette of the Brattleboro Reformer, in which it was first published Sept. 18, 2014.
BRATTLEBORO — Contending Vermont’s GMO labeling law is meant “to pacify a vocal segment of the population that opposes genetic engineering,” the Grocery Manufacturers Association is asking a federal court to prevent the state from implementing Act 120 until its lawsuit against Vermont “has run its course.”
Act 120, which establishes labeling requirements for what it calls genetically engineered foods, was signed into law in May by Gov. Peter Shumlin. It was almost immediately challenged by industry trade groups.
“Federal law does not require food labeling to also include plant labeling because there is no rational justification for such a regime,” wrote attorneys for the GMA, the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Association and the National Association of Manufacturers. “Act 120, however, is not concerned with rational justification. It caters to beliefs and biases that a government has no business endorsing.”
Not only does Act 120 not serve any legitimate governmental interests, wrote the attorneys, it violates the First Amendment and intrudes upon federal labeling requirements, and is thus preempted by the Supremacy
Clause.
In addition, they wrote, the members of the associations bringing suit against the state “will suffer irreparable injury” without an injunction because they have no way “to reliably distinguish ingredients derived from genetically engineered plant varieties from those that are not.”
“The changes manufacturers would need to demand from their suppliers and initiate in their own facilities to segregate ingredients require money and time — much more time than the Act’s July 1, 2016, effective date allows,” wrote the attorneys.
And then there are the costs related to building out Vermont-specific supply and distribution chains that do not currently exist.
“Plaintiff’s members will not be able to recoup the cost of those efforts from the State if they prevail, nor could they easily return their business to the status quo ante.”
Even though the plaintiff’s plan to present evidence that food produced from genetically engineered crops is safe, “vehement opposition to genetic engineering persists,” wrote the attorneys.
Much of that opposition is based in philosophical or religious beliefs, concerns about large-scale agricultural operations, or biases against certain companies, maintain the attorneys.
“Vermont’s law rests on those beliefs and biases; it regulates the labeling of food products for reasons that have nothing to do with the food itself. … There is no basis whatsoever for Act 120’s claim that there is a ‘lack of consensus’ about the ‘validity and research and
science’ about the safety of foods derived from (GE) plant varieties.”
While the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t require the labeling of foods that contain GE products, wrote the attorneys, it does prohibit those who use a certified organic label on their food products from using GE seeds or plant materials.
The court should also consider some of Act 120’s “remarkable features,” insisted the attorneys, which include an exemption for foods “sold for immediate consumption and food sold at restaurants …” and an exemption for meat or milk derived from animals fed with
GE crops.
Because they believe the plaintiffs are likely to prevail when all the evidence is presented and reviewed by a court, noted the attorneys, it would be unfair for the manufacturers to have to invest in changes to
products and their supply chains, therefore, Act 120 should be suspended pending resolution of the case, which is likely to take several months or years.
