Three national businesses are helping to defend Vermont’s GMO labeling law. The companies told a federal court last week that the state statute, which requires food manufacturers and retailers to label certain products containing genetically modified ingredients, would not be difficult to implement.
Organic energy bar manufacturer Clif Bar and Company, based in Emerycille, Calif., was one of the companies that filed an amicus brief in support of Vermont’s law. Rhonda Miller, the company’s senior sourcing manager, said she has 24 years of experience in packaging.
“In my opinion, there is nothing posed by the small changes required by the Vermont law that would put anyone out of business or cause an overwhelming logistical hurdle,” Miller said.
National advocacy groups have donated more than $300,000 to the state to help it defend the law.
Trade groups, led by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, have filed suit against the state, arguing that the law is unconstitutional and imposes undue burdens on their businesses.
The Vermont Attorney General submitted a 87-page response defending the law.
Arguments for and against
GMO labeling opponents cite the lack of conclusive science proving that genetically engineered food is harmful to human health. The Grocery Manufacturers Association points out that the World Health Organization has said most genetically engineered foods on the market are not likely to risk human health.
Vermont’s law compels speech by requiring certain manufacturers to label their products “without anything close to a sufficient justification,” the trade groups say.
The Attorney General’s Office said the Vermont Legislature considered a host of “legitimate studies showing that GE foods can be harmful to human health,” though it later determined there is a “lack of consensus” in the scientific community. The state also says there are environmental reasons to require the labeling, including an increase in the use of herbicides and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds.
The plaintiffs also argue the Vermont prohibition on using the word “natural” or similar words for foods that contain GMOs has no legal basis. They say the law does not define the term and therefore “opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.”
The state says it is misleading to label products with GMOs as “natural.” A survey found 60 percent of 1,000 adults surveyed believe the food term “natural” means produced without GMOs. The Attorney General’s Office is drafting rules on the law to further clarify the definition.
Reed Glidden, president and founder of Beanfields Snacks, a Los Angeles, Calif.-based manufacturer of non-GMO bean and rice tortilla chips, filed a statement with the court in support of Vermont’s labeling law.
“There has been a steady slippage in what ‘natural’ means as companies are taking advantage of the trend and demand from consumers for healthier products. In my opinion, based on my experience in the natural foods industry, if a company sold a GE food and marketed it as ‘natural’ it would be misleading to consumers,” he wrote.
Commerce Clause
The trade groups argue Vermont’s law violates the Commerce Clause because it creates “monumental costs that fall on out-of-state entities and employees who have no political representation in the State.”
Many of the trade groups’ members sell into national and regional distribution networks, the plaintiffs say, and therefore some companies may have to label all products sold into the region, including to states that do not require labeling. Others may decide to develop Vermont-specific distribution channels.
Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, said nothing prevents the manufacturers from labeling all their products nationwide.
“If they choose to create a separate distribution network for Vermont, it is their choice to do so, not a choice forced upon them by Act 120,” Greenfield said in a filing with federal court.
The state says the trade groups have not proven that GMO labeling disproportionately affects commerce in other state.
The GMA has said the label will be perceived by consumers as a warning. The law allows manufacturers to also state on the label that the Food and Drug Administration does not consider food produced with genetic engineering to be materially different from other foods.
The groups have also asked the court to delay the effective date of the law because they say some manufacturers need time to “revise hundreds of thousands of product packages, from the small to the super-sized.”
Miller of Clif Bar and Company said the label changes would take at most six months.
“In my professional opinion, a change such as the one mandated by the Vermont law would require nothing more than a simple artwork change and would not be time intensive,” Miller said.
Four other groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of Vermont’s labeling law: the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and the Center for Food Safety represented by an attorney at the Vermont Law School, the Vermont Community Law Center, and Free Speech for People, Inc.
No date for oral arguments has been set. The state estimates that arguments may be heard by mid-December, after which it could take months before a decision is issued.
