U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss dismissed a preliminary injunction brought by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which contends that Vermont’s GMO labeling law is unconstitutional.
The ruling also denies the state’s motion to dismiss the case, which clears the way for a trial.
Reiss rejected the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s request for an injunction that would prevent the Vermont law from going into effect while the case is litigated. She ruled Monday that Act 120 can be implemented July 1, 2016, despite the ongoing lawsuit.
The multibillion dollar trade group representing food, beverage and pesticide companies sued the state last year after the nation’s first GMO labeling legislation was signed into law by Gov. Peter Shumlin. The Vermont Attorney General’s Office finalized the regulations to implement the law this month.
The order is not a final ruling, but Reiss decided on several key constitutional questions raised by the lawsuit. She also said the state’s prohibition of the use of the word “natural” on genetically engineered foods may be unconstitutional.
Nonetheless, Attorney General Bill Sorrell said Monday there is a lot to like in Reiss’ order.
“On the fundamental heart and soul issues of the law, and that is the mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients, the plaintiffs are going to have a very difficult time seeing that that is struck down by this court,” Sorrell said.
In a statement, GMA said it is reviewing the decision and considering its legal options.
“While we are pleased that the District Court found us likely to succeed on several of our claims, we are nevertheless disappointed by the court’s ultimate decision to deny our Motion for Preliminary Injunction to block the implementation of the Vermont GMO labeling law – Act 120 – on grounds that the manufacturers had not yet shown a sufficient degree of harm,” the statement said.
Because the law compels speech, the trade groups argue the state must prove there is a “compelling government interest” to require the label, such as a public health threat.
The state says the labeling requirement compels only factual, noncontroversial commercial information and furthers governmental purposes beyond only satisfying a consumer’s right to know whether food products contain genetically engineered ingredients, the order says.
Reiss rejected the trade groups’ request for a higher legal standard of review. She applied the less stringent Zauderer precedent, which was derived from a 1985 court case.
“Because the State has established that Act 120’s GE disclosure requirement is reasonably related to the State’s substantial interests, under Zauderer, Act 120’s GE disclosure requirement is constitutional,” the order says.
The state’s law also prohibits manufacturers from claiming their products are “natural” or using “words of similar import” if the product contains genetically engineered ingredients. Reiss said the law does not define this term.
“Not only does Act 120 fail to define ‘any words of similar import,’ but it refers to its undefined ‘natural’ terminology for guidance,” Reiss said.
She also dismissed arguments by the trade groups that Act 120 violates the Commerce Clause and federal pre-emptions.
No trial date has been set.