[W]ith Vermont’s GMO labeling law set to go into effect Friday, manufacturers and retailers still don’t know exactly how or whether they will have to comply.
Efforts continue in Congress to derail the Vermont law, which requires the labeling of genetically modified foods sold within the state. But a handful of national manufacturers have said they will label GMO foods anyway, although some products, including some Coca-Cola products, could be temporarily unavailable.
The Vermont law gives retailers and manufacturers a six month grace period to adapt to the new GMO labeling requirement.
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell says many retailers have a backlog of GMO products that were manufactured prior to July 1 and are now sitting on store shelves or warehouses. Those products can be sold in Vermont stores until Dec. 31. After that, all foods with genetically engineered ingredients sold in Vermont must be labeled. If there is evidence of intentional violation after Jan. 1, manufacturers and retailers have 30 days to voluntarily comply, he said. After that, the state can levy fines of up to $1,000 per violation.
“We hope we will not need to take enforcement actions after the first of the year,” Sorrell said. “We are hoping to avoid that and hoping to see voluntary compliance.”
ConAgra, Kellogg, General Mills, Mars and Campbell’s Soup have agreed to comply with Vermont law and will label GE ingredients for the national consumer market.
“More companies will realize the sky hasn’t fallen and customers want the information and want it readily available,” Sorrell said.
Sorrell says companies have had plenty of time to comply. The Legislature passed the state statute in 2014 and regulations have been in effect for more than a year.
Local retailers, however, say they’re still not clear on the law’s details.
“It feels rushed, and I don’t feel ready,” said Michelle Hebert, owner and manager of Graniteville General Store in Barre.
“I’m still trying to figure it out,” she said. “I’m pretty clear on how we need to label a product, but I’m still unclear as to what products we need to label.”
Hebert and other grocers participated in a one-hour webinar organized by the Vermont Attorney General’s office Tuesday evening.
If she makes a sandwich for a customer who’s waiting at the counter, Hebert said, her understanding from the webinar is that she wouldn’t need to label the sandwich if it contained genetically-engineered ingredients. But if she makes a sandwich ahead of time, and places it on a refrigerated shelf for customers to purchase later in the day, she’d need to label it, Hebert said.
These and other specifics of the law aren’t entirely clear, Hebert said, and it’s difficult for already-overworked small grocery store owners to take the time to watch the webinar, much less study the law’s nuances.
Erin Sigrist, president-elect of the Vermont Retail and Grocers Association, said most grocers are familiar with the law’s requirements. The group has worked closely with its members and the industry to reach compliance by Friday, she said.
“People are starting to realize it’s coming much faster than they’d like … but it’s something we’ve been working with them on for the last year and a half or two years,” she said.
Grocers have struggled with the law’s complexity and elements of the law that don’t appear to offer “black and white” answers, Sigrist said.
While manufacturers and wholesalers prepare newly labeled products, consumers might see shortages of certain items, Sigrist said.
Coca-Cola drinks, for example, could be unavailable while the company transitions to the new labeling standard, said company spokesman Ben Sheidler.
“To avoid multiple labeling changes, some lower-volume brands and packages we offer within our broad portfolio could be temporarily unavailable in Vermont,” Sheidler said. “Many of our most popular beverages like Coca-Cola, Diet Coke and Coke Zero will continue to be widely available.”
The company isn’t pulling products from shelves, as the New York Post and other outlets have incorrectly reported.
Sheidler and Sigrist both said they’d rather see a single, nationwide labeling standard, than multiple standards established by the various states acting independently.
Congress attempts to block
The controversial Vermont law requiring manufacturers to label genetically-modified food takes effect Friday, despite a Republican Kansas senator’s repeated efforts to derail the legislation.
U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts has, for the second time this year, crafted a bill that would prevent states from implementing GMO labeling laws. The latest legislation is result of negotiations with Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which Roberts chairs.
The bill, which was released last week, would allow food manufacturers to place phone numbers or QR codes on food products instead of simply listing bioengineered ingredients. To find out if a food product has GMO ingredients, consumers would need to call a manufacturer or use a smart phone to scan the codes.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., led an effort to block a previous bill Roberts introduced that would have pre-empted Vermont’s mandatory labeling law. It was defeated 49 to 48 in March.
Leahy says Roberts’ new bill is an improvement over his last proposal, but the Vermont senator isn’t satisfied with it, said spokesman David Carle.
“He’d like to see further deliberation and a chance to offer some input,” Carle said. “At this point it’s not clear the proponents [of the bill] are open to that, and they’re probably inclined to jam it through if they have the votes.”
The U.S. House passed a similar bill blocking state labeling laws last summer.
Two other states, Maine and Connecticut, have passed similar laws, and 30 states have introduced labeling legislation. Vermont’s law is the first to go into effect on July 1, 2016.
Industry opponents of Vermont’s GMO labeling mandate sued the state. The plaintiffs, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, contend that the law violates their right to free speech, fails constitutional prohibitions against vagueness and runs afoul of the Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause, and that federal labeling laws pre-empt Vermont’s.
Among other things, the law forbids manufacturers from using the term “natural” in marketing materials to describe genetically-engineered foods. Plaintiffs in the suit contend the word “natural” is meaningless when used for marketing purposes.
Vermont’s attorneys in the case have filed motions that could compel manufacturers including Frito-Lay, Kellogg’s and ConAgra to turn over internal research on the safety of genetically-engineered foods along with the results of surveys documenting public perceptions associated with the word “natural” in the context of food labels.
Sorrell said a decision in the Second Court of Appeals is imminent.
On Friday, Gov. Peter Shumlin, Sorrell and others are planning a rally at the Statehouse to mark the implementation date for the Vermont labeling law.
