With less than a week remaining in the 2013 legislative session, the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-4 on Tuesday to pass out a bill that would require genetically modified foods to be labeled.
House bill 112, which originated in the House Agriculture Committee, is slated to hit the House floor Thursday. There is not enough time for the bill to pass through the Senate this year. But if the House approves H.112 by the end of the session, it would land on senators’ desks when the second half of the legislative biennium begins in January.
All seven of the votes in favor of the bill came from Democrats, while the committee’s three Republicans and one independent were against the bill. The committee anticipates a lawsuit from the biotech or food industries, and the Attorney General’s Office has said that such litigation could cost the state more than $5 million. The chief objection to the bill that opponents raised was the potential legal tab.
Rep. Tom Koch, R-Barre, said he believes consumers should know whether their foods are genetically modified, but he isn’t willing to jeopardize their tax money to enact an unprecedented provision that courts could find unconstitutional.
“Call me a chicken — GMO modified or otherwise — but I don’t have the confidence it can be sustained to the point where I’m willing to risk taxpayers’ money,” he said.
Rep. Richard Marek, D-Newfane, said the Judiciary and Agriculture committees have done their due diligence.
“I think the policy interests of the state in this area are strong. I think the public supports our defending those interests,” he said. “It comes down to whether you think it’s worth the potential financial exposure … I think it is well worth it.”
Rep. Linda Waite-Simpson, D-Essex, seconded Marek’s notion. She said the bulk of constituents who have contacted her this session have called in support of a GMO labeling law.
The committee’s decision comes one day after Karin Moore provided legal testimony against the bill. Moore is vice president and general counsel of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which includes members such as Cargill, Coca-Cola, Heinz, Unilever and other food industry giants. While Unilever owns Ben & Jerry’s, the ice cream company and its co-founder Jerry Greenfield have been strong proponents of the bill.
Moore warned the committee that H.112 raises First Amendment and federal preemption questions.
She said Vermont’s “mandatory labeling regime for food containing ingredients derived from genetically engineering raises serious constitutional concerns. These concerns all stem from a fundamental defect in these legislative efforts: The absence of a legitimate and constitutionally sound state interest.”
Rep. Chip Conquest, D-Newbury, told his fellow committee members that Moore’s testimony was, in part, comforting.
“There’s not going to be surprises,” he said. “We’ll know what the arguments are going to be, and I think we’ve created a bill that very strongly answers those arguments.”
There are outside factors at play, too. Other states are considering similar legislation; Washington will have the initiative on its November ballot and a bill in Connecticut is moving through the House.
Falko Schilling, consumer advocate for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, hopes that the legal balance will tip in favor of H.112 during the legislative off season.
“Next year, the Washington ballot initiative could have already passed and Connecticut could have moved further,” he said. “Last time I checked, there were 18 other states working on similar bills. We’re hoping our action here will spur other states to get moving on this.”
To give the bill an extra push, VPIRG is making it the central focus of the group’s summer canvass. Volunteers and representatives for VPIRG will knock on the doors of roughly 70,000 Vermont households across the state, advocating for a GMO labeling law.
For more VTDigger coverage of this bill, read here.
