Page 10 - the NOISE June 2014

GMOs – NOw YOu see ‘eM, NOw YOu DON’t
Just over a year ago, Vermont became the first state to enact a full Genetically Modified Or- ganism labeling law, Act 120. Unlike laws passed previously by Maine and Connecticut, the Vermont legislation contains no “trigger” clauses that would require other states to pass similar laws before it goes into effect. The Vermont statute requires that all foods sold in the state con- taining GMOs be labeled as such by June 1, 2016. Vermont’s law also bans the use of words like
“natural” and “all natural” on foods that contain any amount of GMO ingredients.
Of course, not everyone agrees this is a good idea. The Grocery Manufacturers Associa-
tion along with the Snack Foods Association, the National Association of Manufacturers and the International Dairy Foods Association joined forces and sued Vermont in an attempt to have the law declared unconstitutional. The GMA represents most of the major food and beverage companies in the Us as well as biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Siemens AG. The organization has spent millions of dollars over the last few years to defeat ballot initiatives in other states that would have required GMO labeling and/or banned the cultivation and sale of GMO foods.
On April 27, 2015 US District Court Judge Christina Reiss ruled that Vermont could pro- ceed with its new labeling requirements. The court partially granted and partially denied the state’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
The preliminary injunction requested by the plaintiffs that would have stopped the statute in its tracks was denied. Judge Reiss wrote in her opinion that irreparable harm is the “single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” she indicated that the industry groups had “only identified the possibility of harm.”
The court ruled that Vermont’s law does not violate the Commerce Clause of the US Consti- tution and also refused to apply a strict legal standard to the plaintiffs’ free speech assertions. In the future, this might make it easier for the state to invalidate industry First Amendment claims. Those claims assert that it should be up to food manufacturers as to what goes on food labels, not up to states.
The court’s rulings were based largely on the determination that there is no federal law that can stop states from taking action on labeling. “Americans are demanding the right to know if their food is produced through genetic engineering, for health, environmental and many other reasons,” said George Kimbrell, counsel in the case and senior attorney for Center for Food Safety. “This decision is a crucial step in protecting those rights.”
However the court did not dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Doubts about the state’s ability to prevent foods containing GMOs from being labeled as “natural” were expressed. And several of the state’s motions to dismiss were denied. The GMA stated it was pleased that the court
“found us likely to succeed on several of our claims.” seeing this as encouraging, the GMA filed an appeal to the decision on May 6. GMA President Pamela Bailey said that “If this law is al- lowed to go into effect, it will disrupt food supply chains, confuse consumers and lead to higher food costs.” The organization says the judge’s ruling in Vermont “opens the door to states creat- ing mandatory labeling requirements based on pseudo-science and web-fed hysteria.”
In response to the appeal, Center for Food safety attorney Mr. Kimbrell said, “industrial food interests will stop at nothing to keep their ingredients secret and deny Americans genetically engineered food labeling. They have spent untold millions pushing federal bills to outright block states’ ability to label. now, as expected, they are appealing this decision, despite the court’s resounding rejection of their legal arguments. Americans are demanding the truth in labeling that citizens in 64 other countries already have. we will continue to stand with the People of Vermont and defend Act 120.”
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill in washington DC, Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R-Ks) and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-nC) introduced the “bipartisan” Safe & Accurate Food Labeling Act of
10 • JUNE 2015 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
2015 (HR 1599) in March. The bill would create a voluntary federal labeling standard which would pre-empt states from passing their own mandatory GMO labeling laws. In fact, the GMA is the main proponent of the bill and hopes that a federal solution will simply quash the cur- rent fight in Vermont. Currently, the Food & Drug Administration can require products to be labeled simply to help consumers make more informed choices. HR 1599 would narrow the ability of the FDA to require labeling only for health and safety concerns. Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) is one of the bill’s 48 co-sponsors. The bill’s opponents often refer to it as the DARK act or “Deny Americans the Right to Know.”
To counter HR 1599, consumer advocate groups are pushing alternative legislation. The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act has been introduced in both the House (HR 913) and the senate (s 511) by Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) respectively. The Right-to-Know Acts would require mandatory labeling for all foods produced using GMO ingredients and, like the Vermont statute, would prohibit foods containing GMOs from being labeled as “natural.”
Denzel McGuire, executive vice president for government relations at the GMA said that mandatory labeling would mean 70-80% of food consumed in the American diet “would have a GMO label on it ... we typically label the exception not the rule. when you go into the grocery store you don’t see products labeled not organic.”
Mr. DeFazio told washington, DC based newspaper The Hill that “The argument on their side is it’s generally recognized as safe and therefore it shouldn’t be on the label. well Red Dye #2 is
‘generally recognized as safe,’ but it’s on the label. This is information consumers want.”
while neither of these bills have a good chance at passing, the United States Department of Agriculture has moved forward with creating a labeling standard for GMOs. secretary Tom Vilsack released the plan May 1. The certification was created at the request of SunOpta Inc., a “leading global company focused on organic, non-genetically modified (non-GMO) and spe- cialty food,” according to the company’s website.
The certification was created through the UsDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service which works with food companies to certify the accuracy of claims they make on their packaging through its Process Verified Program. sunOpta paid for the service to verify the corn and soybeans they use in their products are not genetically engineered so they could label their products with a UsDA approved non-GMO brand. The AMs worked with the company to de- velop testing and verification procedures to back up the claim. The only other labels available to food manufacturers that want to certify their non-GMO claims are from private organiza- tions like the nonprofit non-GMO Project. no official government labels have existed until now.
On May 18, sunOpta announced that their Hope, Minnesota manufacturing facility became the first one in the Us to receive UsDA PVP verification for non-GMO products. “In compliance with the AMs Quality Assessment Division policies and procedures,” the company states, “the UsDA has granted approval for sunOpta’s Hope facility to produce-verified non-Ge/GMO food- grade soybeans and corn. sunOpta’s soybeans and corn will be the first produced in the United states to have the full auditing and verification of the UsDA.”
The company’s statement also quoted Congressman Tim Walz (D-Mn). “I applaud the work of both sunOpta and UsDA for their innovative approach,” he said. “The voluntary certifica- tion gives certainty to consumers and is flexible enough that it doesn’t put undue burdens on companies that choose to use GMOs in their products. This is the perfect example of the private sector and the public sector working in tandem to balance the needs of both industry and consumer.”
newsfeature