Vermont to Enact GMO Food-Labeling Law

It Would Be First State to Require Companies to Label Genetically Modified Products

By ANNIE GASPARRO and JACOB BUNGE CONNECT

Updated April 23, 2014 7:21 p.m. ET

The movement against genetically modified crops scored a signal victory Wednesday, as the Vermont legislature passed a bill that would make it the first state to require food makers to label products made with the technology.

The Vermont House voted 114-30 to adopt a state Senate labeling bill. Gov. Peter Shumlin has said he plans to sign the bill, whose requirements would take effect in July 2016.

While Vermont is one of the smallest U.S. states, the legislation marks a victory for activists who have campaigned for GMO labeling, saying consumers have a right to transparency over the widely used technology. Food and agriculture industry groups, which have lobbied aggressively to block similar measures in other states, blasted the Vermont decision, saying it was driven by faulty science and would hurt consumers.

GMOs are crops whose genes have been engineered to make them resistant to pests, better able to withstand drought, and otherwise hardier. The vast majority of corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are GMOs, and food companies estimate that about 80% of U.S. packaged-food products contain GMO ingredients in some form.

Anti-GMO activists argue that genetically engineered crops harm the environment by causing greater use of pesticides, and claim that they could be harmful to human health. They've won other recent victories, including General Mills Inc. GIS +0.23% 's decision this year to drop GMOs from its original flavor Cheerios. "People need to be aware of all the choices that they're making," said Andrew Pelletier, co-owner of Valley Café, a Bellows Falls, Vt., restaurant that supported the legislation.

GMO advocates note that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved their use, and argue that the technology has no proven human health threats and has increased crop yields and helped lower food prices. Big food and agriculture companies—including Monsanto Co. MON -0.72% and DuPont Co. DD -0.13% , leading makers of genetically engineered seeds—have spent heavily to help defeat ballot measures requiring GMO labeling in California and Washington state.

Labeling foods containing genetically modified ingredients will require farmers, food manufacturers, distributors and grocers to spend more on record keeping and compliance, said Karen Batra, a spokeswoman for Biotechnology Industry Organization, a Washington-based trade group that represents seed makers and other biotech companies.

"Chances are that product is going to be higher priced than a consumer would see in another part of the country," Ms. Batra said.

Rebecca Spector, West Coast director of the Center for Food Safety, which advocates GMO labeling, said the bill's two-year timetable gives farmers and companies plenty of time to adjust. "There is no reason this would put a real burden on farmers, food makers or consumers," she said.

There are currently 62 active GMO-labeling bills in legislation in 23 states, according to the Center for Food Safety. Passage of the Vermont bill could create momentum in those other places, said Rick Zimmerman, executive director of the Northeast Ag and Feed Alliance, an agricultural trade group based in Albany, N.Y. that has argued against the Vermont bill.

Some other countries have much stricter regulations on GMOs. In the European Union, the introduction of labeling requirements led to the virtual extinction of GMOs in food. Even U.S. food companies such as Mondelez International Inc. MDLZ +0.71% that sell food in Europe switched to non-GMO ingredients there.

The food industry, represented by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, has proposed a federal labeling bill, saying patchwork laws from various states would be too complicated. But its bill would only be enacted in the event that FDA reversed course and deemed GMOs unsafe for human consumption.

Connecticut and Maine have adopted rules that would require labeling if a specified number of other states enact similar legislation. While Vermont's bill wouldn't trigger those, it gets them closer. Connecticut requires four additional states in the Northeast with an aggregate population of 20 million enact mandatory labeling laws, and Maine requires five neighboring states.

The Vermont bill applies only to packaged foods sold at retail in the state that contain GMO ingredients and fresh produce sold in grocery stores. It doesn't apply to meat and dairy products made from animals that consume GMO feed.

The bill establishes a fund to pay "costs or liabilities" for the state as it implements the rule, which is expected to draw legal challenges from the food industry. As much as $1.5 million in settlements collected by Vermont's attorney general could go into the fund each year, depending on the overall amount collected by the office, and donations will also be accepted, according to the bill.

The Center for Food Safety, which has worked with Vermont and other states to draft the language of labeling bills, has agreed to provide legal support to Vermont. "We would not be surprised to see litigation since this is the first state to enact a labeling law," Ms. Spector said.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association said that it is "evaluating the legislation to determine the best course of action in response to its passage."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2550690&forum_id=2#25438025)

Seriously, who cares? If anti-GMO consumers don't want to buy GMO products, I don't see a problem with giving them the info necessary to make that choice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2550690&forum_id=2#25438992)

Don't care about GMO, but fuck BIGAGRA

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2550690&forum_id=2#25438172)

also while anti GMOers are largely retards I am reflexively in favor of giving consumers more information, even if it has little bearing on the quality of the product

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2550690&forum_id=2#25438227)

The USDA's stated position was that allowing any meatpacking company to test every cow would undermine the agency's official position that random testing was scientifically adequate to assure safety. The USDA also claims that testing does not ensure food safety because the disease is difficult to detect in younger animals. An alternative position is that the USDA's objection is the result of pressure from larger meatpacking operations. The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association told the Washington Post that "If testing is allowed at Creekstone, we think it would become the international standard and the domestic standard, too."[1] Creekstone Farms says tests cost about $20 per animal, increasing the cost of beef by about 10 cents per pound. The USDA currently tests about 1 percent of cattle slaughtered in the U.S.

regulatory capture bro. go ahead and ban testing food for disease. LOL.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2550690&forum_id=2#25439087)

2. It raises barriers to entry and kills smaller businesses.

3. Within the law itself there are certain industries that are favored compared to others.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2550690&forum_id=2#25438929)