Taking Exception to Vermont's Proposed GMO Labeling Rules
Defending an unconstitutional law may prove as costly as it is foolhardy.
Baylen Linnekin | Oct. 18, 2014 8:00 am
Earlier this week, Vermont released a draft of the regulations it proposes to adopt in order to enforce the state's mandatory GMO-labeling law.
"The nine pages of rules released Wednesday lay out everything from definitions of 'food' and 'genetic engineering' to the required disclosures on
packaging that will read 'Produced with Genetic Engineering,'" notes an Associated Press piece on the proposed regulations.
The proposed rules themselves are interesting enough—but then so are the numerous exceptions built into them.
Unsurprisingly, many of them appear to have Vermont farmers and dairy interests in mind.
Take the exception for foods that contain genetically modified "processing aids or enzymes." While it's not stated explicitly what these aids and
enzymes are, it doesn't take much to figure out why the state has proposed this exception to the law.
"Beer, wine and cheese will also need special consideration, since the use of genetically modified enzymes is fairly common when making these products," noted a Whole Foods blog post
last year.
How's that? In the case of cheese, it comes down to a genetically modified enzyme, FPC, that's used to make ninety percent of cheeses. It's expensive to make cheese without FPC.
Vermont, of course, is known for its cheese. And beer. Not surprisingly, the regulations also exempt alcohol beverages.
Cherry-picked exceptions like these—which often appear to favor or protect local interests—are common.
"Manufacturers would have to label GMO bread, but not GMO cheese," reads a recent report on Colorado's proposed GMO-labeling law. "Soda, but not beer. Candy, but not gum."
And, as I noted earlier this year, a Hawaii county GMO ban exempts GMO papayas, which (coincidentally!) are grown in the county.
Four national associations, headed by the Grocery Manufacturers of America, sued earlier this year to prevent the Vermont law from taking effect.
They argue, among other things, that the state's GMO-labeling law is unconstitutional. They're right. That's true of every state GMO-labeling law I've seen. And Vermont's is no exception.
Like the California egg law I wrote about last week, GMO-labeling laws restrict interstate commerce. That's the primary reason why I opposed proposed laws in Washington state and
California, both of which were rejected by voters.
Defending an unconstitutional law may prove as costly as it is foolhardy.
Reports indicate the state may have to revert to bake sales to fund its defense of its labeling law, which is expected to cost upwards of $8 million. In August, the state announced it had
raised just over two percent of the money it expects to need to defend the law in court. Since that time, reports indicate that donations had swollen to less than four percent.
But the real costs might be borne by Vermont's farmers. The requirements in the proposed rules that sellers affirm that any products sold without a GMO label are free from GMOs via a
sworn statement may prove daunting.
"I don’t want to say our cheese is non-GMO if I can’t prove it," said Angela Miller of Vermont's Consider Bardwell Farm, a small, sustainable producer, in comments to the Guardian
earlier this year.
With a $1,000 fine proposed for each violation, who could blame her?
Earlier this year, someone asked Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin what he thought of the state's GMO labeling law.
"I'm not going to think too much about that," said Shumlin. "I usually don't have time to read what I'm eating."
If it hadn't happened already, I'd predict that sort of carelessness was enough to get his state sued.
Write about 5-8 well-formed sentences to describe your thoughts on the article and these prompts:
In 1990, the FDA approved Pfizer’s GMO-derived chymosin by the Food and Drug Administration for human consumption, on the basis that it was identical to the chymosin found in animal rennet, and FPC was given Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS) status, substantially equivalent to rennet produced from calves, thus it needed no special labeling or indication of its source or method of production. FPC is actually purer than calf rennet, as it does not contain other proteins from the calf stomach lining that cannot be separated from calf rennet during production. The real advantage is that it is probably a much cheaper way of producing this substance than to grow calves. However, some vegetarians consider FPC to be derived from animals as the microbes were genetically modified using bovine genetic material. In response, scientists began synthesizing the gene needed to produce a synthetic form of FPC that does not have any genetic material from animals. It isn't as though a microbe was genetically modified to pump out the cheese. If it is coagulated by chymosin molecules that are identical to those produced in a calf's stomach, should that make the cheese genetically modified?
Taking Exception to Vermont's Proposed GMO Labeling Rules Defending an unconstitutional law may prove as costly...
Please read the article and answer about questions. You and the Law Business and law are inseparable. For B-Money, the two predictably merged when he was negotiat- ing a deal for his tracks. At other times, the merger is unpredictable, like when your business faces an unexpected auto accident, product recall, or government regulation change. In either type of situation, when business owners know the law, they can better protect themselves and sometimes even avoid the problems completely. This chapter...