Researchers at the University of Vermont have published the results of a study comparing consumer attitudes towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs) before and after implementation of the state's labeling mandate. Jane Kolodinsky et al., "Mandatory labels can improve attitudes toward genetically engineered food," Science Advances, June 27, 2018. Funded in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the study reported that opposition to GMO food in Vermont dropped by 19 percent after the label law took effect. "Our findings put to bed the idea that GMO labels will be seen as a warning label,” one researcher was quoted as saying in a press release. “What we’re seeing is that simple disclosures, like the ones implemented in Vermont, are not going to scare people away from these products.”
Tag Archives Vermont
The food industry groups challenging Vermont’s statute requiring the labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have filed a notice of appeal one week after a Vermont federal court denied their motion for an injunction to stop the law from taking effect on July 1, 2016. Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, No. 14-0117 (D. Vt., notice of appeal filed May 6, 2015). While the motion for a preliminary injunction failed, the court allowed the case to proceed. Additional information about the injunction denial appears in Issue 563 of this Update. Issue 564
A Vermont federal court has denied a preliminary injunction that would have prevented from taking effect the nation’s first state law requiring the labeling of food products manufactured with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, No. 14-0117 (D. Vt., order entered April 27, 2015). Several food industry groups challenged the statute’s provisions requiring GMO labeling and preventing foods with GMO ingredients from bearing a “natural” label. The court first examined the industry groups’ claim that the statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It agreed with the groups’ argument that the statute seems to prohibit the use of “natural” in signage and advertising “regardless of where or how those activities take place,” and accordingly refused to dismiss Vermont’s motion to dismiss that aspect of the Commerce Clause claim. The rest of the Commerce Clause claims, based on the argument that the statute would require…
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell has reportedly adopted a final rule implementing the state’s new law requiring the labeling of foods produced partially or entirely with genetic engineering (GE). “We are pleased at the amount of public input we received during the rulemaking process – from industry and consumers – and are glad that, with the formal adoption of this rule, we are giving ample time for food manufacturers and retailers to prepare for the law to take effect in just over fourteen months,” Sorrell was quoted as saying. Among other things, Consumer Protection Rule 121 provides specific details about how the GE label must appear on processed food, exemptions from the labeling requirement, and enforcement and penalties. The rule takes effect on July 1, 2016. See Office of the Attorney General Press Release, April 20, 2015. Issue 562
Vermont Attorney General (AG) William Sorrell is inviting public comments on a draft rule intended to enforce the state’s new law requiring the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products. The proposed rule defines relevant terms such as “food,” “genetic engineering” and “in vitro nucleic acid techniques,” providing standards for retailers and food manufacturers about how to label and display the foods. In addition, the draft rule lists exemptions from the GMO-labeling requirement, including alcoholic beverages, food prepared for immediate consumption, medical food, and processed foods containing less than 1 percent genetically engineered materials. The AG’s office is accepting comments by email and at hearings set for October 21, 22 and 24, 2014, in Burlington, Montpelier and Brattleboro, Vermont. Additional information about the law appears in Issue 521 of this Update, and a recent development on the lawsuit challenging the law appears in Issue 540 of this Update. See Office…
A federal court has denied Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and the Center for Food Safety’s (CFS’s) motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging Vermont’s statute requiring food manufacturers to label their products if they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, No. 14-0117 (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Vt., order entered October 7, 2014). In their motion to intervene, the consumer groups argued that they had a right to be involved in the litigation because if Act 120 were held to be unconstitutional, it would “injure their organizational missions, their advocacy efforts, and the personal interests of their members.” In addition, they asserted that the state’s financial and human resources were insufficient to defend the law. In response, the court cited a Sixth Circuit decision holding that, according to the district court’s summary, “a public interest group does not have a separate interest sufficient to intervene…
While the Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) and affiliated Dairy Marketing Services have agreed to pay $50 million to settle class claims that they conspired to monopolize the market for raw milk in the Northeast, a federal court in Vermont has denied preliminary approval of the proposed settlement without prejudice. Allen v. DFA, Inc., No. 09-0230 (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Vt., order entered July 9, 2014). Details about the litigation appear in Issue 323 of this Update. The court pointed to a number of flaws in the draft class notice, including that it released the defendants and a number of related entities and extended beyond the legal claims in the lawsuit without making this clear to class members. The basis for its ruling, however, was that some class members apparently plan to object to the settlement, but no information about their objections was provided in the expedited motion for preliminary approval…
The state attorneys general (AGs) of Oregon, Vermont and Washington have reportedly filed separate lawsuits against Living Essentials and its parent Innovation Ventures seeking a permanent injunction to stop allegedly misleading and deceptive advertising for 5-hour ENERGY®. According to news sources, other state AGs are expected to bring similar action; some 30 have been investigating the accuracy of company ads for the product. Washington AG Bob Ferguson has alleged that the defendants violated the state consumer protection statute by (i) airing TV commercials with “survey results” from doctors who “recommend” the product “while misrepresenting survey results and failing to disclose key facts”; (ii) using a misleading “no sugar crash” product tagline given studies demonstrating a caffeine crash; (iii) implying that the product can be consumed by teens with the label statement, “Do not take if you are pregnant or nursing, or under 12 years of age”; and (iv) claiming that the…
Four food, beverage and business trade organizations have filed a constitutionally based challenge to Vermont’s recently enacted law that would require food and beverage manufacturers to disclose on product labels that their products are “produced with genetic engineering” (GE), or “may be” or are “partially” so produced and to prohibit the use of terms such as “natural” in the labeling, signage and advertising of GE products. Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, No. 14-0117 (D. Vt., filed June 12, 2014). According to the complaint, it will be difficult or impossible to comply with the law’s July 1, 2016, effective date, because members must “revise hundreds of thousands of product packages,” “establish Vermont-only distribution channels” or “revise the labels for all of their products, no matter where they might be sold in the United States.” The plaintiffs claim that the law’s proscriptions “are beyond Vermont’s power to enact” by “compelling manufacturers to…
A California bill requiring labels to disclose genetically modified (GM) ingredients in food recently failed to pass after a close vote in the state senate. Opponents argued that it would cost the average consumer as much as $400 per year for labeling a category of food that presents no risk to the public. Vermont became the first state to enact a GM ingredient-labeling law in May 2014. Additional information about that statute appears in Issue 521 of this Update. See Reuters, May 29, 2014.
12
