Vermont lawmakers have reportedly passed the nation’s first state bill (H.B. 112) to require mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Passed in the Vermont House of Representatives, 114-30, and in the state Senate, 28-2, the bill would require foods containing GM ingredients sold in retail outlets to be labeled as either “partially produced with genetic engineering,” “produced with genetic engineering,” or “may be produced with genetic engineering.” The legislation would also make it illegal to describe any food product containing GM ingredients as “natural” or “all natural.” Backers of the legislation reportedly expect Governor Peter Shumlin (D) to sign it within the next few weeks, with the law taking effect July 1, 2016. “I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food,” Shumlin was quoted as saying. “The even more thrilling…
Tag Archives Vermont
Vermont’s House Agriculture Committee has reportedly passed by an 8-3 vote legislation (H.112) that would require producers to label raw agricultural and processed food products that are genetically engineered. Milk, meat and ready-to-eat foods would be exempt from the labeling. The bill now moves to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. If passed, the legislation would evidently take effect 18 months after at least two other states adopt similar proposals, or 24 months after its passage in Vermont—whichever comes first. Previous versions of GMO labeling bills introduced in Vermont in 2011 and 2012 were defeated. See Addison County Independent, March 4, 2013.
A group of Rhode Island legislators has proposed a bill that would impose a statewide penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. More specifically, the tax would apply to “any nonalcoholic beverage, whether naturally or artificially flavored, whether carbonated or noncarbonated, sold for human consumption, containing sugar, corn syrup or any other high-calorie sweetener, including, but not limited to, cola and other flavored drinks, and all other drinks and beverages commonly referred to as ‘soft drinks,’ ‘sodas,’ ‘sports drinks’ or ‘energy drinks.’” Exemptions to the tax would include 100 percent fruit and vegetable juices, infant formula and milk products. Products intended by manufacturers for use as dietary supplements or for weight-reduction aids would be exempt as well. Meanwhile, Vermont lawmakers have proposed a similar bill that would impose a penny-per-ounce tax on the sale of beverages containing added sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. Fifty percent of the revenues generated would be directed…
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. investors have reportedly filed a consolidated securities action against the company, claiming that they were misled about demand for Keurig and K-Cup products. La. Mun. Police Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., No. 11-00289 (D. Vt., filed October 29, 2012). The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System sued the company for U.S. securities law violations in November 2011 when Green Mountain’s shares fell 34 percent in a single day, losing $3.1 billion in market value, after quarterly sales fell short of analysts’ expectations. A group of pension funds, seeking to represent all company investors, allege that “[u]nbeknownst to investors, and contrary to defendants’ statements that they were barely able to ship orders as they came in, Green Mountain Coffee Roaster’s warehouses were overflowing with unused and expiring coffee products that were not being sold to consumers.” The company is facing increasing competition as…
A federal court in Vermont has certified a class of 9,000 to 10,000 dairy farmers who allege that Dean Foods Co. and others engaged in anticompetitive conduct and given preliminary approval to a settlement reached in December 2010. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 09-00230 (D. Vt., order entered May 4, 2011). Under the settlement, Dean Foods does not admit any wrongdoing, but will create a $30 million settlement fund. Its co-defendants have objected to the settlement, but the court determined that they lack standing to oppose preliminary approval of the Dean settlement. The court also noted that they opposed a settlement provision that has been removed. The court denied several motions to intervene and scheduled a final hearing date for July 18, 2011. The plaintiffs alleged conspiracies to monopolize, fix prices and restrain trade. Common questions of law and fact included whether the defendants “conspired to fix,…
According to a news source, a co-defendant in litigation alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the northeastern U.S. milk market has filed objections to the tentative deal reached by Dean Foods Co. and the dairy farmers who filed the lawsuit. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., No. __ (D. Vt., settlement reached December 24, 2010). More information about the settlement, which must be approved by a court, appears in Issue 376 of this Update. Dairy Marketing Services, LLC and a number of individual dairy farmers have also apparently opposed the settlement. The objectors contend that the settlement will result in price erosion for all dairy farmers and creates “both winners and losers in the class of dairy farmers represented by a single law firm by taking market access from one group of dairy farmers at the expense of another within the same class.” They also claim that the small settlement of…
Northeast dairy farmers have reportedly settled their price-fixing claims against Dean Foods Co. for $30 million and injunctive relief requiring the company to buy a portion of its raw milk from multiple sources. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America, No. __ (D. Vt., settlement reached December 24, 2010). While the agreement requires court approval, it would reportedly allow some 5,000 to 10,000 farmers to file claims for monetary damages over allegations that Dean Foods would buy milk only through Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) and its affiliates in the region. According to counsel for the plaintiffs, the case will continue against DFA, to resolve claims that “the nation’s largest cooperative monopolized a level of distribution of fluid milk in the Northeast and forced dairy farmers to join DFA or its marketing affiliate [Dairy Marketing Services] to survive.” See DairyLine.com, December 24, 2010; Worcester Business Journal, December 27, 2010; and Burlington…
The Humane Society of the United States is apparently continuing to push for ballot initiatives and legislation that would impose new requirements on the livestock industry. In Vermont, legislators are considering a bill (S. 230) that would require that “a representative of the Vermont humane society be present when livestock are bled or slaughtered, and to report and increase penalties for violations of the humane slaughter rules.” Proposed penalties for violation of the law could include fines no less than $5,000 and 90 days in prison. Meanwhile, a petition has reportedly been filed with Ohio’s attorney general seeking the certification of an initiative to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in fall 2010 to require that the state’s newly formed livestock board adopt humane slaughtering measures. The proposed amendment would also prohibit killing animals by strangulation and prevent the sale, transport or receipt “for use in the human…
A coalition of dairy farmers from the northeastern United States has reportedly filed a putative class action against the Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) and Dean Foods Co., alleging that they have monopolized the distribution of fluid milk in the Northeast, fixed prices and created an economic crisis in the industry. Allen v. DFA, No. ___ (D. Vt., filed October 8, 2009). Similar litigation is reportedly pending in a federal court in Tennessee. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, “Many dairy farmers have been forced to choose between joining DFA or DMS [Dairy Marketing Services] or going out of business. If they join, they have to pay a fee to continue to market to their own customers at prices fixed by DFA, DMS and other cooperatives. Meanwhile major milk processors Dean and HP Hood, which is part-owned by DFA, enjoy the economic benefits.” He also reportedly said that the anticompetitive milk distribution…
The Vermont Supreme Court has refused to expand liability to allow the recovery of non-economic damages in litigation involving the death of pets. Goodby v. Vetpharm, Inc., No. 2009 VT 52 (Vt., decided May 8, 2009). While the issue arose in a case involving the alleged negligence of a veterinarian and pharmaceutical company, the question whether pain and suffering damages are available to pet owners also came to the fore when melamine-contaminated pet food injured or killed cats and dogs throughout the United States and Canada in 2007. Shook, Hardy & Bacon Public Policy Partner Victor Schwartz and Associate Phil Goldberg submitted an amicus curiae brief to the court on behalf of the Animal Health Institute, Federation of Dog Clubs, American Kennel Club, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, analyzing the legal and public policy implications of allowing such damages. The brief explained to the court how this proposed liability would depart from hundreds…
12
