Is there value in a label stating that a food product “may contain” GMO ingredients? Particularly if consumers already know that nearly 90 percent of products containing corn and “large percentages” of other commodity crops in the U.S. originate from genetically engineered seeds?
Clearly, more than 90 percent of consumers in the U.S. would answer “yes” to that question. As would the Vermont legislators who voted yes on H.112, Vermont’s GMO labeling law.
But a judge in the federal court in Burlington, Vt., is now raising that question.
After years of work by grassroots activists and Vermont state legislators to craft a solid mandatory GMO labeling law (H.112), the state went to court on January 7, 2015, to defend that law—thanks to a lawsuit filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), the Snack Food Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
According to the Burlington Free Press, Judge Christina Reiss heard arguments from the state, including its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and from the GMA regarding its request for the court to suspend the labeling law while considering whether the measure is “constitutional.”
The consensus among many lawmakers is that Vermont’s GMO labeling law is absolutely constitutional, and the law should stand.
The question now is, will Big Food, Big Biotech and Big Money convince a federal judge otherwise?