04-25-2014, 09:18 PM
Since someone is bound to post this story, I might as well do it myself... the State of Vermont has just passed the first state law requiring GMO foods to be labeled, and it is set to go into effect July 1.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/04...eling-bill
As someone who is opposed to mandatory GMO labeling, I'm actually glad to see that this happened in Vermont. Why? Because Vermont is the state whose previous attempt to force mandatory labeling was overturned in the courts, on Constitutional grounds. Without credible scientific proof that such labeling serves a compelling public interest, the court said, and with strong evidence that such labeling would be adverse to the food producer's business success due to the irrational demonization of the product, such labels are not legally defensible. The precedent is already set, and the circumstances are parallel.
This law is nothing but a big gift to the lawyers who will work on the case. But once it is overturned, I think the example will finally convince other states that this kind of legislation is futile, and a waste of time, effort, and money. Unfortunately I think that Hawai'i will burn through a few millions in legal costs before that point becomes totally clear.
And yes, there has just been a federal bill presented to ban GMO labeling at the state level, and to promote a voluntary non-GMO labeling program at the national level, but I'm afraid it makes too much sense to have any real chance of passing.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/04...eling-bill
As someone who is opposed to mandatory GMO labeling, I'm actually glad to see that this happened in Vermont. Why? Because Vermont is the state whose previous attempt to force mandatory labeling was overturned in the courts, on Constitutional grounds. Without credible scientific proof that such labeling serves a compelling public interest, the court said, and with strong evidence that such labeling would be adverse to the food producer's business success due to the irrational demonization of the product, such labels are not legally defensible. The precedent is already set, and the circumstances are parallel.
This law is nothing but a big gift to the lawyers who will work on the case. But once it is overturned, I think the example will finally convince other states that this kind of legislation is futile, and a waste of time, effort, and money. Unfortunately I think that Hawai'i will burn through a few millions in legal costs before that point becomes totally clear.
And yes, there has just been a federal bill presented to ban GMO labeling at the state level, and to promote a voluntary non-GMO labeling program at the national level, but I'm afraid it makes too much sense to have any real chance of passing.