Vermont seemed more likely than ever to become the first US state to mandate the labeling of genetically modified food (GMO) after a bill passed the state house, though legislators worry about a lawsuit threat from biotech giant Monsanto.
Similar bills seeking to provide consumers with labels at the
grocery store that highlight what products contain GMOs have
recently failed. In California, a ballot initiative which bypassed
Congress after receiving 850,000 signatures was defeated in 2012
after a large consortium of biotech companies including Monsanto
spent some $50 million on an ad blitz against the legislation.
As RT reported in late April, a new federal bill which would
mandate the labeling of GMOs, the Genetically Engineered Food
Right-to-Know Act, was introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR). Though few expect such laws to pass on a
national level, the bill was notable for its inclusion of a wider
base of bipartisan support, with nine Senate co-sponsors and 22
cosponsors in the House.
Though sixty-four other countries, including EU members, China,
Russia, Brazil, India and Japan already have existing regulations
in place to label GMOs for consumers the issue is a highly
contentious one in the US, both at the federal and state level.
According to Senator Boxer, more than 90 per cent of Americans
support the labeling of genetically engineered products. Though the
Food and Drug Administration requires the labeling of over 3,000
ingredients, additives and processes it does not consider GMOs to
be “materially” different
as they cannot be tasted, smelled or identified by consumers by
other means.
Legally, part of the argument for labeling GMOs rests on the US
Patent and Trademark Office determination that GMOs are in actually
materially different and novel, at least for patents filed by the
biotech companies that produce and sell these products.
As for Vermont’s bill, according to coverage by local public
radio no state representatives had any opposition to transparency
in food labeling, though some were concerned by a looming lawsuit
by the biotech industry.
“Nobody else has passed a similar bill. They all seem to be
waiting for Vermont to go first and lead the nation, ” said Representative Tom Koch (R-Barre).
“What they mean is they don’t want to risk their taxpayers’
money; they want us to risk Vermonters’ money. That is a $5 million
to $10 million risk, and one I am not willing to take,” he added.
No representatives on Thursday argued against the concept of
more transparent food labeling. The most frequent point of
opposition voiced on the floor concerned a likely lawsuit from the
biotech or food industries that the Attorney General’s Office
estimates could cost the state more than $5 million.
Vermont’s legislation appears to have been watered down to
partly guard against the threat of legal action taken by companies
like Monsanto, exempting meat, milk and eggs from animals fed or
treated with genetically engineered products, which would include
GMO corn feed and the rBGH cattle hormone.
In the US genetically modified food is widely available. As much
as 90 per cent of corn, sugar beet and soybean crops are
genetically altered, and some 70 per cent of processed foods at a
typical supermarket contain GMOs. Other common GMO items include
tomatoes, potatoes and squash.
If passed by Vermont’s senate and signed into law, the new
labeling requirements would likely not go into effect for another
two years. Activists believe that the legislation stands a good
chance, owing to its wide margin of support 107-37 in the
house.
This article originally appeared on : RT