![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.commondreams.org\/sites\/commondreams.org\/files\/imagecache\/headline_image\/article_images\/ct_gmo.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
(Photo: MillionsAgainstMonsanto\/cc\/flickr) <\/span><\/span>The gmo labeling bill<\/a> overwhelmingly passed<\/a> in the House in a 134 – 3 vote on Monday.<\/p>\nAs the Hartford Courant<\/em> reports<\/a>, the bill entails a sort of trigger in order for it to take effect:<\/p>\n For the legislation to take effect four states \u2013 including those bordering Connecticut \u2013 must pass a similar bill. In addition, any combination of northeastern states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania or New Jersey), with an aggregate population of at least 20 million people, must approve labeling legislation.<\/p>\n Immediately after the vote, cheers could be heard outside the Hall of the House from advocates who had been pushing the labeling requirement.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The Center for Food Safety<\/a> (CFS) said the trigger “unnecessarily puts on hold what consumers and lawmakers have already validated as important legislation,” but still welcomed the passage of the legislation as a victory in the food movement, and hoped Connecticut’s action would prove a catalyst for other states to enact similar measures.<\/p>\n Mark Kastel, co-director of the Cornucopia Institute<\/a>, told the New York Times<\/em><\/a> that the trigger may not be entirely negative.<\/p>\n \u201cThe hurdles in the Connecticut bill, if surmounted, would mean a critical mass in the marketplace that would emulate the impacts that would have materialized if California had passed its ballot initiative,\u201d said Kastel.<\/p>\n\n