SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gmo labeling
DARK Act Compromise Could Preempt Vermont's GMO Label Law
Jun 25, 2016
On Thursday, it was reported that the Senate's Agriculture Committee leadership has reached a deal on labeling GMO foods, specifically to block states from requiring clear, on-package labels.
This agreement fails to provide any meaningful federal labeling requirement. This is not a food-labeling bill. This is a rollback of democracy at the behest of the world's largest agribusiness and biotech corporations.
This deal can still be described as the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it will ensure that most consumers won't know how their food is produced. Vermont's law, which is about to go into effect, and with which many companies are already complying, would give consumers clear, on-package labels.
But this deal from Senators Stabenow and Roberts doesn't even come close, and would instead require consumers to have smartphones and a cellphone signal to know what they are buying. This deal seems to be designed to ensure that big food processing companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by misleading consumers.
People want to know if the food they buy contains GMO ingredients. It's time for Congress to create a mandatory on-package labeling requirement so people can decide for themselves whether they want to eat a food that has been produced using genetic engineering.
The majority of Americans support labeling for GMOs and will hold their elected officials accountable if they vote to strip away transparency about how their food is produced. Any bill on GMO labeling that would result in anything less than mandatory on-package labeling is unacceptable.
We urge the Senate to reject this bill.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Food Advocates Race to Stop Destructive GMO Labeling "Compromise"
'I am going to everything I can to defeat this legislation,' says Bernie Sanders
Jun 24, 2016
The "compromise" food-labeling bill announced Thursday by leaders of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee is nothing less than a "rollback of democracy at the behest of the world's largest agribusiness and biotech corporations," said Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter.
The legislation in question would create the first mandatory, nationwide labeling standard for food products containing genetically modified organisms that are commonly referred to as GMOs.
Unlike Vermont's GMO-labeling law, which would require items to be clearly marked "produced with genetic engineering," the compromise bill would allow food companies to use a text label, a symbol, or electronic "QR codes" accessed by smartphone--a system "that will send shoppers on a wild scavenger hunt to figure out what GMOs might be in their food," wrote Jo Miles of Food & Water Watch on Friday.
It would supersede Vermont's law and prohibit states from setting their own labeling requirements; exempt foods that have meat, poultry, and egg products as main ingredients; and include no federal penalties for violating the labeling requirements.
While the Senate in March rejected a similarly controversial bill known colloquially as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, GMO-labeling proponents say the legislation proposed Thursday is just more of the same.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) was just one of several groups to issue a blistering response to the news.
"The anti-consumer bill unveiled by [Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.] and [Pat Roberts, R-Kansas], bought and paid for by Big Food corporations, nullifies Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law, and replaces it with a law that replaces the requirement for clear, on package labels, with a convoluted, inconvenient and discriminatory scheme involving barcodes and 1-800 numbers," said Ronnie Cummins, international director of OCA.
"This is not a labeling bill; it is a non-labeling bill," added Center for Food Safety executive director Andrew Kimbrell. "This kind of labeling system is inadequate and inherently discriminatory against one-third of Americans who do not own smartphones, and even more so against rural, low-income, and elderly populations or those without access to the internet."
Polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans think GMO foods should be labeled accordingly.
According to the Associated Press, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) office "said he will place a hold on the legislation, which will require at least 60 votes in the 100-member body to overcome."
Sanders said in a statement: "I am very proud that Vermont has led the country in GMO labeling. This bill would preempt what Vermont and other states have done. GMO labeling exists in dozens of countries around the world. It is not controversial. Already major food companies in our country have begun labeling their products. People have a right to know what is in the food they eat. I am going to do everything I can to defeat this legislation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Is a GMO Labeling Victory within Our Grasp?
Apr 28, 2016
Oh, to be a fly on the wall inside the offices of the top lobbyists for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
So close to the July 1 deadline for complying with Vermont's GMO labeling law, and still no court ruling to overturn Vermont's law. Still no federal legislation to preempt Vermont's law.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to keep labels off GMO ingredients. Lawsuits, dirty tricks, shady schemes--all, so far, for naught. Meanwhile, food corporations are labeling, or announcing plans to label, and preparing to implement those plans. Others, including Dannon, will remove GMO ingredients from their products.
Is victory really within our grasp this time?
The closer we get to July 1, the closer we are to winning the battle of all labeling battles, which is all the more reason to keep up the pressure, on all fronts.
Can U.S. Senate put together a deal before July 1?
So far, efforts by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) to pass a federal law that would preempt Vermont's mandatory labeling law have failed.
But we haven't heard the end of the DARK--Deny Americans the Right to Know--Act. At least not yet.
Politico reports that Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) on April 26, told a gathering of the North American Agricultural Journalists, "There could be a deal" before July 1. According to Politico, Stabenow said: "We've offered some very specific language and there is a lot of support for it."
Stabenow didn't divulge what that "very specific language" was, or who among those who have so far voted against the DARK Act might go for this new language. But our sources tell us Stabenow is pushing for the same old QR code and/or 1-800 telephone numbers that USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has proposed--but with one difference. Stabenow wants those QR codes to be mandatory, not voluntary.
Will Roberts, who so far has adamantly opposed any option that actually requires labels, cave? If Stabenow's version also includes a plan that would delay implementation of Vermont's law?
Stabenow is in a tight spot. Nine out of 10 of her constituents want labels on GMOs, and they've been relentlessly vocal about that. But she's under tremendous pressure from industry--including Michigan's GMO sugar beet growers who fear food companies will switch to sugar cane rather than label--to stop Vermont's law in its tracks.
The clock is ticking. But it hasn't run out. The worst thing we can do now is be silent. It's more critical than ever that we keep the pressure on.
What happens in Vermont doesn't stay in Vermont
Meanwhile, back in Vermont, things heated up last week as the food industry looked for ways to stall and weaken Vermont's Act 120.
In a nutshell, here's what happened, as explained by Nancy Remsen in this April 25 report. The Vermont Retail & Grocers Association wanted to tweak the Vermont law, to the advantage of food companies (not consumers, of course). Specifically, the industry group wanted: 1) to prevent consumers from suing if they find non-labeled products on store shelves during the 18 months immediately after the law takes effect on July 1; and 2) to exempt food prepared in stores (think potato salad, sandwiches and baked goods).
How did industry plan to make changes to a law passed two years ago, and set to take effect in two months? By attaching them to the state's budget bill--a bill lawmakers want wrapped up and passed by May 6, when the legislative session is due to end.
OCA and other groups called on our networks to let Vermont lawmakers know we expect them to stand strong against any attempts to weaken or delay Vermont's law. We generated more than 500 calls to the Vermont State House because the future of the GMO labeling movement now comes down to upholding Vermont's Act 120--a bill the national movement fought for and helped pass.
In the end, the Vermont Senate's appropriations bill included a provision to delay the possibility of consumer lawsuits by one year (January 1, 2018) instead of the 18 months industry requested. (The states' attorney general retains the power to enforce the law beginning January 1, 2017, as specified in Act 120, and has said he will do so). Because the House version of the budget didn't include the provision delaying consumer lawsuits, the final decision will have to be made when the House and Senate meet to negotiate a final bill.
Monsanto still fiercely protecting its right to deceive
While Big Food has been tinkering with the Vermont law, the state's attorney general has been trying to pry incriminating evidence out of the hands of Monsanto and other biotech and food corporations. And that move may just work to the benefit of consumers who want labels.
According to Food Dive, Attorney General William Sorrell wants "major seed and food companies" to hand over internal research on GMO crops. The request comes as part of the GMA's lawsuit, filed nearly two years ago.
Food Dive reports:
Requested research includes those related to "potential health or environmental impacts" of GMO crops and the pesticides used on them (from Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta). It also includes "consumer survey research" from the past decade about GMO foods and the use of the term "natural" on their product labels (from ConAgra, Kellogg, and Frito-Lay North America).
We think it's a safe bet that the GMA and Monsanto probably realize that they are better off labeling their products in compliance with Vermont's law, than risking the public release of their own potentially incriminating research on the health impacts of GMO crops and the pesticides used to grow them.
It's one thing for the World Health Organization to come out with the determination that glyphosate and Monsanto's Roundup are probably carcinogenic. It's quite another if word gets out that Monsanto has known this all along--but kept the information to itself. The latter is clear grounds for legal action.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The United States of Monsanto?
Why is it that so many politicians are all about letting states make decisions on controversial issues—until some states want to do something that Big Food companies oppose?
Mar 11, 2016
This week thousands of Americans took time out of their busy days to call their Senators to demand that they vote against the DARK Act, a bill sponsored by Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, which would prevent consumers from knowing if the food they eat and feed their families contains genetically engineered (GMO) ingredients. Their support for GMO labeling was echoed by more than 600 organizations, including farming and fishing groups and food companies, representing tens of millions of members and customers who this week also urged the Senate to reject this troubling bill.
GMO crops are created by transferring genetic material from one organism into another to create specific traits, such as resistance to treatment with herbicides, or to make a plant produce its own pesticide to repel insects. Unlike traditional plant and animal breeding, which tries to develop better varieties by selecting traits from the same species, genetic engineering techniques can insert specific genes from any plant, animal or microorganism into the DNA of a different species.
The DARK Act passed out of committee last week by a 14-6 vote and is expected to hit the Senate floor any day now. The House already passed a similar bill in July. If passed in the Senate, it will block state laws that require labeling of GMOs, instruct the USDA to implement a voluntary labeling program and kick off a USDA propaganda program to sell the public on GMOs.
But an overwhelming majority of Americans--over 90 percent in many polls--support GMO labeling. Three states-- Vermont, Connecticut and Maine--have passed laws to that effect. Now, some in the Senate want to thwart these efforts. Why is it that so many politicians are all about letting states make decisions on controversial issues--until some states want to do something that Big Food companies oppose?
As with most battles brewing inside the Beltway, the answer can be found at the end of a paper trail--a green paper trail. Monsanto, a leading manufacturer of GMO seeds (and the herbicides used with them) has spent millions of dollars over the past several years to block GMO labeling efforts, most notably state and local ballot initiatives in California, Colorado, Hawaii and Oregon that failed.
Follow the Money
Since 1999, the fifty largest agricultural and food patent-holding companies and two of the largest biotech and agrochemical trade associations have spent more than US $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, much of it to create a favorable political context to allow GMOs to proliferate. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which represents food companies like Kraft and PepsiCo, has spent millions of dollars lobbying in favor of the DARK Act too. Washington's Attorney General recently accused the GMA of maintaining an "egregious" plot to conceal the identity of the corporate donors behind its $11 million campaign to defeat that state's 2013 food-labeling initiative.
What's happening here is painfully obvious. The public is rejecting GMOs, a dubious technology upon which Big Food has built its empire, and now it's pulling out all the stops to protect its market shares and its profit margins.
The public is rightfully suspicious of GMOs. We simply don't know enough about their long-term effects, so it's logical that consumers would want to know whether or not they are eating them. Support for GMO labeling is so strong in fact that Campbell's recently announced it would label GMOs in its products, and even withdrew its support for anti-labeling efforts. But we can't rely on individual corporations to decide these matters for us.
And "voluntary" labeling is not the answer, either, since it effectively upholds the status quo and translates to very little, if any, labeling at all. While there is talk of amending the DARK Act to include an amendment to encourage voluntary labeling, it's crucial to note that this so-called "compromise" will do little to help consumers know if the food they're eating contains GMOs. This clearly won't do.
Reclaiming Democracy
Industry's attempt to block GMO labeling laws is yet another symptom of a democracy hijacked by corporate interests. We the people have elected our leaders to Congress to represent our interests, because we live in a democracy--not a nation controlled by a corporate oligarchy. At least, that's the way it should be. That's why we're urging the Senate to reject the DARK Act and any compromise that results in anything less than on-package labeling that tells consumers if a product contains GMO ingredients.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Right-to-Know Fight Heats Up as Pro-GMO DARK Act Advances
Senate committee approves bill that would overrule mandatory label laws passed on the state level
Mar 01, 2016
Defying the rights of Americans who overwhelmingly want to know more about what they eat, a Senate committee on Tuesday advanced legislation that will block states from requiring that foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMO) be labeled.
The so-called Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act (pdf) passed the Senate Agriculture Committee 14-6. It now moves to the upper chamber's floor, setting up a Congressional battle as Vermont prepares to become the first state to implement a mandatory GMO labeling law.
The federal bill pre-empts state laws by establishing a national voluntary labeling standard for foods made with GMOs, similar to the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 that passed the House in July. The Senate bill has reportedly gone through significant negotiations to garner bipartisan support. However, opponents, including Wenonah Hauter, executive director of watchdog Food & Water Watch, argue that "more compromise will not fix the problem at the bill's core."
"Blocking state laws that require GMO labeling will strip away the ability of states to protect the public's right to know what is in their food," Hauter said Tuesday. "Any version of this bill that would result in anything less than mandatory on-package labeling is unacceptable."
Indeed, more than 9 out of 10 Americans surveyed have said they support mandatory GMO labeling. Despite this, lawmakers--with significant backing from the biotechnology industry--continue to push pro-GMO legislation.
In 2014, Vermont passed a new labeling standard due to take effect on July 1. As the first state to pass a law that does not include a "trigger clause"--which requires that other states pass similar legislation, such as in Connecticut and Maine--Vermont now emerges as the GMO battleground as Senate lawmakers consider this bill.
Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) weighed in on the controversy Tuesday, tweeting:
And Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, also from Vermont, argued Tuesday that the bill would "move production methods into the shadows."
The bill's supporters frame the debate as an economic one, arguing that mandatory labeling laws would drive up the price of food and that such restriction would be a "nightmare" for the food industry.
However, Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs with the Environmental Working Group, argues that this claim is "false."
"The truth is," Faber wrote Monday, "food companies change their labels all the time to highlight innovations or make new claims. Studies show that adding a few words to the back of the package as part of a routine label change will not impact the cost of making food."
Moreover, major food corporations are forced to label GMOs in 60 other countries that have passed such requirements.
"Those labels don't cause confusion, and they don't add to the cost of food," said Katherine Paul, associate director of the Organic Consumers Association. "The food corporations providing labels in those 60 countries could provide that same information to consumers here in the U.S.--if we didn't allow them to buy our politicians."
"The only 'nightmare,'" Paul continued, "is that consumers in the U.S. are denied this fundamental basic right to know purely because Monsanto and Big Food have corrupted our political system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Threatened by Powerful Voice, Industry 'Attack Dog' Hired to Discredit Teenage Anti-GMO Activist
"The agrochemical industry is plainly quite threatened by this teenage schoolgirl, so that's why they're after her."
Dec 22, 2015
The U.S. agrochemical lobby targeted a Canadian teenager as part of its "increasingly nasty and divisive public relations war over GMOs," according to new reporting from Global News.
Rachel Parent was 14 years old when her activism around labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food caught the eye of pro-GMO corporations and lobby groups.
According to emails and thousands of other pages of documents released in a freedom of information request by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a non-profit advocacy group funded by the Organic Consumers Association, these industry forces conspired to think of ways to discredit Parent and counter her message.
"It's mostly scientists that they attack, but Rachel is a standout," Gary Ruskin, the co-director of USRTK, told Global News. "The agrochemical industry is quite threatened by this teenage schoolgirl, so that's why they're after her."
The news outlet reports, among other things, that University of Florida professor Kevin Folta—whom Ruskin describes as "one of the principal attack dogs of the agrochemical industry"—was hired by public relations firm Ketchum to make a video about Parent.
According to Global News:
The video discussed Parent's activism, her belief that all GMO food products should be labeled, and addressed her apparent lack of scientific knowledge.
"So when I think about answering Rachel Parent, who's the activist child - well, young woman - who's running the website 'Kids Right to Know...The things I just adore about Rachel is that she's clearly very articulate, clearly intelligent," Folta said in the video.
"The problem that I have is when Rachel starts to let non-scientific thinking really kind of cloud her final decision-making process."
Parent said she finds the tone of the video "almost degrading."
A poll earlier this month commissioned by a coalition of consumer and environmental groups found that nearly 90 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled.
For more, see the Global News video below:
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Industry's All Out Assault on Democracy and Your Right to Know
How an agrichemical industry mouthpiece is trying to undermine GMO labeling with bogus legal analysis
Oct 01, 2015
In an op-ed published by Forbes last week, a pro-biotechnology mouthpiece who used to work for the tobacco industry wrote a provocative piece arguing that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision imperiled the constitutionality of mandatory genetically engineered food labeling. The claim is flat out wrong and shows no understanding of constitutional law or the issue of labeling of genetically engineered foods. Before rebutting it, some context is helpful.
Genetically Engineered Foods
Right now Americans in every state are working to secure labeling for genetically engineered (GE) foods, which have been subject to significant controversy since their introduction in 1996. Polls regularly show that over 90% of Americans support their mandatory labeling. Unfortunately, unlike sixty-four countries across the globe--including all of the Europe Union, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Russia, China, and many others--the United States has so far declined to require labeling for genetically engineered foods, leaving the public in the dark about whether the foods we buy are transgenic.
"People are recognizing that genetically engineered crops are a key cog of inherently unsustainable industrial agriculture, and cause significant adverse environmental impacts."
What is driving this nationwide outcry for labeling? Consumers are becoming more aware that while few whole foods are genetically engineered, a substantial majority of processed foods are now produced with genetic engineering. The public recognizes that having thousands of processed foods produced with genetic engineering, yet unlabeled, is deceptive, or at best confusing, to consumers.
Further, Americans are increasingly aware of the risks and negative impacts of genetically engineered crops, correctly seeing through several decades of myths that were carefully constructed by agrochemical companies to promote their products. On the human health side, the public is realizing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not actually test the food safety of engineered foods or "approve" them; rather, it has confidential meetings with industry in which it merely reviews the industry's own testing--and even that is voluntary. Americans are also realizing that no long-term or epidemiological studies in the United States have examined the safety of human consumption of genetically engineered foods, and that without labeling, there is no accountability or traceability to link such foods to proliferating public health problems.
On the environmental side, people are recognizing that genetically engineered crops are a key cog of inherently unsustainable industrial agriculture, and cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Genetically engineered crops are essentially a pesticide-promoting technology: They are overwhelmingly engineered to be resistant to pesticides or produce pesticides, and consequently have dramatically increased overall pesticide output into our environment. Monsanto's Roundup Ready varieties, resistant to glyphosate, have made glyphosate the most used pesticide in history, with over 280 million pounds applied in U.S. agriculture in 2012 alone. Earlier this year, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans.
On the agricultural side, transgenic contamination of traditional crops from engineered crops has caused U.S. farmers billions of dollars in market losses. And the widespread adoption of crops engineered for pesticide resistance has proliferated an epidemic of resistant "superweeds" now covering more than 60 million acres of U.S. farmland.
Juxtaposed against these risks and impacts, the U.S. public is discovering that industry's hype is false. Namely, despite billions of dollars in research and nearly two decades of commercialization, there are no crops that are engineered to increase crop yields, reduce world hunger, or mitigate global warming; instead, the agrochemical companies that engineer crops have largely succeeded in making these crops resistant to their own products--pesticides. Nor is there any "consensus" that such foods are safe.
Labeling GE Foods
For these reasons, into the federal breach, state-required labeling efforts have proliferated, in the venerable "states-as-laboratories" tradition of American federalism. Overall over 30 states in 2014-2015 introduced labeling bills. Connecticut and Maine passed labeling laws in 2013, albeit with clauses tying their effective dates to similar laws in other states, and in May 2014, Vermont became the first state to pass a stand-alone labeling law, which goes into effect in July 2016. And despite spending over $100 million dollars, crushing election spending records, biotech industry has also barely beaten back three state ballot initiatives, in California (2012), Washington (2013), and Oregon (2014), by increasingly narrow 51%-49% margins (Oregon lost by 812 votes, total).
Industry's All Out Assault on Democracy and Your Right to Know
Industry immediately challenged the Vermont GE labeling law, Act 120, seeking an injunction stopping its implementation, but after a year of litigation, in May of this year the Federal District Court for the District of Vermont resoundingly rejected their arguments, upholding the law. The Court agreed with what many labeling supporters have argued for years, concluding that state labeling was not preempted by federal law, that it did not impermissibly interfere with interstate commerce, and that food manufacturers did not have any First Amendment right to keep consumers in the dark about whether their food is genetically engineered. The Court found the reasons Vermont gave for the mandated disclosure labeling--those described above, promoting public health and environment protection, and preventing consumer confusion and deception--were substantial state interests to support requiring labeling. Industry appealed, with briefing over this summer and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals set to hear argument on October 8 in New York City.
Meanwhile, the chemical industry and "Big Food" have continued to pour millions into their assault on States' Rights and the People's Right to Know in Washington, DC, making their top priority legislation that would prohibit all state labeling (and any oversight of genetically engineered crop production), known as the "Denying Americans The Right to Know" or DARK Act. It passed the House of Representatives in July, and is headed for a Senate showdown this fall.
And the industry's onslaught has been in the media too: following the tobacco industry playbook, Big Food and agrochemical companies deliberately mislead the public on the facts about genetically engineered crops by spending hundreds of millions of dollars, creating front groups, and paying for the help of neutral-appearing academics. Among other scare-tactics is the claim that labeling will increase food prices, which has now been debunked by independent studies by Consumer Reports.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Commercial Speech and GE Labeling
The decision Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona described in the Forbes article received little media attention. Like many towns, the town of Gilbert, Arizona had passed a code prohibiting the display of outdoor signs without a permit, while exempting several sign categories. Applying the code, the town cited a local church for posting signs about the time and place of their weekly service, but based on the code's exceptions, other types of signs, such as election signs, were not similarly ticketed. The church successfully challenged the ordinance as violating of their 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech rights. Reversing the lower court decision, Justice Thomas's opinion striking down the ordinance explained that the town's sign code was a "content-based" speech restriction, and thus subject to the highest level of 1st Amendment judicial scrutiny, strict scrutiny, which it failed
The level of judicial scrutiny, or how closely the court will examine a law, is often the critical question in in free speech cases. Strict scrutiny requires a government to show that its restriction on speech furthers a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Gilbert offered the aesthetic appeal of curbsides and traffic safety for interests. The court found these interests too insufficient and too under inclusive in their application in the sign code to survive strict scrutiny. Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kagan concurred only in the judgement and wrote separately, explaining that while Gilbert's sign law would fail under any test (noting that "does not pass strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or even the laugh test"), they disagreed with Justice Thomas's broad language of when and how strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard.
With even a cursory understanding of these facts, attempts to apply this case to the GE labeling context quickly fall apart. The first thing to understand-- that is not present in Reed, nor ever mentioned in the Forbes piece--is that commercial speech, like consumer product labeling, is fundamentally different than other forms of traditionally protected speech, like political or religious speech. Commercial speech is a lesser form of speech, generally entitled to less protection; in fact, until 1978, commercial speech was not protected under the First Amendment at all. The Supreme Court has subsequently explained that the "extension of First Amendment protection to commercial speech is justified principally by the value to consumers of the information such speech provides," not any inherent constitutional rights of manufacturers. As a consequence, laws regarding commercial speech do not receive strict scrutiny review, instead courts apply lesser burdens on governments in such circumstances.
Indeed, the crux of Vermont's GE labeling litigation has been whether an intermediate form of scrutiny should apply instead of rational basis review, not whether strict scrutiny should apply. The district court in the GE labeling litigation held that the lowest level of judicial review, rational basis review, was the proper standard for laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Tellingly, industry has not even argued that content-based review or strict scrutiny should apply to the Court of Appeals.
The second major doctrinal point is the difference between a speech prohibition, like the sign postings in Reed, and a speech disclosure, like product labeling. This is also entirely absent from the Forbes piece. In speech doctrine there are material differences between disclosure requirements and prohibitions, with prohibitions having more 1st Amendment protection, for obvious reasons: any interests affected by a disclosure are substantially weaker than those suppressed, particularly in the commercial speech context, where the whole point of the constitutional protection is the value to consumers that speech provides. Thus a company's interests in "not providing any particular factual information" are merely "minimal." Balanced against that are the many substantial reasons in favor of labeling discussed above--health, environment, and preventing consumer deception and confusion--all of which courts have long held to be substantial governmental interests for purposes of mandated product disclosures.
In short, it is difficult to imagine that forty years of commercial speech precedent would be implicitly overturned by a non-commercial speech case, without the Court even mentioning the sea-change it was making. There is not a single case in which a court has found a commercial disclosure, like a product label, to be "content based" and thus subject to strict scrutiny. Based on the position presented by the Forbes piece, all kinds of commercial product labeling requirements would be potentially be struck down, because all factual disclosure requirements require specific content. However, that doesn't mean they are "content-based" for purposes of strict scrutiny, and Reed does not say otherwise. It is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would hide such an elephant in such a mouse hole.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Truth In Labeling--It's Our Right to Know What's in Our Food
Aug 21, 2015
Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. A gross misnomer, of course, since the bill's real purpose is to preempt the rights of state and local governments to pass laws requiring the mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), to overturn GMO labeling laws already in place in several states, and to prevent the passage of any federal mandatory GMO labeling law in the future.
If this bill becomes law, U.S. consumers will be deprived of basic information about the content of their food—information they want and have a right to know. It will also prohibit truthful disclosure and non-misleading free speech, violating the First Amendment.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives feels campaign contributions are protected free speech, but truthful food labels... I guess not.
Since GMO crops were first commercialized, farmers have widely adopted them, mostly in the US and Canada. While I have never planted these crops, I have watched my neighbors do so as their initial, total acceptance of transgenic seeds turned to failure as the technology became overwhelmed by herbicide-resistant weeds and insects.
To most of them, it has been an uphill battle. Most tell me they make no more money planting GMOs and see no added benefit for their customers. What they do see, however, is that the biotech industry continues to show steadily increasing profits. They feel trapped on a treadmill.
Perhaps only those of us who live in rural areas see how much pesticide and fertilizer are used to grow these high-tech crops. They will not yield without the application of their patented chemicals and high fertility levels. It is a vicious cycle; farmers must strive to get every possible bushel of yield to offset falling prices and rising costs.
If the millions of pounds of herbicides used to control weeds were insufficient, another widely accepted (and largely unnoticed) practice is using Monsanto's Round-Up(r) as a crop desiccant. Small grain crops (wheat, oats, barley, etc.) are routinely sprayed just days before harvest to kill any late-maturing grain and surviving weeds.
None of these small grains are "Round-Up Ready," so they will die to facilitate easier harvest. The grain, which then goes directly into the food chain, is not residue tested, and clearly, the chemical has little time to break down before grinding the grain into flour or processing it into other food products.
Thus, herbicides are directly added to our diets. While this use of herbicides is not directly connected to HR 1599, it points out how pervasive pesticide use has become and how regulation is lacking. The widespread and increasing use of pesticides in every situation has become standard, accepted, ignored, and legal.
H.R. 1599 is a prime example of how corporate money has corrupted the political process to create laws protecting corporate profits at the expense of American citizens. According to a report from Open Secrets, a project of the Center for Responsive Politics, the 275 members of the U.S. House who voted in favor of H.R. 1599 received $29.9 million in contributions from the agribusiness and food industries in the 2014 cycle.
While campaign contributions can easily explain the passage of 1599 in the House, one wonders how the majority party, which prides itself on ending "big government" and giving more power back to state and local governments, can so mindlessly pass a bill that removes those powers.
If GMOs are so good and so safe, why do we need laws to protect them from scrutiny? As Bill Maher points out, "When consumers know things, they tend to make informed choices, and that could affect corporate profits. I'm sorry, but your right to know is always going to be outweighed by their right to hide it from you."
Perhaps if we went back to a more local, less intensive style of farming, we would not grow so much corn and soybeans, but that could be good. We might actually grow more pasture for livestock and more food for people. We might be less reliant on getting our food from the global economy. People might know what they are eating, and our farmer-owners and farm workers might be able to make a living wage.
Laws like HR 1599 won't get us there.
Keep ReadingShow Less
PepsiCo, Nestle, Coca-Cola Revealed as Big Money Behind GMO Labeling Fight
In Washington state battle, pro-GMO lobbyists forced to expose illegally hidden donors
Oct 23, 2013
Following ongoing legal pressure from campaign groups and the Washington State Attorney General's office, pro-GMO trade group the Grocery Manufacturers Association released a list of high rolling donors to their campaign aimed at blocking GMO labeling in the state.
As was expected, major food corporations and GMO users such as PepsiCo, Nestle USA, The Coca-Cola Co. and General Mills, among many others, had secretly donated millions of dollars to the GMA campaign to stop Washington Initiative 522, which would require the labeling of all products containing GMOs if passed in November.
Additionally, as Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute stated, "Consumers might be surprised to find out that some of their favorite organic and natural brands, hiding behind their lobbyist, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are contributing bushel baskets of cash towards thwarting their right to make informed choices in the supermarket." That list includes brands such as Santa Cruz Organic, Green and Black's Organic, and Burt's Bees.
Campaign groups Moms for Labeling and Yes on I-522 as well as Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson were engaged in legal battles with the GMA for soliciting money from its members specifically for the anti-GMO-labeling campaign while illegally concealing the identity of those donors from the public.
The state's Attorney General's Office and the Grocery Manufacturers Association both announced the deal to disclose the finances early Friday morning, one day after Ferguson filed suit. The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission released the list shortly after.
"The people of Washington demand transparency in elections," Ferguson said in a news release. "I'm pleased the GMA board recognized their responsibility to disclose the names of companies who contributed to opposing Initiative 522, and the amount of their contributions."
The GMA, the biggest processed food trade group in the U.S., set a record this year for the most money ever raised by a single group in Washington state to fight a public initiative--over $7 million so far. Over $17 million has been spent in the No on I-522 campaign in total, with most of that money coming from biotech companies.
The following is the list of the companies and their contributions in the GMA's filing:
* PepsiCo: $1,620,899
* Nestle USA: $1,052,743
* The Coca-Cola Co.: $1,047,332
* General Mills: $598,819
* ConAgra Foods: $285,281
* Campbell Soup Co.: $265,140
* The Hershey Co.: $248,305
* The J.M. Smucker Co.: $241,091
* Kellogg Co.: $221,852
* Mondelez Global LLC: $144,895
* Flowers Foods: $141,288
* Abbott Nutrition: $127,459
* Pinnacle Foods Group LLC: $120,846
* Dean Foods Co.: $120,245
* McCormick & Co.: $102,208
* Land O'Lakes: $99,803
* Cargill: $98,601
* The Hillshire Brands Co.: $97,398
* Bunge North America: $94,993
* Bimbo Bakeries USA: $94,693
* Del Monte Foods Co.: $86,576
* Ocean Spray Cranberries: $55,313
* Hormel Foods Corp.: $52,908
* Bumble Bee Foods, LLC: $36,073
* Welch Foods: $28,859
* Shearer's Foods: $25,251
* Rich Products Corp.: $24,049
* Clement Pappas & Co.: $21,043
* Sunny Delight Beverages Co.: $21,043
* Bush Brothers & Co.: $16,233
* Knouse Foods Cooperative: $14,429
* The Clorox Co.: $12,024
* Bruce Foods Corp.: $3,006
* Moody Dunbar: $1,804
Click on the poster image below of campaign donors in the fight for I-522 so far, created by the Cornucopia Institute, to view a larger version:
_______________________
Keep ReadingShow Less
States Brace for Monsanto's 'Big Stick' in GMO Labeling Fight
As New England states back new legislation, labeling supporters prepare for Big Biotech's legal assault
May 15, 2013
Grassroots groups across the United States are mobilizing against the nation's powerful biotech firms as a new round of labeling laws for foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) make their way through state legislatures.
The front lines in this battle have shifted to two New England states where legislators are preparing to vote on GMO labeling laws while backers prepare for a legal assault by large industry firms like Monsanto.
"The biotech [industry] is seeing growing mass support across the US and they have fewer useful resources to combat truthfulness and popular support," said Jim Gerritsen, president of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), in an interview with Common Dreams. "Their 'big stick' now is litigation."
Biotech firms, including Monsanto and other 'Big Ag' industry groups, were behind the defeat of an earlier labeling initiative, California's Proposition 37, after bankrolling a widespread misinformation campaign.
Gerritsen's statement came on the heels of a small victory in Maine Tuesday night when the Legislature's Agriculture Committee voted 8-5 to approve Bill L.D. 718 which would prohibit retailers from labeling a product "natural" if it contains GMOs.
"Somebody once said that Monsanto isn't a seed company, it's a law firm that makes seeds." - Maine Rep. Lance Harvell
The vote followed the Friday passage of Bill H.112 by the Vermont House of Representatives which requires foods containing GMOs to be labeled, marking the "furthest any such legislation has made it through the legislative process in the United States," according to PR Watch.
The New England states are just two of a coalition of thirty-seven states currently mobilizing for GMO labeling. Of these, twenty now have legislation slated for introduction this year.
A local paper reports that one third of Vermont's legislators were co-sponsors, "signaling the bill's broad public support." Similarly, according to Gerritsen, an astounding 91 percent of Mainers favor the labeling of genetically modified foods.
"Both Vermont and Maine are not going to be bullied by out-of-state biotech firms," added Gerritsen. "It's an outrageous abuse of the democratic process. For out-of-state trade groups to threaten a state acting in the best interest of its people, that is abuse."
According to the Kennebec Journal, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills--who supports the measure--told lawmakers that the legislation is "almost certain" to face a legal challenge from the industry. "These entities are very litigious," Mills told the committee.
Maine Representative Lance Harvell (R-Farmington), who sponsored the bill, added, "You're challenging a biotech industry that's operated on the basis of throwing their weight around," he said. "Somebody once said that Monsanto isn't a seed company, it's a law firm that makes seeds."
Monsanto has already threatened to sue Vermont if the legislation passes.
Gerritsen believes the state is in "excellent position" to combat any legal challenges. What they are promoting is "factual, uncontroversial information which is valid for state interest."
He quotes a recent statistic that 50 percent of American consumers would not purchase foods made with GMOs if they knew about their presence. Not sharing that information, he says, indicates a "level of deceit" on the part of food companies.
As the Maine bill progresses, supporters are "very hopeful" they will receive passage in both the House--where a record 123 legislators (out of 186) are cosponsoring the bill--and Senate.
In Vermont, the Senate vote won't occur until the legislature convenes next January.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy