After three years of trying to get a law passed by the Vermont
legislature to require mandatory labeling of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), Vermonters are once again up against
a governor who continues to run scared from threats of a lawsuit
by Monsanto and its gene giant allies. Vermonters are beginning
to wonder: What’s the governor really afraid of?
Governor Peter Shumlin has repeatedly expressed reluctance to
stand up to Monsanto. His excuse? That a previous state labeling
law, requiring the labeling of rBGH, a synthetic bovine growth
hormone used to increase milk production in cows, was struck
down by a federal appeals court. The state simply can’t afford
another lawsuit, Shumlin says. But the facts and circumstances
surrounding the new proposed GMO labeling law are very different
from the 1994 rBGH labeling law, according to the Vermont Right
to Know Coalition which has worked closely with the Vermont Law
School on the 2013 version of the bill. So what’s the hold-up?
Vermont passed a labeling law in 1994, requiring that all milk
produced with the aid of rBGH must be labeled as such, either on
the bottle or on the shelf. rBGH, also referred to as rBST, is
manufactured by Monsanto. The state’s attorney general defended
the 1994 law on the basis of “consumer’s curiosity" about what
is in their milk products, rather than on the basis of a
compelling state interest. The state failed to raise any
potential health risks with rBGH, or even to dispute the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) notion that there is no
difference between milk from rBGH-treated cows and milk from
animals not treated with the hormone. As a result, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
struck down Vermont’s labeling law.
Ohio took a different approach on rBGH labeling. Lawmakers there
proposed a law stating that milk producers had the right to
label their products “rBGH-free.” In 2010, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
upheld the law, ruling that the state could not ban
"rBGH-free" labels. The Court determined that “rBGH-free" is not
a misleading label because there are, in fact, compositional
differences in milk from treated and untreated animals. The Ohio
ruling contradicted the FDA’s claim of “no significant
differences.”
Vermont is following Ohio’s lead with its latest proposed GMO
labeling law. Consumer Union’s senior scientist, Michael Hansen,
points out that “...there is a compelling state interest in
labeling of genetically engineered foods and that is due to the
potential human health and environmental impacts of genetically
engineered foods.” He also argues that in the language of Codex
Alimentarius, the international body regulating food and
chemicals used on food, labeling serves "as a risk management
measure to deal with the scientific uncertainty" associated with
genetically engineered foods, and there most certainly is
significant scientific uncertainty about the potential
health impacts of Genetically Engineered foods.
In spite of the changes in case law since 1996, Vermont’s
Governor Shumlin still hides behind the fear that if the federal
court struck down Vermont’s labeling law once, they will do it
again. He also expresses fear that specialty food producers will
suffer economic loss because they will be forced to change their
genetically modified ingredients, or label them.
The governor doesn’t stop there in his efforts to duck and dodge
the issue. He recently argued that the labeling law should be a
national law; that if Vermont loses the inevitable lawsuit, it
will set a negative precedent for the national GMO labeling
movement; and, most disconcertingly of all, that the FDA, after
“extensive studies,” has determined that there is no difference
between GMO products and non-GMO products. This, despite the
fact that the FDA has relied on the biotech industry’s studies,
not its own, for health safety testing of GMOs.
Shumlin’s fears are dubious and weak. Surely by now the governor
knows that no progress is being made at the national level. The
health and security of our food supply do not seem to be a
government priority. Why would a popular governor, believed by
some to be eyeing a national office, think that our comatose
federal government is going to fix this when the
FDA has failed consumers on the issue of GMOs for nearly two
decades?
As for a loss in Vermont setting a negative precedent? The
governor has only to look at what happened after Proposition 37,
the GMO labeling initiative in California, failed in November,
to realize that another loss, though unlikely, would only
strengthen consumers’ resolve. Since Prop 37 failed, more than
30 states have launched their own GMO labeling law campaigns.
Vermont, Connecticut, and Washington already have bills making
their way through their respective houses and senates. That
doesn’t look like a “negative precedent.” It looks more like
Monsanto threw down the gauntlet, and the public is responding
aggressively.
That this otherwise progressive governor does not know at this
late date that the FDA has never done any human, animal or
environmental health and safety studies on GMO food, milk or
seed is embarrassing. All the existing U.S. studies concerning
health, safety and the environment were done by the corporations
producing and selling the products. These corporations -
Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, DuPont, Bayer and a few others - have
outright refused to let independent researchers in the U.S. buy
their seed for health, safety and environmental research
studies. The corporations cite patent law in the U.S. to prevent
qualified university researchers from conducting tests with GMO
seeds.
Fortunately, researchers outside the U.S. are not as restrained
by U.S. patent law in their research efforts, although
researching genetically modified crops anywhere where problems
are found can be - and has been - a career-ending move for some.
In spite of Monsanto’s aggressive bullying of researchers,
numerous studies have emerged recently which illustrate that
there are serious health and safety concerns with GMO foods and
animal feed. This is why 61 countries label GMO foods, including
China, Russia, and South Africa. If China, where companies added
melamine to watered-down baby formulas to fool the inspectors
about the protein content, can label genetically modified foods,
why can’t Vermont?
It’s time for Governor Shumlin to stop hiding behind a new
contrived fear every week and do what 90% of Vermonters want. We
want to know if genetically modified ingredients are in our
food. Do your homework, catch up on the case law that has
changed, and the health and safety research that has been done
in the 19 years since the rBGH law was passed. Vermont’s Right
to Know coalition has implored you to meet with our lawyers and
scientists, and you have still not done so. Please take us up on
this offer. We guarantee it will change your perspective.
Vermont and national consumers have shown they will not be
intimidated by Big Biotech, and have donated the necessary funds
to fight Monsanto and their allies in several state
legislatures.
More than 400 Vermonters turned out for a hearing on last year’s
bill. More than 100 testified in favor of the bill. No one
testified against it. Vermonters were waving their checkbooks
and $20-bills at the agricultural committee members vowing that
they would support the state in any lawsuit. Please stop letting
Monsanto bully the state of Vermont. Stop protecting Monsanto’s
ability to deceive consumers.
To express support for Vermont’s struggle, call or write the
Executive Office of Governor Peter Shumlin: 109 State Street,
Pavilion Montpelier, VT 05609. Phone: 802 828-3333.
Will Allen is a farmer,
author, and activist who currently co-manages Cedar Circle Farm
in East Thetford, Vt. The farm is a member of the Vermont Right
to Know coalition. You can view their farm activities at
www.cedarcirclefarm.org.
Organic Consumers Association
- 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603 To subscribe or visit go
to:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27170.cfm