You may have read recent posts on activist blogs about how “Mighty Monsanto” is taking the “tiny state of Vermont” to court over its labeling laws. “Monsanto Sues Vermont,” screamed one headline. According to the Organic Consumers Association, “Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association filed a lawsuit” to block the bill.
To recap, back in April, Vermont passed a law mandating all foods to be labeled if they are made with genetically modified crops. The law is to take effect in July 2016. The text, which can be read here, has a section titled “Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Special Fund”.
The purpose of the fund is to “to pay costs or liabilities incurred by the Attorney General or the State in implementation and administration, including rulemaking, of the requirements … for the labeling of food produced from genetic engineering.” Its text makes it clear that lawmakers anticipated a lawsuit by making provisions for the fund in case there is no “ongoing litigation” surrounding the law by July 2018.
Many analysts stated that a lawsuit was almost inevitable. The attorney general said he had advised lawmakers as they deliberated that the measure would invite a lawsuit from those affected and “it would be a heck of a fight, but we would zealously defend the law”” He was right, as a joint suit was filed earlier this month by a group of defendants.
In fact, this is not Vermont’s first experience with a lawsuit surrounding food labels, so one may say that the fund was set up based on “lessons learned”.
The lawsuit, whose full text can be found here, describes why the plaintiffs (i.e. the people who are suing) think that the law is illegal. These are the two points that standout:
The act is premised on a legislative finding that some consumers want to avoid food derived from genetic engineering because they distrust the FDA’s findings or otherwise object to the use or prevalence of biotechnology in agriculture. The State does not purport to share those views, however, and it has exempted broad categories of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients from these requirements.
The plantiffs are asking: “why do I have to label my products, but they don’t have to?” I agree here. Doesn’t make sense why some categories are exempt if the premise for the law is “right to know”.
The proscriptions in Act 120 are beyond Vermont’s power to enact. The State is compelling manufacturers to convey messages they do not want to convey, and prohibiting manufacturers from describing their product in terms of their choosing, without anything close to a sufficient justification. The State is forcing the costs of this experiment on out-of-state companies and citizens to which it is not politically accountable, and it is undermining and impeding the federal government’s interest in uniform, nationwide standards for food labeling prescribed by duly authorized expert federal agencies.
Here, the plantiffs claim the law is in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech by forcing a company to say something that it doesn’t want to say as long it is not violating any laws. Additionally, they are stating that labeling is regulated at a federal level, and it doesn’t make legal sense for a state to impose its own labeling requirements at the expense of everyone else.
The FDA provides guidelines on food labeling, and its website does a good job describing the regulations that genetically modified foods are subject to and the evaluations that the crops undergo. Regarding the labeling of genetically modified foods, it supports voluntary labeling of foods:
“We recognize and appreciate the strong interest that many consumers have in knowing whether a food was produced using genetic engineering. Currently, food manufacturers may indicate through voluntary labeling whether foods have or have not been developed through genetic engineering, provided that such labeling is truthful and not misleading. FDA supports voluntary labeling that provides consumers with this information and has issued draft guidance to industry regarding such labeling.
So that’s the outline of the lawsuit. Oh! One important point. Here are the plaintiffs:
What the…?? Where’s Big Bad Monsanto that we’ve been reading so much about??
The loudest voice behind the claim that Monsanto is suing Vermont is SumOfUs.org, which is raising money to “defeat Monsanto.” At the moment, more than 22,000 people have contributed towards this fundraising effort.
Here’s the text of the SumOfUs fundraising campaign:
Just hours ago, the world’s most hated corporation got even more evil. Monsanto and its allies in the Grocery Manufacturers Association have just announced they’re suing the tiny, rural U.S. state of Vermont to stop a new law that simply requires genetically engineered foods to be labeled. In fact, the mere threat of a multi-million dollar lawsuit nearly caused the state to back off the labeling law altogether.
But Vermont is refusing to back down — and they’re asking for our help. They’re getting ready to fight back against Monsanto, and have even created a legal defense fund so people around the world can make donations to help them beat back Monsanto’s lawsuit.
The SumOfUs community is already fighting Monsanto on every front, but we need to show Monsanto now that we won’t be intimidated. We won’t let Monsanto bully our elected officials into submission. Will you chip in to stand with Vermont and fight back against Monsanto?
Hell yeah!! Who wouldn’t be frothing at the mouth after reading that??
Except that Monsanto isn’t a direct plaintiff in the lawsuit.
I wrote to SumOfUs.org to find out how the money would be spent. Here’s the full text of its response:
Thank you so much for your email and your question regarding our recent email to support Vermont as it begins its legal battle against Monsanto and its allies. SumOfUs is committed to helping the State of Vermont fight back, and that’s where your donation truly makes a difference. We do not have a breakdown at the moment.
Staff from the Vermont governor’s office reached out to us directly before we ran this fundraiser, and we’re talking with them about how we can best support the campaign. We’re planning to make a very significant contribution to the legal defense fund on behalf of our supporters, but if we have enough funds it might also be strategic for us to continue to campaign outside of the legal process to defend this law and undermine Monsanto’s position — in strong consultation with our partners. Vermont is very aware that they won’t be the last fight over GMO labeling in the US or around the world, and that other states need support too.
You can be confident that your gift will go towards fighting Monsanto and defending this law in Vermont, including through the legal defense fund. But if you’d rather donate directly to the fund exclusively, then you can do so here: Foodfightfundvt.org/donate-online
I wrote back to them and asked how a contribution would help in the legal “fight against Monsanto” if the company is not one of the plaintiffs. Here’s their response:
I wanted to provide you with the membership list from the GMA’s website, before it was removed earlier this year, to confirm that Monsanto is a member. It’s attached.
I’d also flag that in a political fight over labeling that did require disclosure, the Washington state ballot over labeling of GMOs, Monsanto contributed more than $5 million to the campaign to defeat it, while the GMA itself donated more than $7 million. GMA only disclosed their donors (as required under WA law) on that campaign after the WA Attorney General sued them to acquire that information.
Unfortunately, federal disclosure laws governing where GMA’s funding comes from are not as strong. It is clear, however, that both Monsanto and the GMA are prepared to spend large sums of money defeating labeling laws that do enjoy public backing, as in Vermont, and that their interest in transparency is minimal.
The attachment included in their email was a full list of GMA’s membership, which included Monsanto and Syngenta, as well as any food manufacturer you could rattle off the top of your head. The breakdown of corporate contributions through the GMA for the labeling law in Washington State can be found here.
Monsanto is one of 300 members of the GMA. The GMA told the Genetic Literacy Project that its public policy decisions are guided by a consensus of the companies; and that a decision was made three years ago by the membership to support a national standard on labeling and fight against piecemeal legislation. The GMA said it was prepared to file a similar suit in California if the labeling law had passed there last year.
One might argue that it’s a naïve perspective to think that Monsanto doesn’t have a huge stake in this issue. However, my perspective is that the food manufacturers have more to lose in this battle. Monsanto sells seeds (which are labeled, so any purchaser knows immediately if they are genetically modified or not). They do not sell the packaged foods that would be affected by this legislation.
If Chipotle’s and Ben & Jerry’s efforts to go GMO free have shown anything, it’s that ridding your supply chain from GMOs is not easy. General Mills, who now makes GMO-free Cheerios, has stated that it would not change the formulation for other products. This excellent depiction of the many aspects of the supply chain that would have to change in order to change a product from GMO-containing to GMO-free illustrates the difficulties inherent in any substantial change.
If this law is not overturned, I don’t think that Monsanto’s sales on existing products would drop very much; after all, Monsanto sells seeds to the non-GMO and organic market as well. No doubt future innovations would be impacted. As such, food manufacturers would be the parties with the greatest and most immediate costs to bear as a result of a labeling law. But you don’t see Pepsi or Mars’ name on any fundraising campaigns.
My theory is that SumOfUs and other anti-GMO groups put Monsanto’s name on this pitch to help fuel their fundraising campaigns.
If I were to participate in a survey, and were to be asked, “What image comes to mind when you think of ‘Grocery Manufacturers Association’?”, I’d say “Mr Hooper from Sesame Street.” No idea why, but it’s probably the word “grocer” in the phrase that evokes that memory. I’d be willing to bet that for the average American, the amount of money they’d donate for a campaign against “the world’s most hated corporation” versus a campaign against the “Snack Food Association” would be very different. The brands that the plaintiffs represent are your favorite snacks and beverages advertised each week during your favorite NFL games. Who would want to donate money against Coca-Cola or Mars? Because Coke ads have cute polar bears and Snickers ads have Betty White. We love polar bears and Betty White.
SumOfUs.org should not be singled out in this tactic. MoveOn.org has several petitions hoping to “block Monsanto from suing Vermont.” The Organic Consumers Association is raising funds to “help defeat Monsanto and the GMA.” It seems pretty clear that the reason why Monsanto is being used is to play on people’s sentiments and biases against the company.
I believe that these campaigns are misleading at best. Regardless of your feelings towards Monsanto, its customers (i.e. farmers) buy their products so they obviously need and want them. A dishonest campaign against Monsanto and farmers is not the way to go.
One thing is certain: the amount of money being spent for and against labeling is money wasted. The labeling debate will not be going away: in my home state of California, it was again brought before lawmakers last month despite being struck down in a referendum less than 2 years ago, and I have no doubt that it will be brought up again. The members of the GMA, including Monsanto, might want to consider making better use of their money educating the public about their products and their safety. Such efforts may help sway the public into realizing that a generic label that says “May Contain Genetically Engineered Crops” is not informative.
Layla Katiraee, contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project, holds a PhD in Molecular Genetics from the University of Toronto and is a Senior Scientist in Product Development at a biotech company in California. All opinions and views expressed are her own. Her twitter handle is: @BioChicaGMO
Funny how the “right to know” crowd of which I used to be an uneasy member hides so much truth and uses stealthy propaganda as well as outright lies to further their pseudo environmental agenda. I never quite bought it all because of many supporters alignment with the lefties. I have long known that being a leftie on economic matters is a form of ignorance. Turns out that they want us to be ignorant on food safety matters. Don’t I have a “right to know” the truth regarding the real agenda of the anti gmo crowd?
Hey, you’re free to enjoy the stupidity and ignorance as much as you want. Might as well vote for Donald Dump – be an idiot all the way.
I do not enjoy the stupidity and ignorance that the fear mongerers spread. And I think trump is disgusting.
“Fear mongerers”, huh.
LOL
OK, Maybe you will understand better if I refer to these folks as less than completely honest folks who ignore the facts and make up baloney in an attempt to scare folks.
The word is “mongers”. Please, stop embarrassing yourself.
Eric, opposition to GMOs has nothing to do with “being a leftie on economic matters.” The two are entirely independent beliefs, much like supply side economic theory and the idea that the United Nations is going to invade the U.S. The anti-GMO agenda is entirely in the open; they genuinely believe that genetic modification of food poses a risk to the public and the environment and are acting on it. They are all about “food safety,” though I believe their concerns are misguided based on the current scientific evidence. At least it’s not like they’re trying to cripple the Clean Air Act, Voting Rights Act, and social safety net through moral gymnastics whose only purpose is to legitimize greed and which would do real, substantive harm to the nation and the world.
Some may genuinely believe. But many do not. Do you really think shiva, smith, adams and their fraudulent ilk are that stupid? And I do not know how you think that those types are anything but greed. Further the opposition often attacks profit motive as if it is evil. Instead of acknowledging the necessity of such a motive to stimulate economic activity. This reflects the often lefty bias they bring to the argument. This is also the same type of error you made when conflating the issues by bringing in voting rights, and Clean air. Which have absolutely nothing to do with the fear mongering performed by the anti-g.e. folks.
I have the right to know what is in my food, since I am paying for it.
Any company that denies me this right is a terrorist organization. Any person who supports any of these companies is also a terrorist.
If anyone doesn’t like that, then kill me now!
I’d like to discuss this with you in a civil manner, if you’re interested.
What exactly is it that you want labeled? Is it the methodology?
Ever buy salmon in a store like, say, Safeway? Some of it is labeled “previously frozen”, other as “color added”, that kind of stuff. Not appetizing either way, right? But they label it, and people who are too lazy to go to a fresh fish market or can’t afford the fresh catch of wild Alaskan buy it all the same. See how beautifully it works? No lies, no coercion, no deception, no hiding the facts.
The fact that Monsanto and its vassal companies are so desperate to hide their products tells me all I need to know about it, so I’ll steer clear of it and you can have my share of all the GMO delicacies they are trying to push on my table without my knowledge.
Nothing is hidden. The farmers who buy the seeds are well aware of what they are buying. Also Salmon labels are a bit different than grain labels. Did you know that g.e. and conventional grains are routinely mixed during storage and processing?
If you’d like to know, there are people that can tell you. However, you’ve made the first big mistake. There is nothing “in your food”. Transgenic (GMO) technology is a process, not a thing. The only terrorists are those that use fear and coercion to scare people. I think you can see how that fits in this equation.
Perhaps the kind scientist could enlighten us, the unwashed, about the health benefits of the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt toxin) toxin produced systemically by Monsanto’s Bt corn in our diet rather than marginalizing legitimate labeling concerns. If the mode of action of Bt toxin is to perforate the guts of insects that ingest the corn plant and kill them, maybe you could alleviate our concerns by explaining how we humans aren’t subject to the same effects of Bt toxin in 60 – 90% of our corn products. Additionally, clarification as to why a a huge corporation such as Monsanto wouldn’t insist that all their products proudly, and prominently display “Bt CORN by Monsanto” on every package containing it’s delicious, beneficial corn instead of spending $billions$ fighting labeling thorough out the world? Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply.
Hi Jack, Thanks for your comment. Here’s a great overview of how Bt works from UCSD (http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/how_bt_work.html). You’ll notice that there are two reasons why Bt’s mode of action does not impact the human gut:
1) Bt dissolves in high pH. As you know, our guts are very acidic
2) Bt toxin binds to very specific receptors, which mammals don’t have.
So unless you can overcome both of those obstacles, I can’t see how Bt will harm you.
Let’s assume that your concern about Bt is your motivation to want genetically modified foods labeled. If that’s the case, why isn’t organic food labeled when the Bt-toxin is a commonly used organic pesticide? (http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html). I provide this to you just as an example of how the labeling laws that have been proposed do not provide any useful information. So, to echo my question to a previous comment, what is it that you want labeled? The methodology? The pesticide? The trait? Based on what it is that you want labeled, we can have a discussion on whether it’s informative/useful/biased or not.
Regarding Monsanto’s labels, they do label all their products. All their bags of seeds state what trait is used and whether or not it’s a product of biotechnology. I think the issue is why the large food manufacturer’s aren’t labeling their food. My perspective is that it’s easier and more cost effective to label everything that is GMO-free rather than labeling everything that has an ingredient that is considered a GMO. A GMO-free label is appealing to a segment of the population and they should bear the expense/burden of that label. I don’t want to pay for it.
Thank you for your response.
I would first like to mention that I concur that some organizations use inflammatory headlines and dodgy information to receive donations for a cause that often fails to be addressed with the donated funds. I can’t speak for those involved in this case, but the way information has been provided appears to be misleading, and calls their position into question.
If I may, there seems to be some confusion or misinformation about the difference between the bacterial organism, Bacillus thuringiensis, and Bt toxins (Crytolytic toxins, of which there are many). B. thuringiensis, the bacterium, has a well documented history of use as an ‘external’ biological control agent in agriculture primarily for Lepidoptera insects and other insects in their larvae stage. A dry powder form of a mixture of live B. thuringiensis bacteria and an inert carrier is applied to the exterior of certain vegetable crops as a natural, or ‘organic’ pesticide. The B. thuringiensis bacterium is ingested by the insect as a live bacterium, and as you say, the protein coat of the bacterium attaches to the ‘wall’ of the insect’s ‘gut’ and the toxin perforates the insect’s gut, and the insect dies (we can agree that this is a simplified explanation?) The B. thuringiensis bacterium does not enter the plant in this case, and its toxin does not become a part of the harvested fruit. If any B. thuringiensis bacteria remain on the food product, it can easily be washed off. In the small likelihood that some B.thuringiensis bacteria are ingested by a human, the safeguards you mentioned are in place – acidic stomach environment, and no ‘receptors’ that match the bacterium’s protein coat.
Now let’s look at Bt Corn, as an example. A gene, or genes which code for Bt toxins from B. thuringiensis are inserted genetically into cells of a corn plant. These inserted genes now code for every cell in the whole corn plant to produce the Bt toxin(s) internally (systemically) within the corn – roots, stem, leaves, and fruit. Now anything that ingests any part of this corn plant is subject to the Bt poisons (if I may), not too dissimilar from other bacterial poisons that are capable of causing severe internal disease. The safeguards (pH or protein coat specificity) you mentioned are not in place with a ‘free’ organic molecule. Isn’t it a fact that the public doesn’t know with any certainty exactly what poisonous gene Bt corn is coding for, not anything about gene product’s molecular structure, nor anything about the concentrations of these poisons in the plant or its fruit – this is corporate proprietary information. Additionally, many metabolites are found in higher concentrations in a plant’s fruit than in stems/leaves/roots – do we know that Bt toxin proteins aren’t? Food processing further concentrates the chemical toxins; example corn syrup.
Are you comfortable in stating that the free poisonous organic molecule produced systemically in Bt corn has no effect on our intestines or general health? If so, could you please direct me to any studies/references regarding the poisonous molecular structure, concentrations, and human (or animal) trials?
Methodology = method*ology; ology = the study of. I am not interested in labeling the study of methods of molecular genetics. What I am asking for is the labeling of all GMO products – specifically; what toxin (poison) has been added to my food. I would argue that the corporations that are adding unknown (to the public) toxins to the food supply (whether GMO or systemic pesticides) and are making a profit from it, are morally obligated to use a portion of these profits to inform the public of the contents of their product. Why should an entity that is simply offering a natural product carry the burden to label it’s products when the question is: “what is the unnatural additive(s) that is/are in our food so we can make informed decisions about ingesting it for ourselves and our children?”
I suggest that it isn’t a question of what you may think is right or wrong, it is a question of what is right – and that we must do, or pay life long consequences – that truth is unavoidable.
Simple profits now, or a world that is safe, that we can happily hand to our grandchildren?
Hi Jack,
Thanks for clarifying Bt (organism) vs Bt toxin. I often use the two interchangeably and it’s sloppy on my part.
I think that you’d be surprised at the sheer amount of information available on the Bt-toxin. Depending on the strain of corn, there are different forms of the toxin present in the corn. For the sake of simplicity, let’s pick one strain of corn that has the Bt toxin: MON810.
From this database, you’ll see that the specific Bt toxin present in the corn is Cry1ab (http://www.cera-gmc.org/GmCropDatabaseEvent/MON810)
From that same database, you’ll find the amount of Cry1ab present in different parts of the plant (http://www.cera-gmc.org/files/cera/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/mon810_04.gif)
You’ll also find the structure of the plasmid used to generate the plant (http://www.cera-gmc.org/files/cera/GmCropDatabase/docs/dbimages/MON810_01.gif)
This paper has the protein structure of the Cry family (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC98934/)
Regarding it’s impact on our guts, there are several studies: A 110 feeding study using MON810 in pigs (whose digestive system is similar to ours and the impact on the gut and the microbiome) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3344822/
Another similar study examining MON810’s impact on gut: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370545/
Regarding your labeling scenario, I agree that adding information about the trait is much more informative/useful. However, it places an undue burden on farmers and their distributors. Take a look at the following pictographic (http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-costs-of-gmo-labeling.html). At the moment, all corn is pooled together because “corn is corn”. If you want trait-specific labels, then each trait would require a separate equipment at every step of the way.
Going back to your example of corn syrup: Corn syrup has no detectable amounts of protein (including the Bt toxin, see response from Dr Steven Taylor http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/avoidance-corn-allergen.aspx ). Given the body of evidence suggesting that it’s safe as well as the absence of the Bt toxin in the corn syrup, do you still think it should be labeled?
Hey, Layla? I could use some extra cash – how much does Monsanto pay you for articles like this, if it’s no secret?
That was a very lazy, outdated, knowledge free comment. You really ought to do better.
Given your illiteracy, even this was too much, Bubba.
Just literate enough to understand that you have no evidence for your crack about Layla being paid by Monsanto. And literate enough to understand that you have no way of refuting her article,,,,,or you would have done so.
Right, nothing says “I am literate” quite like humping your comma. Her article is not worth anything but ridicule, just like your illiterate rants.
As oppose to the brilliant research posted and explained so logically by you…….Right.
It’s “as opposed”. Please stop exposing your stupidity, I feel really sorry for you.