Oral arguments will likely be held in mid-December in litigation over Vermont’s labeling requirement for foods containing genetically modified organisms.
Free speech rights will probably be at the center of the debate, which has tentatively been set for Dec. 18 or 19 before Chief U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss.
The state Legislature passed the GMO labeling law earlier this year, which the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other groups quickly opposed in federal court.
Vermont was the first state to approve such a law, which has attracted attention to the lawsuit and its possible ramifications for other states such as Oregon that are considering GMO labels.
The plaintiffs have asked for a preliminary injunction to stop the labeling law from going into effect in July 2016, as currently scheduled.
Mandatory GMO labeling violates the free speech rights of food manufacturers “because it is a politically motivated speech regulation that does not serve a legitimate governmental interest,” plaintiffs said in a court brief.
The law is discriminatory because food manufacturers who use GMO ingredients must devote space on their product labels to convey this information, while companies that don’t use GMOs won’t have to make any disclosures, the plaintiffs said.
“It burdens the speech of manufacturers who have not yielded to personal and political sentiments against genetic engineering,” the brief said.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously blocked a Vermont law that required companies to label milk from cows treated with a synthetic growth hormone, which means the judge should issue a similar injunction in this case, they said.
The plaintiffs also claim that Vermont’s labeling law is pre-empted by federal statutes that govern food labels and genetic engineering.
Attorneys for the State of Vermont argue that the government does have a legitimate reason to mandate GMO labels, as required by legal precedents for compelling commercial speech.
Passage of the labeling law “was expressly prompted by health and safety concerns—not to mention the goals of environmental protection, prevention of consumer deception and religious accommodation,” the state attorneys said in a court brief.
Vermont has asked the judge to dismiss the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s complaint with prejudice, which would not allow it to be revised and refiled.
Source: www.capitalpress.com