Federal Court
Denies Vermont’s Motion To Dismiss Food Producers’ Lawsuit Against Labeling
Law, But Also Denies Food Producers’ Motion To Enjoin Enforcement Of The Law Prior
To Trial
A Vermont federal judge issued a long-awaited decision yesterday in the lawsuit filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and others against the State of Vermont challenging the constitutionality of Vermont's first-in-the-nation GMO labeling law.
In her 84-page ruling, the judge decided competing motions: the State's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and GMA's motion to enjoin enforcement of the law pending trial. The judge denied both motions.
The law in question: 1) requires producers of foods containing GE ingredients to label their foods as such; and 2) bans such foods from labeling and advertising their products as "natural."
The judge first turned to the Commerce Clause. She found that the law's ban on the use of the term "natural" in advertising and marketing violated the Commerce Clause because it burdened out-of-state conduct. But she found that the affirmative labeling requirement for GE ingredients did not because it affects only food sold inside Vermont.
The judge next turned to the issue of federal pre-emption. She found that the GE labeling requirement is pre-empted as to GE foods that contain meat because of federal laws that strictly regulate what must be stated on the labels of such foods. But as to GE foods that do not contain meat, the labeling requirement is not pre-empted.
The judge next turned to the First Amendment. She found that the GE labeling requirement does not violate the food producers' free speech rights under the First Amendment because it is purely commercial speech that is being imposed on them. On the other hand, she agreed with the food producers that the ban on the use of the term natural does violate the First Amendment because there is no definition of what "natural" means when it comes to food and food production.
Lastly, the judge turned to GMA's request for a preliminary injunction. The judge denied the request because she found that the food producers did not present sufficient evidence that they will suffer "irreparable harm" if the law is not enjoined prior to a trial on the merits.
There is currently no date for a trial.
-Walter Judge
Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC
Burlington, VT