Despite losses in
California and Washington, groups in favor of labeling food
containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms
("GMO") continue legislative efforts at the state and
national level. Oregon and Colorado appear to be the next
states to vote on the issue of whether food containing GMOs should
be labeled. Pro-labeling groups are also seeking federal laws
that would require labeling of GMOs.
Initiative 27, a ballot initiative in Oregon
that would require the labeling of GMO food, recently survived a challenge in the Oregon Supreme
Court. On December 2, 2013, the Oregon Supreme Court
affirmed that Initiative 27 complied with the Oregon
Constitution's procedural requirements, and was therefore
properly certified by the Oregon Attorney General and Secretary of
State. This allows supporters of the initiative to begin
gathering the 87,213 signatures required by July 3, 2014, to place
Initiative 27 on the 2014 General Election ballot. As currently written, Initiative 27 would require
food offered for retail sale that is entirely or partially produced
with genetic engineering to disclose that information on a
label. In the absence of such a disclosure, the food would be
considered misbranded under Oregon law and any injured person would
be allowed to bring a lawsuit against the food manufacturer,
supplier, or retailer.
Arizona might be the third state to have a similar GMO labeling
initiative on the 2014 ballot. Currently, the organization
Label GMOs Arizona is sponsoring an initiative that would amend
Arizona law so that GMO food would be required to be labeled.
Similar to the proposed laws in Oregon and Colorado, unlabeled food
containing GMOs would be misbranded under state law.
In addition to state-level initiatives, anti-GMO groups are
pressuring federal lawmakers to pass national legislation that
would require labeling of GMOs. Senator Boxer and
Representative DeFazio have introduced identical bills in the Senate (Bill 809) and House (Bill 1699) that would amend the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem misbranded any food that has
been genetically engineered or contains one or more genetically
engineered ingredients, unless such information appears on a
label. Such federal GMO labeling legislation would preempt
state labeling laws. The federal labeling initiatives are
still in their infancy, however, and neither has passed through the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued a significant decision in Maryland Department of the Environment, et al. v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, et al., holding that the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Permit issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment to Montgomery County, Md., violated the Federal Clean Water Act and state of Maryland law.
Settling federal environmental enforcement actions is one of the most important environmental legal challenges faced by regulated entities, be they multi-national corporations, small family businesses...
Those who have tried to keep up with the development of environmental law into the second decade of the 21st century will not be surprised, as others may be, by the attention now focused on reuse of soil.
What are the politics of climate change? A new poll done by Stanford University and Resources for the Future suggests that the public may be more ready to regulate carbon carbon taxthan has previously been thought.
After Sackett, the question on everyone’s mind was "How far does it go?" The first test of that question was the decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals – not known as a bastion of liberalism – in Belle Company v. Corps of Engineers, holding that a Corps jurisdictional determination is not final agency action subject to judicial review.