United States: Vermont Is "Naturally" Genetically Modified

Last Updated: September 29 2015
Article by Michael A. Walsh

The state of Vermont was not one of the original 13 colonies and did not join the union until 1791, the year the First Amendment was ratified. That tardiness may explain its inability to interpret the First Amendment correctly. Vermont was settled by the French from whence its Ver (green) mont (mountain) name emerged as well as, perhaps, its penchant fouler aux pieds (to trample) the limitations the First Amendment places on state power—including the regulation of food manufacturers' speech. While Vermont's food pedigree is unassailable—it is the maple sugar capital of the U.S. and gave birth to Ben and Jerry's ice cream—when it comes to the First Amendment, it has a knack for serving up leftovers and for getting it wrong. In fact, the most important U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history impacting the "labeling" of products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) came from Vermont. In Sorrell v. IMS, the Supreme Court found that a Vermont statute barring manufacturers from using certain commercially available information was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First Amendment cases are rare in the realm of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), but Sorrell v. IMS was followed shortly afterward by U.S. v. Caronia, a small case involving a $50 penalty and 100 hours of community service. That little case sent shock waves throughout the country. Vermont was not the only one deaf to the news, however; the FDA itself ignored the fresh approach being taken by the court. The pace is now accelerating in the second circuit with Amarin v. FDA (see our post here) and Pacira v. FDA (see our post here).

Grocery Manufacturers Association v. Sorrell

First Amendment cases under the FDCA are rare because the FDCA is a criminal statute. Given that a win would likely produce little more than a pyrrhic victory, its penalties, including the threat of criminal convictions and debarment, are too steep and frightening to risk. Fighting on First Amendment grounds when the FDCA is invoked generally involves an extraordinary set of facts—something unique, outrageous, grossly wrong, or threatening to cause real injustice—or a party with nothing to lose by fighting. In Grocery Manufacturers Association, et al v. SorrelI1 a case which met those criteria, industry trade groups sought an injunction on First and Fifth Amendment grounds—arguing Commerce Clause violations and federal preemption—and challenged Vermont's Act 120 insofar as it restricted speech on the one hand and compelled speech on the other.

Vermont's Act 120 requires that "certain manufacturers and retailers identify whether raw and processed food sold in Vermont was produced in whole or in part through genetic engineering (the GE Disclosure Requirement). Act 120 further prohibits manufacturers from labeling or advertising GE foods as "natural," "naturally made," "naturally grown," "all natural," or "any words of similar import" (the act's Natural Restriction). The trial court ruled in Vermont's favor on the GE Disclosure Requirement but found the Natural Restriction exceeded the state's power under the First Amendment.

The GE Disclosure Requirement – Compelled Speech

Act 120 requires that a "packaged raw agricultural commodity" be labeled by GE manufacturers "with the clear and conspicuous words 'produced with genetic engineering.'"2 The trial court observed that the state made some findings to support this compelled disclosure. Among the findings the trial court noted:  "[w]ith regard to GE food safety, the General Assembly declared in its 'Findings' that GE foods 'potentially pose risks to health, safety, agriculture, and the environment," as evidenced by the following:

  • Labeling gives consumers information they can use to make decisions about what products they would prefer to purchase,"
  • Public opinion polls indicate labeling is relevant to consumers, and
  • Persons with certain religious beliefs object to producing foods using genetic engineering [and object] to tampering with the genetic makeup of life forms and the rapid introduction and proliferation of genetically engineered organisms and, therefore, need food to be labeled as genetically engineered.3

The trial court rejected GMA's argument that in-state and out-of-state impact violated the Commerce Clause.4

In denying the challenge to Act 120's GE Disclosure Requirement on federal preemption grounds, the court stated that a review of FDA's regulations "clearly implies that, at least from the FDA's perspective, GE ingredient information may be provided without violating federal law or misbranding a food product."5 Under the Draft Guidance, manufacturers may label their food and beverage products as "genetically engineered" or containing ingredients that were "produced using biotechnology."

The trial court further found the GE Disclosure Requirement was not barred based on conflict preemption grounds. The court stated that because "the term 'genetically engineered' is not federally regulated or defined for purposes of food and beverage labeling, it can hardly be said that a state definition that differs from definitions used in federal policy and guidance statements is "false and misleading," or "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."6

The trial court also rejected the Grocery Manufacturers Association's (GMA's) viewpoint discrimination claim that the GE Disclosure Requirement "singles out Plaintiffs' members for special burdens in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction" that GE foods are unsafe and requires Plaintiffs' members to 'accommodate' that view and convey it to their customers."7

The Commercial Speech/Strict Scrutiny Debacle

The trial court rejected GMA's argument that the speech at issue is not commercial speech stating:  "While the 'core' notion of commercial speech is 'speech which does no more than propose a commercial transaction,' 'the Supreme Court has also defined commercial speech as 'expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience.'"8 The court went on to pronounce that "'[p]roduct labeling requirements are traditionally regarded as commercial speech even if they effectively discourage the product's consumption."9

Deciding whether the speech at issue is commercial speech is the linchpin of determining the level of scrutiny the reviewing court will apply to the state action, and the issue of the definition of commercial speech has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. In Nike v. Kasky, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to define commercial speech but refused to reach the issue by dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Before dismissing the petition, however, the Supreme Court received 34 briefs, heard oral argument and—in its multiple opinions dismissing the appeal—suggested that even blended speech might be subject to heightened scrutiny. Thus, the issue of what constitutes "commercial speech" remains very much unresolved and central to the analysis of cases such as GMA v. Sorrell.

The Natural Restriction

Act 120's Natural Restriction, however, was not able to pass even the lower standard of intermediate scrutiny. Like the FDA regulations, Act 120 does not define the term "natural" or the phrase "any words of similar import." The trial court addressed the First Amendment challenge to the Natural Restriction as follows:

The State argues that it may freely regulate and even ban the use of "natural" and similar words to describe GE food products as such usage is inherently or actually misleading. To the extent Act 120's restriction on the use of "natural" terminology and "any words of similar import" is ambiguous, the State asserts that it can rely on the Final Rule to avoid and correct any ambiguity. Plaintiffs counter the State is wrong on both points. The court agrees.10

Act 120 does not define "natural," "naturally made," "naturally grown," and "all natural." The Final Rule also does not define these terms. The State thus faces an uphill battle in arguing that a GE manufacturer's use of 'natural' terminology is actually or inherently misleading because the alleged deception cannot be measured against a statutory, or even a regulatory, definition of the restricted terms.

The trial court's reasoning is as follows:

Greenhouses, fertilizers, pesticides, and even the watering, weeding, and pruning of plants are "manmade," "purposeful interference" in plant production, not "existing in nature," and thus can readily and reasonably be deemed an 'artificial means' of food production. More particularly, altering seeds and plants from their "natural" state has occurred for centuries through techniques such as selective breeding, hybridization, cross pollination, and grafting. Act 120's "natural" restriction thus subjects GE manufacturers to a standardless restriction that virtually no food manufacturer could satisfy.11

The trial court recognized that at best, the State:

mustered some evidence that some consumers may find the use of 'natural' terminology in conjunction with GE food misleading depending on how 'natural' is defined. This evidence does not rise to the level of 'evidence of deception' sufficient to support an outright ban on commercial speech. 12

The court concluded that Vermont failed to "establish that Act 120's Natural Restriction directly advances a substantial state interest and is no greater than necessary to serve that interest. Under Central Hudson, the state's complete ban on the use of 'natural' terminology in the advertising, labeling, and signage for GE food products therefore violates the First Amendment."13

Congress may bring national uniformity to what is emerging as a patchwork of state laws. It is poised to consider H.R. 1599, which passed the house in July 2015 that in its current form, commands the FDA to, at long last, define the term "naturally."

The FDA's repeated refusal to provide a definition has also given rise to pernicious litigation. While GMA won the first round in its challenge to Act 120 (and will likely prevail at the Second Circuit), an FDA standard would end food labelers' national regulatory confusion and put the term "naturally" back into the labeling lexicon. This development would, naturally, be welcome for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers.

Footnotes

1.  2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56147 (D.VT April 27, 2015)

2. 9 V.S.A. § 3043(b)(1).

3. Id. at 13-14 (citations omitted).

4. Id. at 40.

5. Id. at 54 (citing the FDA, Draft Guidance on Voluntary Labeling for BE Foods, at 6-7 (2001).

6. Id. at 65

7. Id. at 83

8. Id. at 94-95.

9. Id. at 95.

10. Id. at 121.The court rejected the state's attempt to argue that an administrative rule would clear up the statutory ambiguity.

11. Id. at 124-125.

12. Id. at 17.

13. Id. at 136.

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.

Authors
Michael A. Walsh
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.