April 27, 2015 – According to the VT Attorney General’s Office (Defendant’s in this litigation by the Grocery Manufacturers, Assn., Snack Food Assn., International Dairy Foods Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers) who sued to Plaintiff Attorney General and Governor of Vermont, and others as Defendants, lost the first round in the battle, that is lost the right to STOP the law from going into effect in July 2016 on its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
The official press release by the VT AGO appears below:
“On April 27, 2015, the Court issued its decision denying Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion in its entirety, finding Plaintiffs were not likely to prevail on the merits of their claims or could not establish irreparable harm. The Court also granted in part and denied in part the State’s motion to dismiss, rejecting a significant portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, including claims that Act 120 is preempted by federal law and violates the Commerce Clause. As to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims, the Court made several rulings favorable to the State. In particular, the Court adopted the Attorney General’s argument that the lowest level of scrutiny applies to the disclosure law, whereby the State need only show that the GE label is reasonably related to the State’s interests. The Court found that the “safety of food products, the protection of the environment, and the accommodation of religious beliefs and practices are all quintessential governmental interests,” as is the “desire to promote informed consumer decision-making.” Finally, the Court declined to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amendment and vagueness challenges to the law’s “natural restriction,” concluding, for the time being, that Plaintiffs had sufficiently stated their claim.
On January 7, 2015, the Court held oral argument on the State’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court then took both motions under advisement.
On May 8, 2014, the Vermont Legislature enacted Act 120, which requires manufacturers to label genetically engineered (“GE”) foods as such, and prohibits manufacturers from describing GE products as “natural.” One month later, on June 12, 2014, Plaintiffs—a collection of trade associations representing food producers—filed suit, naming as Defendants Attorney General Sorrell, Governor Shumlin, Health Commissioner Chen, and Finance Commissioner Reardon.”
To read the Federal Courts Decision regarding its DENIAL of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the GE Labeling Law click here.
So What Does This All Mean?
This means the Plaintiffs:(Grocery Manufacturers, Assn., Snack Food Manufacturers, Assn., International Dairy Foods Assn., National Assn. of Manufacturers–and all their high profile GMO producing members) lost on the Motion. That is they cannot ‘PREVENT’ the state from moving forward on its requirement for GMO Labeling. However, the case can still go to trial, yet it is virtually unlikely it would be heard BEFORE the new GMO law takes effect in 2016. But of course, Congress could try to preempt it by passing the ‘DARK’ Act. We will be following this closely as the GMO litigation unfolds….
Fore more on the ill effects of Herbicide Glyphosate (deemed a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization – WHO), now with added 2,4D as allowed by EPA for use with GMO crops see: http://naturalsociety.com/after-cancer-link-confirmed-epa-still-doubles-herbicide-use/
EXTANT PROVERB:
“Man must learn that without exalting nature–he himself has succumb to the exodus of species.”
Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq.
