Vermont Litigation on GMO Food Labeling Goes Before a Judge at Hearing on Motion to Dismiss, Preliminary Injunction & Requests for Judicial Notice on January 7, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015 – Hearing Judge, Hon.Christina Reiss, Chief District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont heard oral arguments on whether the Court should grant or deny the Defendant’s-State of Vermont’s Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit against them brought by Plaintiffs’-the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and National Association of Manufacturers (aka corporate America and their affiliates) to foreclose Vermont from implementing its legislative mandate that the majority of Vermonter’s support–that all GMO foods be labeled in their state.

The law, a first in the nation to require labeling would go in effect on July 1, 2016. Unlike other GMO labeling laws passed earlier by Connecticut and Maine–Vermont is different–it a a stand alone law that does not rely on other states in the region to put their laws in effect. Other states have ‘trigger’ clauses which need additional contiguous or nearby states to pass similar laws to be effective. Vermont did it on its own, and is also funding the litigation on its own–something the Plaintiffs’ no doubt are strategizing to run the state out of money, and its government out of resources.

What many do not know, is that powerful companies that cloak themselves as Plaintiff members under the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are those that produce GMO seed–that’s right–they have a vested interest in seeing that their GMO’s are propagating–and that’s what they intend to do. By their affiliation, members like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Syngenta and others aim to not only put consumers in the dark when buying foods that are GMO, not ‘natural’ and laden with toxic herbicides–they want to keep them there indefinitely.

The motive of course is money and greed, because if consumers had the choice laid out in front of them, the GMO purveyors would quickly lose marketshare–and they know it! And in a capitalistic society as ours–isn’t it all about the bottom line? So the people of Vermont are in essence funding the GMO fight as beacons for the rest of the nation–with their own financial resources–which the Grocery Manufacturers’ GMO purveyors are funding with ‘your’ purchasing dollars. So I tell everyone, let’s boycott all those corporations that are fighting the brave state of Vermont, and to do so, here is a list of manufacturers to avoid:

http://occupy-monsanto.com/boycott-the-grocery-manufacturers-association-member-companies/

With this information in hand, consumers can make their shopping list accordingly, even though these GMO conglomerates have bought up a number of small organic companies–making it more difficult for Americans to avoid their products. But as Americans, we are resourceful and can find ways around their quest to entrap–if we have the information. That is, the best way to fight corporate greed, is to hit these corporations in the pocketbook–stop buying their GMO, lab created, and pesticide laden products by boycotting ALL their products, all the time, altogether.

As for the Preliminary Injunction, that is a Motion filed by the Grocery Manufacturers’ et al. (Plaintiffs) to enjoin the State of Vermont’s GMO labeling law from going into effect. In other words, slow them down or even try to foreclose them completely from putting their labeling law into effect. And lastly, the Motion to Request Judicial Notice can notably be seen as trying to usurp the knowledge base of legislators, the people, and the courts, by saying that some government institutions and scientists think GMO’s are safe and healthy, and because of that, the Court should think so too. Such would be accomplished if the Judge accepts the declarations of these industry affiliated scientists working in concert with the FDA, that GMO’s are safe–and therefore any attempt to regulate them through litigation is overly burdensome on Plaintiff’s right to free speech, their right to freely sell across state lines, and their right to keep their corporate mouths shut if they want to.

No doubt, this litigation is not intended to make it easier for consumers to shop and feed their families as they would like. Let’s just hope that Judge Reiss will see through the smokescreen and grant Vermont’s Motion to Dismiss, although this can often be a high bar to achieve. As for the Preliminary Injunction, that should be denied as it would stifle the legislative action that is intended to take effect well over a year from now–so the ‘alleged’ threat to Plaintiff’s–that is time needed to create a label and slap it on their products should not be thwarted–nor should their sourcing and tracking of their raw ingredients–they should already be tracking their source ingredients which is necessary to monitor for any food borne illness and disease producing pathogens. And most certainly if they can create reams of paper for a lawsuit that costs millions of dollars, they should be able to do easily create labels for a fraction of the cost that will apprise consumers of whether they are buying GMO’s or ‘naturally derived’ products by mid 2016.

Lastly, it is all about having choice, making decisions for one’s own self and family that the Plaintiff’s want to stifle. Manufacturers’ claim that their speech is being stifled, but reality it is yours–every American who wants to speak up and ask what’s in their food, where and how it is sourced.

We have a right–this is still a democracy until further notice. And even if the court says we don’t have a right–guess what–we still win. If we tell enough people who the GMO purveyors are, and what they produce–consumers can boycott their products and hit them in the pocketbooks–and they will have less money to spend on litigation. After all, do these purveyors really believe American consumers are dumb enough to believe that spending millions of dollars on litigation is about their First Amendment right of free speech and a claimed burden of relabeling–something manufacturers routinely do?

It is clear, this really isn’t about speech and relabeling–this is about maximizing corporate profits and their bottom line by selling inferior and potentially harmful products to consumers without their knowledge. Isn’t this really what it’s all about?