Leahy on GMO Labeling

Dear Mr. Jeffries:

Knowing of your interest in the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food products, I wanted to share my statement from today’s voting session by the Senate Agriculture Committee to consider Chairman Roberts’ draft bill to establish a national voluntary bioengineered food labeling standard. With this bill, Chairman Roberts seeks to preempt states like Vermont from setting any mandatory labeling requirements for GE foods or seeds. I believe that consumers have the right to know what is in their food, and until a national mandatory on-pack label is enacted, Congress should not preempt state laws like Vermont’s Act 120. Unfortunately, powerful interests have mobilized in support of this bill, and the committee approved it, but not with my vote. The bill still needs to be considered by the full Senate, and I will continue to fight to preserve Vermont’s law. We cannot allow the interests of multinational corporations to trump the interests of American consumers. I invite you to read my remarks from today’s Committee meeting, in strong support of Vermonters’ voices on this important issue.

Opening Remarks Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Senate Agriculture Committee Business Meeting
To Consider Draft GE Labeling Preemption Bill
March 1, 2016

It comes as no surprise, I am sure, that I will not support this bill. This legislation undermines the public’s right to know and preempts mandatory labels in states, replacing them with a paltry voluntary standard that already exists today under guidance from the FDA. Not only would this legislation preempt Vermont’s Act 120 GE disclosure requirement, but it would block other state laws like Alaska’s requirement to label all products containing genetically engineered fish and shell fish, and Vermont and Virginia’s laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered seed.

There have been no Senate hearings on this legislation nor on the broader issue of labeling. No expert witnesses have been called, yet today this committee is poised to preempt state laws like Vermont’s, which was debated and discussed by our Legislature over a two-year period. The Vermont Legislature held 52 committee hearings, and heard 136 presentations of testimony on both sides of the food labeling issue. Vermont’s 2004 seed labeling law that would be overturned by this bill, was the subject of more than a dozen and a half hearings with more than 40 witnesses representing every side of the issue. Yet before considering today’s bill, this Committee has not heard from a single farmer about this issue.

This bill has been brought forward at this time simply to preempt Vermont’s GE labeling law before it takes effect in July. I want to remind this Committee that Vermont has a six-month safe harbor or grace period until January 1, 2017. I will continue to oppose any bill that takes away the rights of Vermont, or any other state, to legislate in a way that advances public health and food safety, informs consumers about potential environmental effects, avoids consumer confusion, and protects religious traditions. We should be moving in a direction that offers consumers more information and more choices — not less information and fewer choices.

The more information that we seek to hide from consumers about how their food is grown and manufactured, the more unnecessary red flags we raise for them. Our farmers should be proud to inform consumers about what they plant, how they grow it, the choices they make, and why. This legislation moves production methods into the shadows and it gives agriculture a black eye. The supporters of this bill demean biotechnology in agriculture by making it a controversial issue when it does not have to be. A purely factual label does not give any impression that GE ingredients are unsafe; it simply informs the consumer. But when you rush in panic, with no hearings or time for deliberation, to block consumers from gaining access to this information in even a single, small state like Vermont, you seem to be declaring to the world that GE producers have something to hide.

I hope other senators will join me in rejecting these efforts to undermine the ability of states like Alaska, Vermont, Virginia and others that choose to offer consumers and farmers purely factual, noncontroversial, commercial information that furthers the legitimate and substantial interests of the states. States have rights, and in the case of Vermont and Alaska, our state legislatures have agreed that consumers have a right to know what they are buying. Vermont’s and Virginia’s farmers have the right to know what seeds they are planting.

Despite what we will hear time and again today, the sky is not falling. Many will call for expedited action because they fear “catastrophic economic costs” should Vermont’s law be implemented. But consider that Vermont’s total retail sales are only about two-tenths-of-one-percent of national retail sales. Will labeling food in our small state really send shockwaves through the country? There is no skull and cross bones on the front of the package, simply useful information. Food producers will not have to label every product sold in this country, only the products that they choose to ship to Vermont. Vermont has heard from countless companies that are already working to add this disclosure to their products, from the iconic billion-dollar Campbell’s brand, to regional grocery chains that have their own store brands, to small family owned businesses. Can other companies not simply put a sticker on their boxes, or cans, or bags? Beverage companies are able to comply with state can deposit laws. Will the Senate go after the patchwork of those state laws next?

I’ll tell you one thing: This legislation, rushed forward without even a hearing, is a solution looking for a non-existent problem. It is a last minute attack on Vermont’s law, and on Vermonters’ right to set priorities at the state government level.

# # # # #


United States Senator

Outdoors: 24°F/14°F Partially Sunny
Tiny Cottage: 56°F/62°F

Daily Spark: Ah, yes, I see, you have a point, a hollow point.

About Walter Jeffries

Tinker, Tailor...
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Leahy on GMO Labeling

  1. aminthepm says:

    Like trying to say syrups made from corn ( who knows if that is genetically modified ) is the same as maple syrup.

  2. From Leahy on 20160316:

    Dear Mr. Jeffries:

    Knowing of your interest in knowing where our food comes from and the ongoing debate over the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food, I wanted to let you know that earlier today, the Senate rejected a hasty and short-sighted effort to roll back Vermont’s GE labeling law. This was a hard-fought victory for Vermont, on our state’s right to honor Vermonters’ right to know what’s in the food they buy.

    I have heard loud and clear from Vermonters that consumers have the right to know, and I have fought hard for consumers’ rights and Vermont’s law. We are not asking manufacturers to change their production processes. We are simply asking them to tell consumers what is in the products that go on store shelves. Vermont has led the way in this debate, as our state has in so many important national issues. While this is a significant victory for Vermont, this fight is not yet over. I hope that the Senate can now come together to find a path forward to a strong mandatory disclosure policy that can be applied across the board and across the nation. Vermont has done pioneering work on behalf of consumers, and Vermont’s law is a good place to start that national debate. I invite you to watch my speech from the Senate debate here.


    United States Senator

  3. Glenn Warren says:

    What is the difference between your label, pre and post VT 120. Does the law affect your ongoing paperwork and does it have a positive or negative effect on marketing, sales and price.

    • The Vermont law about GMO labeling hasn’t affected our label because we don’t have any GMO elements in our products. I’m not aware of any other effect either. Our price is still the same as it was before the new labeling law. Sales are still gradually expanding, which they were doing before the new labeling law. I like the Vermont GMO labeling law because it lets me know as a consumer what products are likely supporting Monstersanto who I would rather not support at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.