BRATTLEBORO -- Contending Vermont's GMO labeling law is meant "to pacify a vocal segment of the population that opposes genetic engineering," the Grocery Manufacturers Association is asking a federal court to prevent the state from implementing Act 120 until its lawsuit against Vermont "has run its course."

Act 120, which establishes labeling requirements for what it calls genetically engineered foods, was passed by the Legislature earlier this year and signed into law in May by Gov. Peter Shumlin.

According to the motion for an injunction, because GE varieties of corn and soybean account for 90 percent of those types of plantings in the United States, Act 120 will affect most of the grocery products sold in Vermont.

"Federal law does not require food labeling to also include plant labeling because there is no rational justification for such a regime," wrote attorneys for the GMA, the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Association and the National Association of Manufacturers. "Act 120, however, is not concerned with rational justification. It caters to beliefs and biases that a government has no business endorsing."

Not only does Act 120 not serve any legitimate governmental interests, wrote the attorneys, it violates the First Amendment and intrudes upon federal labeling requirements, and is thus preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

In addition, they wrote, the members of the associations bringing suit against the state "will suffer irreparable injury" without an injunction because they have no way "to reliably distinguish ingredients derived from genetically engineered plant varieties from those that are not."

"The changes manufacturers would need to demand from their suppliers and initiate in their own facilities to segregate ingredients require money and time -- much more time than the Act's July 1, 2016, effective date allows," wrote the attorneys.

And then there are the costs related to building out Vermont-specific supply and distribution chains that do not currently exist.

"Plaintiff's members will not be able to recoup the cost of those efforts from the State if they prevail, nor could they easily return their business to the status quo ante."

Even though the plaintiff's plan to present evidence that food produced from genetically engineered crops is safe, "vehement opposition to genetic engineering persists," wrote the attorneys. Much of that opposition is based in philosophical or religiousbeliefs, concerns about large-scale agricultural operations, or biases against certain companies, maintain the attorneys.

See the article here:

Food manufacturers seek GMO labeling injuction