retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The Associated Press reports that in Vermont, U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss ruled this week against a food industry request for a preliminary order that would block the state law requiring the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The brief had been filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Snack Foods Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Denial of the request only means that the suit now is likely to go to trial, but that for the moment, implementation - scheduled for July 1, 2016 - can go forward.

GMA continues to maintain that "manufacturers are being harmed, and they are being harmed now" by the law. "Act 120 is unconstitutional and imposes burdensome new speech requirements on food manufacturers and retailers."

However, in her ruling, Reiss wrote 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 State's desire 'to promote informed consumer decision-making,"
KC's View:
"Informed consumer decision-making." That's really what this is all about.

It isn't about being pro-GMO or anti-GMO. It is about believing that the biotech companies are missing an enormous opportunity to educate and enlighten the public by embracing the notion of GMO labeling. They'd rather spend millions to fight it, which sends the wrong message and ends up focusing the conversation on the wrong thing. They're fighting the old war, not the next war.

Typical mistake. Dumb, but typical.