Update on Vermont's GE Seed Labeling Law

by Andy Barker. Copyright 2005. For information on reproducing this article, please contact the author.

Dancing is said to be just a fancy way of going nowhere. Perhaps the same could be said about Vermont's first-in-the-nation law requiring that genetically engineered (GE) seeds sold in the state be labeled.

When it passed in April 2004, Act 97 was widely hailed as a victory for those who have sought consumer disclosure of biotechnology. Although Vermont Secretary of Agriculture Steve Kerr declined to write rules for the law before it went into effect on Oct. 1, advocates were heartened when he informed seed companies in November that all GE seeds would require labeling that included the phrase, "these seeds have been genetically engineered."

In response, Seedway, Inc., of Hall, N.Y., pulled all of its GE vegetable seeds off the market in Vermont, rather than comply with the new labeling requirement. The move will apparently affect several varieties of virus-resistant summer squash (including Prelude II, Destiny III, Liberator III, Gold Bullion, Conqueror III and Independence II), none of which are thought to be widely grown in Vermont.

But two recent developments have caused Kerr to back away from his insistence on mandatory labeling language, leaving the impact of Act 97 this year in serious doubt. At a Dec. 16 meeting with Kerr in Montpelier, representatives from the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) asserted that the industry's current product labeling already satisfies the requirements of the law, and made it clear that biotech companies have no plans to change product labels for the Vermont market.

Representatives of ASTA also raised concerns at the meeting about the constitutionality of Act 97, arguing that it may place an undue burden on interstate commerce and frustrate the purposes and objectives of other federal regulations. At about the same time, the Vermont attorney general ruled that the current product use guides for two GE field crops satisfy the letter of the labeling law, as the industry has claimed all along. The 2004 product use guide for Monsanto's YieldGard corn, for example, which was found to satisfy the labeling requirement, says that the seeds have "YieldGard Corn Borer technology with built-in protection to control several important corn insect pests." It also mentions the "YGCB gene" but does not use the words "genetically engineered" anywhere.

"We're not looking for a lawsuit over this," said Kerr, explaining his decision to abandon mandatory labeling language for now. "We don't want to fight the wrong battle. Farmers are receiving the disclosure that farmers need. What we're aiming at is three to five years down the road, when these things come to market at the Aubuchons and the Agways. When those products come, there must be no question that consumers know what they are buying."

Meanwhile, Kerr said that his agency would publish information about GE seeds currently on the market in Vermont in the agency's bi-weekly publication, Ag Review, as an additional way to educate farmers and meet the spirit of Act 97. He said he has also asked seed companies to make their product use guides and other labeling "as clean and clear as possible" about the presence of GE traits.

But the bottom line is that GE seeds will likely not be carrying any new labeling in 2005, to the disappointment of many advocates. "Sooner or later, we need to have seed companies working to act on the intent of the law," said Rep. David Zuckerman, a Progressive party legislator who sponsored the original bill. "That's what's frustrating for those of us who passed the law for consumers' right to know."

John Cleary, technical assistance coordinator at NOFA-VT, said rules may need to be written for the law to clarify for companies what kind of disclosure is required.

For more information, see "Kerr changes course on seed labeling law," by Andy Barker, Vermont Guardian, Jan. 7, 2005, www.vermontguardian.com/local/0904/SeedLabel.shtml.