State GMO Labeling Laws: Constitutionally Questionable

2. State GMO Labeling Laws: Constitutionally Questionable Conference of Western Attorneys General Park City, Utah July 23, 2014 John G. Dillard Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz PC www.ofwlaw.com (202) 789-1212 jdillard@ofwlaw.com

3. Our Global Food Production Challenge UN FAO Estimates Global Food Needs Will Increase 70% by 2050 Source: UN FAO, High-Level Expert Forum: How to Feed the Wolrld in 2050, Rome, Italy (Oct. 12-13, 2009), available at http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs-forum/en/

4. Biotechnology Applications • Herbicide Resistance • Insect resistance • Yield enhancement • Disease resistance • Drought tolerance • Spoilage reduction • Nutraceuticals 4 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

5. Disease Resistance • Rainbow Papaya • GE technology saved Hawaii’s industry from the papaya ringspot virus 6 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

6. Why not just label it? • NY Times Poll (7/28/2013) • 93% of survey respondents support mandatory GMO labeling 7 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

7. Why not just label it? • NY Times Poll (7/28/2013) • 93% of survey respondents support mandatory GMO labeling BUT . . . • 75% concerned about effect of GMOs in food • 37% feared it causes cancer, allergies • 26% believe they are toxic • 40% believe most fruits, vegetables are GMO There are serious misconceptions about genetic engineering 8 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

8. Why not just label it? • 2012 International Food Information Council survey (open-ended) • 3% believe biotech foods should be labeled • 2% concerned about biotechnology’s effect on food safety 9 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

9. Why not just label it? • Mandatory labeling stigmatizes biotechnology • GMO foods are scarce in most countries that require labeling • Not related to health, safety or nutrition • Increased food costs • Food labeling should be a federal issue • Marketplace already offers GMO-free alternatives 10 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

10. Constitutional Issues with GMO Labeling • GMO label is “controversial” • Central Hudson test applies • Vermont has not demonstrated a “substantial” state interest • Exemptions undercut necessity of labeling • “Natural” label prohibition is a restriction on commercial speech • Mandates a government viewpoint 11 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

11. GMO label is “controversial” • Central Hudson controls commercial speech • Exception: Zauderer – purely factual, uncontroversial disclosures (rational basis) • Labeling compels food manufacturers to use labels to convey an opinion with which they disagree: • Consumers should assign significance to the fact that a product contains an ingredient derived from a genetically engineered plant 12 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

12. Vermont has not demonstrated a “substantial” state interest • Labeling does not serve a governmental interest • Satisfying consumer curiosity is not a gov’t interest • Legislative “findings” are based on speculation and conjecture about “unintended consequences,” not concrete facts • Litigation funding mechanism illustrates lack of governmental interest • State acting as pass-through for labeling advocates 14 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

13. Exemptions undercut necessity of GMO labeling • Broad exemptions demonstrate that law does not “directly advance” state interest • Alcohol • Food service • Products from animals fed GMO crops • Cheese produced with GMO enzymes Why does “right to know” vary based on form or location of GMO consumption? 15 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

14. “Natural” label prohibition • Vermont proscribes labeling GMO foods as “natural” or “words of similar import” • Restrictions of commercial speech fall under Central Hudson • Exemptions undercut necessity • Restricts “natural” in grocery store, but not restaurants • Singles out biotechnology as not “natural” • Ignores other food production technologies and processes 16 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

15. Mandated expression of government viewpoint • GMOs are a hotly contested public issue • Labeling requires food manufacturers to espouse the government’s view • Gov’t is subject to the same scrutiny as content-based restrictions on speech 17 John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com

16. State GMO Labeling Laws: Constitutionally Questionable Conference of Western Attorneys General Park City, Utah July 23, 2014 John G. Dillard Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz PC www.ofwlaw.com (202) 789-1212 jdillard@ofwlaw.com