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

9 500
9 000
8 500
8 000
7 500
7 000
6 500
Population
Global Acreage
18
17
16
15
14
13
6 000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
12
UN FAO Estimates Global Food Needs Will Increase 70% by 2050
Source: UN FAO, H IGH -L EVEL E XPERT F ORUM : H OW TO F EED THE W OLRLD IN 2050, Rome, Italy
(Oct. 12-13, 2009), available at http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs-forum/en/
3

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

Disease Resistance
• Rainbow Papaya
– GE technology saved
Hawaii’s industry from the papaya ringspot virus
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
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

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
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
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

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

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

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

“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

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 contentbased restrictions on speech
John G. Dillard – jdillard@ofwlaw.com
17

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