By Jessica Domel
News Editor

A new law in a small state will have a big impact on farmers, ranchers, businesses and food manufacturers across the nation. Vermont’s genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling law, the first of its kind in the nation, is set to take effect July 1, unless preempted by a new, federal law.

“The harm is being done as far as Vermont dictating labels,” Andrew Walmsley, director of Congressional Relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), said. “We know this will embolden other states who will go forward with their own type of mandatory labeling, which will obviously complicate the supply chain and impede interstate commerce, resulting in increased costs to both farmers and consumers.”

To get a jump-start on its packaging for when the law goes into effect, companies like Campbell’s, ConAgra, General Mills and others have already begun to label their products in accordance with Vermont’s law.

The problem arises when different states enact similar, but differing, GMO labeling laws.

In Vermont, dairy, meat and maple syrup are exempt from the labeling law, which would require GMO products to be labeled with: “This product comes from genetically modified ingredients.”

When presented with Vermont’s law, California rejected it as misleading. Other states are considering their own version of the laws, exempting different products.

“That’s really going to create havoc on interstate commerce,” Walmsley said.

Not only will it create havoc, it will also be costly.

Two years ago, a Cornell study estimated the cost of a patchwork of GMO labeling laws at an additional $500 per year for a family of four. A more recent study from the Corn Refiners Association estimates those costs to be over $1,000 more a year for a family of four.

“I would argue, if we keep going on the path we’re going, it’s going to be a lot higher than that—especially if you’re talking about reformulation and lost ag productivity,” Walmsley said.

The cost will be even higher to farmers and ranchers if the mandatory labeling prompts companies to stop using genetically modified ingredients altogether.

“There are groups on record saying they want the government to force a label on these products, which obviously raises concerns for consumers,” Walmsley said. “They’ll ask, ‘Why is this being labeled when there’s no health or safety concern?’ Then they want to use that as a target to go after these companies to put public pressure on them to reformulate.”

Reformulation would cost time, money and would stifle agricultural productivity.

“You look at the challenges facing us—whether it’s what Mother Nature throws at us or the moral imperative to feed 9.5 billion people by 2050—and you’re talking about a huge production change,” Walmsley said. “Obviously, these companies won’t be able to reformulate immediately. If you look at corn, soybeans, cotton and the other genetically engineered crops, over 90 percent of the crops grown today are biotech.”

Without biotech seeds, the majority of farmers would have to resort to a different way of growing and making a living.

“You’re taking something that obviously provides benefits to agriculture that our members have adopted and taking that choice away. You’ve gone from where we see the benefits of reduced pesticide use, reduced diesel use because of reduced tillage and quality of life issues because you’re not having to use harmful other pesticides,” Walmsley said. “We’ve got more benign herbicides like Roundup and other things. Those become less attractive. You lose that because you’re not having a tool in the toolbox, because nobody’s going to buy it or it’s depressed to the point where you can’t afford to grow it because there’s just not a market out there for it.”

Even if companies don’t reformulate their products to non-biotech ingredients, mandatory labeling of GMOs can cause consumers unnecessary concern as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration only labels foods that are a health, safety or nutrition risk.

“What signal is that sending to consumers? I think that’s the goal of the activists. The argument today is, ‘We have a right to know. So you need to put a label on it.’ Then, once we get labels on it, they’re going to say, ‘Well, why is there a label on there? There’s got to be something wrong,’” Walm