Vermont

===

merri ok

see GMO label

feel the Bern!

bak 6 24

===

gov p phil scott only gop to refuse nat guard mass deport

In December, 26 Republican governors — all but Vermont Gov. Phil Scott — vowed to assist Trump with deportations of immigrants “who pose a threat to our communities and national security.” Their pledge included the use of National Guard troops.

===

ymail 6 24

These bills aim to make polluters pay

Climate superfund legislation is gaining traction in state legislatures across the country. How do the bills fit into the broader movement to hold Big Oil accountable?

EXXONKNEWS

JUN 27

Emily Sanders is senior reporter at ExxonKnews.

As communities across the United States grapple with the rising costs to protect residents and infrastructure from the worsening impacts of climate change, some state legislators are targeting a potential new source of resilience funding: fossil fuel companies.

Sometimes called “polluter pays” bills or “climate superfund” bills, a new wave of state legislation aims to make oil companies bear a portion of the expenses necessary to adapt to climate impacts and recover from climate disasters fueled by those companies’ greenhouse gas emissions. The bills are quickly gaining momentum in statehouses: Vermont passed one into law in May, another in New York awaits Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature, and similar proposals are under consideration in California, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

Oil and gas companies have generated the majority of the world’s climate pollution, the bill sponsors argue, and therefore they should help pay for the damage that pollution is inflicting on communities. While each state’s legislation has unique features and different mechanisms to determine how much oil and gas companies would pay, they all draw inspiration from the federal Superfund program, first enacted in 1980 and administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, which makes polluters pay to clean up hazardous waste they’ve dumped into the environment.

State climate superfunds established by these bills would function similarly by making fossil fuel companies pay for a portion of the damages caused by their greenhouse gas emissions.

“States and municipalities are suffering enormous costs from the damage associated with climate change and the money they have to spend now to prepare for the consequences they're going to face in the future, at the same time as fossil fuel industry actors are posting record profits from creating these harms,” said Martin Lockman, climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and associate research scholar at Columbia Law School. While the superfund bills would not cover the full amount states will spend on climate adaptation, he said, communities “are looking for any tools that they have available to make sure that the people who are profiting from causing them harm pay for [that] harm.”

So how exactly do the bills work, how do they interact with the growing number of distinct state and local lawsuits seeking to hold Big Oil accountable for climate deception, and what challenges will they face? Here’s what you need to know.

How climate superfund bills work

All of the currently proposed climate superfund bills would assess a dollar figure that companies owe to the fund based on the amount of emissions attributed to the fossil fuels they sold over a set period of time: 2000 to 2018 in New York’s case, or 1995 to 2024 in Vermont’s for example. The costs of those emissions, or how they are proportioned among companies, are calculated using attribution science — a growing field also tapped for climate accountability lawsuits. Those calculations rely on companies’ self-reported data to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

“It's looking at something they already did, and saying ‘this had a negative effect and now you have to clean up the mess you made,’” said Maggie Coulter, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a group that supports a climate superfund bill in California that was recently shelved by its author but could be reintroduced later in the year.

Some of the bills direct a state agency to conduct a cost assessment of the climate harms companies’ emissions caused during a set time frame. In Vermont’s case, the state’s Agency of Natural Resources will have until the start of 2027 to conduct that assessment and determine each company’s appropriate share of the costs.

Those costs could include some portion of the estimated $1 billion response and recovery costs incurred after major floods devastated Vermont last summer, or the price of fortifying roads, bridges, and floodplains to lessen the damage caused by rain storms intensified by climate change. The agency will also help determine which resiliency programs — programs that could help municipalities, businesses, and farms in Vermont adapt to climate impacts — will be covered.

The law “is a common sense manifestation of a very well-established principle of American environmental law, which is that the polluter pays,” said Christophe Courchesne, assistant professor of law and director of the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Vermont Law School, which voiced its support for the bill before it passed. “It's not new, even as the application of this policy to climate damages is new, and is an extremely important concept that we certainly hope will be a model to other states.”

Other bills have already set a total cost that would be divided up by companies — like New York’s, which would require the oil majors to pay into a $75 billion fund that could be used for projects such as air conditioning schools or upgrading roads, bridges, subways, and stormwater drainage systems to account for more extreme weather. Still, that $75 billion is nowhere near the total costs New York faces for climate adaptation; in 2021, the city estimated it would cost $100 billion just to “recalibrat[e] our sewers for storms like Ida.”

Proponents of the bills say their popularity reflects growing public demand for polluters to pay; polling last year found that 70% of likely voters supported making fossil fuel companies pay for climate disasters including wildfires, droughts, and floods. “The science is more than clear on the outsized impact these companies have had on the climate crisis,” said Cassidy DiPaola, communication director for Fossil Free Media, one of the groups behind that poll. “It's time for them to pay their fair share, and this is one step in the right direction, but still not nearly enough.”

“Very complimentary, parallel tracks”

The bills come at the same time that dozens of state and local lawsuits to hold Big Oil accountable for climate fraud and damages are steadily advancing through the courts. So how do the two mechanisms interact?

The two tracks have some fundamental differences and aim to accomplish different things. Unlike the bills, the lawsuits center on disinformation, not pollution. They accuse the companies of engaging in deceptive behavior, citing evidence that the fossil fuel industry has misled the public for decades about the harms their products cause. Through the courts, the cases aim to stop companies from lying to consumers and hold them accountable through a range of remedies, including paying for the damage their deception has caused.

Lawsuits can also help address past disinformation by forcing defendants to set the record straight. A Minnesota lawsuit brought against Exxon, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute under the state’s consumer protection laws, for example, seeks to make the companies “disclose, disseminate, and publish all research previously conducted directly or indirectly… that relates to the issue of climate change,” and “fund a corrective public education campaign in Minnesota relating to the issue of climate change, administered and controlled by an independent third party.”

Similar remedies came out of lawsuits brought against the tobacco industry by U.S. states and territories for misleading consumers about the connection between smoking and cancer. Through the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, major tobacco companies were made to fund the Truth Initiative, a public education campaign that has drastically reduced youth smoking rates.

Discovery, the process of obtaining evidence for trial, can also produce internal company documents that shed further light on the industry’s deception about its products for legislators and the public — and can help inform a response. Such documents were obtained through litigation against the tobacco and opioid industries and made publicly available.

The climate superfund legislation, on the other hand, “does nothing to prevent [companies] from continuing business as usual if they want to,” said Coulter. “It's just saying that the business that you conducted has caused damage and you need to pay for that.” That’s why the bills and lawsuits, she emphasized, are “very complimentary, parallel tracks,” which together can both make the fossil fuel industry pay for a share of its pollution and bring an end to continued deceptive acts.

A similar dual strategy was applied in California, where the California Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 1991 taxed manufacturers of products containing lead to fund evaluations and medical services for children who were exposed. In 2019, 10 California cities and counties were still able to recover a court settlement from lead paint manufacturers after they sued the companies under public nuisance claims.

“This is how our democracy works,” California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta recently told Politico when asked about the relationship between California’s proposed superfund bill and the accountability lawsuit his office brought against Big Oil companies last year. “Different leaders elected to do their jobs think about the authority that they have, the jurisdiction that they own, and the action that they can take to solve a problem that affects their constituents.”

Legal battles ahead

The bills will likely implicate many of the same major oil companies facing climate deception lawsuits in state courts, including Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP. The industry’s lead trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, has already expressed its strong opposition to the bills, calling them “a punitive new fee” that “represents yet another step in a coordinated campaign to undermine America’s energy advantage and the economic and national security benefits it provides.”

Legal experts expect API and others to challenge the laws in court.

In March, API sent a letter to Vermont lawmakers claiming that the state's bill “retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal” and “violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large.”

But experts and advocates refute those claims. “This bill is premised on a well-established, reasonable approach to assigning liability for pollution harms,” said Courchesne, of Vermont Law. “These issues around due process and the retroactivity of liability have been litigated and those laws have been upheld.”

Big Oil’s public communications have sought to shift the blame for climate change to consumers for years, despite growing evidence that the companies intentionally mislead the public about the harms their fossil fuel products cause.

While the superfund bills don’t rely on that evidence of deception like the lawsuits do, there is still plenty of precedent for laws that hold producers liable for their pollution, Lockman explained. “If you buy a product, and the company that made that product was dumping toxic chemicals into a river and killing off species, is the consumer responsible for that?” he asked. “Generally, as a society and a legal system, we’ve decided that it’s OK to hold the most immediate actors responsible for the pollution they’re causing.”

Thanks for reading ExxonKnews!

---

===

gmail 2 24

Judges continue to reject oil industry efforts to escape accountability in state court.

Vermont is another step closer to putting Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies after a federal district court ruled last week the lawsuit can move forward in state court, where it was originally filed. The decision continues oil companies’ unbroken losing streak in their attempts to escape facing accountability for their climate lies in dozens of local and state government cases.

Vermont’s lawsuit, filed by the state Attorney General’s office in 2021, charges ExxonMobil, Shell, and other major polluters with knowingly lying to the public about the climate harms of their products and ultimately denying Vermont consumers the opportunity to make informed choices on their fossil fuel products. The lawsuit asserts that Big Oil’s deceptive marketing not only misled consumers, but also delayed action and created costly and hazardous conditions for Vermont residents, like recent deadly floods exacerbated by climate change. The case, which will now be litigated in state court, seeks to force the oil companies to stop deceiving the public and relinquish the profits they made while promoting their false advertising.

“Vermonters deserve to know the truth about fossil fuel products as they make consumer choices,” Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark said after the ruling. “This case seeks to hold accountable fossil fuel companies that misrepresented their products and hid information from the public.”

To date, eight federal appeals courts — including the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the District of Vermont — and more than a dozen federal district courts have unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry’s arguments to prevent these lawsuits from moving forward in state courts. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined Big Oil’s requests to review one of those lower court rulings for the third time.

“The fossil fuel industry’s efforts to deceive the public about climate change have caused irreparable harm to communities,” CCI President Richard Wiles said. “The people of Vermont deserve their day in court to make these companies answer for their fraud.”

===

AG GMO, acid rain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sorrell

===

B&J bk BK // thom fwd annie leonard 300 pp

http://www.proz-x.com/onlinelibrary/files/original/18fa2f662e17f290134a6dd2dd0ea974.pdf

===

not the epa attack:

September 13, 2021

Rob Schilling

Executive Director

Energy Policy Advocates

By e-mail to: Schilling@allhookedup.com

Re: Vermont Public Records Act Request

Dear Mr. Schilling:

I write in response to your Vermont Access to Public Records Act

request dated September 7, 2021, which this office received on September 8,

In that request, on behalf of Energy Policy Advocates, you sought:

I. all electronic correspondence . . . and any accompanying

information . . . including also any attachments, a) sent to or from or

which copies (whether as cc: or bcc:) i) Charity Clark, ii) Robert

McDougall and/or ii) Nick Persampieri, that b) was also sent to or from

or which copies (whether as cc: or bcc:), or which includes anywhere

in the correspondence, i) enckj@aol.com, ii) any email address ending

in @climateintegrity.org, iii) any email address ending in @vtcha.org,

and/or iv) pparenteau@vermontlaw.edu, which c) is dated from October

1, 2020 through today, inclusive; and

II. any i) “COMMON INTEREST AGREEMENT REGARDING THE

SHARING OF INFORMATION RELATED TOSTATE LAWSUITS

AGAINST FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES FOR DECEPTIVE ACTSAND

PRACTICES AND OTHER STATE LAW CLAIMS” signed by OAG

since October 1, 2020, and of ii) any fee, representation, consulting, pro

bono, non-disclosure, confidentiality and/or common interest agreement

signed between your office and Pat Parenteau and/or Vermont Law

School that is presently in effect.

Please be advised that we have no records that are responsive to your

request.

If you feel any information or records have been withheld in error, you

may appeal to Deputy Attorney General Joshua Diamond at the following

email address: Joshua.Diamond@vermont.gov.

Sincerely,

/s/Nicholas F. Persampieri

Nicholas F. Persampieri

Assistant Attorney General

===

Mandatory Labels With Simple Disclosures Reduced Fears of GE Foods in Vermont

Click here to see CDP's infographic about cities around the globe that are using renewable energy.

In the U.S., 58 cities and towns have now committed to transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy, including big cities like Atlanta and San Diego. Earlier this year, U.S. municipalities Denton, Texas and St. Louis Park, Minnesota, became the latest communities to establish 100 percent renewable energy goals.

In June 2017 the U.S. Conference of Mayors, representing 250 U.S. mayors, resolved to support the procurement of 100 percent renewable energy for cities by 2035.

Burlington's Bold Breakaway

Burlington, Vermont is one of the first U.S. cities to report to CDP that it sources 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources.

Burlington began its transition to a net-zero economy back in 1978 when it replaced its coal plant with a 50-MW generating station powered on biomass. The next step was harnessing wind and solar power through the construction of a 10-MW wind farm and the installation of rooftop solar PVs on high schools, the airport and the electric department. In 2014, when citizens voted to approve a $12 million bond in 2014 for the city's energy department to purchase the 7.4-MW Winooski Hydroelectric Plant, Burlington's transformation to 100 percent renewable energy was complete.

The city's shift to green energy has also helped its residents, not raising electricity rates in eight years. And seizing the opportunity to turn Burlington into a center of innovation, the city has continued its progressive push by investing in charging stations for electric vehicles and developing plans to pipe steam from the biomass plant to heat downtown homes.

Solar San Francisco

Three thousand miles away on America's west coast, San Francisco is trailblazing the path in solar power—driven by economic reality. Last year, municipal leaders took the bold move to become the first American city to mandate solar roofs on most new construction. Under the legislation, all new buildings under 10 stories must have solar PV or solar thermal panels installed on at least 15 percent of their roof space. Consequently, the city now boasts more than 15-MW of solar PV.

With an electricity mix of 34 percent renewable energy, San Francisco still has a long way to go to reach its ambitious target of 100 percent by 2030. But the wheels are clearly in motion to scale-up solar power, with the city serving as a shining example of the power of solar.

Unsubsidized renewables were the cheapest source of electricity in 30 countries last year according to the World Economic Forum. With renewables predicted to be consistently more cost effective than fossil fuels globally by 2020, the rate at which cities around the world follow San Francisco's lead is likely to pick up pace.

Cities as the Battleground

Cities are vital to the transition to a low-carbon economy. Cities are home to half the world's population and are expanding rapidly. In the U.S. alone, over 80 percent of the population lives in urban areas. Meanwhile, cities around the globe are responsible for over 70 percent of energy-related carbon emissions.

As cities expand, they need to ensure that the new infrastructure they put in place is fit for a low-carbon economy. Public-private partnerships will be crucial to transitioning to green energy, particularly with the propensity for deficits in public finance.

The good news is that CDP's data shows that globally, cities are moving in the right direction in engaging with the private sector. In 2016, we collected data from 570 cities around the world and found that municipalities highlighted a total of 720 climate-related projects suitable for private sector investment, worth a combined $26 billion. One year later, that figure had ballooned to 1,045 projects and more than $52 billion.

Much of the drive behind city climate action and reporting comes from the 7,000+ mayors signed up to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy who have pledged to act on climate change.

Despite the prospect of the American withdrawal from the Paris agreement, cities in the U.S. and around the world are still putting ambitious plans in place to harness the power of clean electricity. Cities not only want to shift to renewable energy, but most importantly, they can. We urge all cities to disclose to us, work together to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and prioritize the development of ambitious renewable energy procurement strategies.

Kyra Appleby is Director of Cities at global environmental impact non-profit CDP.

===

~ dark act

http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/04/the-gmo-labeling-saga-continues

mar 2016

Defying the rights of Americans who overwhelmingly want to know more about what they eat, a Senate committee on Tuesday advanced legislation that will block states from requiring that foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMO) be labelled.

The so-called Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act (pdf) passed the Senate Agriculture Committee 14-6. It now moves to the upper chamber's floor, setting up a Congressional battle as Vermont prepares to become the first state to implement a mandatory GMOlabeling law.

The federal bill pre-empts state laws by establishing a national voluntary labeling standard for foods made with GMOs, similar to the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 thatpassed the House in July. The Senate bill has reportedly gone through significant negotiations to garner bipartisan support. But opponents, including Wenonah Hauter, executive director of watchdog Food & Water Watch, argue that "more compromise will not fix the problem at the bill's core."

"Blocking state laws that require GMO labeling will strip away the ability of states to protect the public’s right to know what is in their food," Hauter said Tuesday. "Any version of this bill that would result in anything less than mandatory on-package labeling is unacceptable."

Indeed, more than 9 out of 10 of Americans surveyed have said they support mandatory GMO labeling. Despite this, lawmakers—with significant backing from the biotechnology industry—continue to push pro-GMO legislation.

In 2014, Vermont passed a new labeling standard that is due to take effect on July 1. As the first state to pass a law that does not include a "trigger clause"—which requires that other states pass similar legislation, such as in Connecticut and Maine—Vermont now emerges as the GMO battleground as Senate lawmakersconsider this bill.

Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) weighed in on the controversy Tuesday, tweeting:...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-28/coca-cola-may-pull-products-from-vermont-to-comply-with-gmo-law

-Cola Co., the world’s largest soft-drink company, expects to pull some of its beverages from Vermont stores as the state imposes a GMO-labeling law this week.

All products made with genetically modified organisms must have warning labels in order to stay on sale in Vermont -- the nation’s second-least-populous state -- starting July 1. While the Atlanta-based company’s top beverages will stay on shelves, including Coca-Cola, Diet Coke and Coke Zero, some smaller brands or configurations may disappear for now, according to spokesman Ben Sheidler.

“To avoid multiple labeling changes, some lower-volume brands and packages we offer within our broad portfolio could be temporarily unavailable in Vermont,” he told Bloomberg BNA.

Products made with GMOs are a hot-button topic in the food and agriculture industry, and the U.S. Senate is discussing its own bill that would supersede Vermont’s labeling law. Consumers are increasingly wary of scientifically altered ingredients, but food companies say the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe.

Kellogg Co., Campbell Soup Co. and Mars Inc. previously announced that they would bow to the Vermont law and begin labeling their products for GMOs.

Senate Bill

But the industry is still seeking a national solution, saying a patchwork of state laws isn’t practical. Republicans and Democrats on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee have struck a deal that would create national GMO-labeling protocol, pre-empting the Vermont law.

For beverage companies such as Coca-Cola, the GMO debate adds to bigger problems. Per-person soda consumption in the U.S. fell to a 30-year low last year, according to Beverage Digest. And sales have continued to tumble in 2016.

PepsiCo Inc. announced that it was revamping its diet-cola line this week after slow sales.

===

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/06/29/coca-cola-reportedly-pulling-products-from-vt-over-gmo-labeling-law/

Coca-Cola reportedly pulling products from VT over GMO labeling law

http://www.alternet.org/food/sanders-takes-stand-against-senate-bill-would-undermine-vermonts-new-gmo-labeling-law-video

legslators appear ruthless in keeping Americans in the dark about what they eat—literally. While 90 percent of Americans support mandatory GMO labeling, H.R. 1599—otherwise known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know, orDARK Act—introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts,would have "preempted states from requiring the labeling of GMO foods," according to Just Label It.

June 13, 2016

Contact:

Craig Richardson

Richardson@eelegal.org

703-981-5553

E&E Legal Forced to Sue Vermont Attorney General to Release Public Records Related to Conspiracy of AG’s Seeking to Use RICO to Punish and Silence Climate Change ‘Deniers’

Washington, DC – Today the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (FME Law) filed suit against the Vermont Attorney General, for records relating to that Office’s ongoing investigation into those who dissent from green activists’ preferred views on climate change and the “climate” political agenda.

On May 10, 2016, E&E Legal and FME Law submitted a request to the Office of the Vermont Attorney General (OAG) seeking correspondence records of two OAG employees, which records contained certain keywords relating to the Vermont Attorney General’s investigation into “racketeering” in the form of declining to adhere to the activists’ preferred views on climate change, and the activists’ preferred government policies in the name of climate change. Other public records previously obtained detail that those two Vermont employees worked with the New York Attorney General’s Office and others to coordinate the investigations that have already led to subpoenas being issued against conservative think tanks and others.

“When we first submitted a public records request to Vermont in March, they seemed to follow the letter of that state’s freedom of information law, promptly turning over relevant documents in a very timely manner,” said David W. Schnare, E&E Legal General Counsel. “The enormous fallout from those revelations has, unfortunately, been followed by slow-walking of other requests in Vermont, and state after state where their attorney general is involved in this conspiracy to stop dissent using RICO statutes. Earlier correspondence between Vermont and New York’s attorney generals’ offices suggests they are facing pressure to not follow their own laws in order to keep secret public documents the public has a right to see.”

Correspondence E&E Legal and FME Law have already obtained from Vermont’s Attorney Generalshows that New York employees pressured Vermont to return records to New York to prevent those records from being disclosed to the public. To Vermont’s credit, they initially refused, writing to NY OAG on March 28 to say that not only was this contrary to law but New York was also essentially asking Vermont’s Attorney General to force individuals to sue to obtain access to records under Vermont law. Regrettably, that is now the posture Vermont is taking, after initial productions under Vermont law sparked an outcry among those who seek racketeering investigations against opponents of the climate change political agenda, Vermont stopped complying with its own law.

E&E Legal’s May 10 request was initially delayed until May 24, which is the longest extension allowable under Vermont law. When E&E Legal and FME Law received no response by mid-June, they were forced to sue the Vermont Attorney General to bring him back into compliance with his own state’s laws and obtain records to which the public is entitled. This is one of two requests languishing in Vermont, and one of many going nowhere fast in numerous states.

E&E Legal and FME Law v. The Attorney General of Vermont is currently pending in the Superior Court of Washington County, Vermont.

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.

-30-

Contrary to Rubio’s perception, Exxon is not being investigated for their political views, but rather for actively misleading the public and their investors on their extensive knowledge of climate change. A series of investigative reports revealed that as early as the 1970s, Exxon knew that burning fossil fuels caused climate change, but spent millions to sow public doubt around their own research. Just yesterday, in light of these reports,Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin called on the state’s pension funds to divest their holdings in Exxon.

Now, momentum is growing to prosecute Exxon for their climate lies. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has launched an investigation to uncover all Exxon knew. All three Democratic presidential candidates, as well as more than 60 prominent indigenous peoples, social and environmental organizations, have called on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to launch an investigation. Sec. of State John Kerry has also supported a DOJ investigation, saying Exxon “stands potentially to lose billions of dollars in what I would imagine would be one of the largest class-action lawsuits in history.” Organizers across the country are urging their state Attorney Generals to launch similar investigations.

To date, Rubio has accepted more than $13,500 in funding from ExxonMobil according toDirtyEnergyMoney.org. That amount doesn’t include donations from Exxon employees, nor any support that the corporation may have already made to Rubio’s presidential campaign or Super PACs supporting his candidacy.

whoohoo

http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/841

Vermont has largely prevailed in its defense of Act 120, its recently-passed law requiring the labeling of food produced with genetic engineering. The law requires food sold in Vermont that was produced with genetic engineering to be labeled “produced with genetic engineering." Major agribusiness and industrial food manufacturers and processors challenged the law in federal district court with a variety of claims, including that it violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to “speak” against their will. Free Speech For People filed an amicus briefin the case, as did the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, the Center for Food Safety, and the Vermont Community Law Center.

On Monday, April 27, Chief Judge Christina Reiss issued an 84-page opinion rejecting nearly all of industry’s claims. She readily disposed of industry’s claims that a food labeling law was “political speech” or discriminated against corporate “viewpoints,” instead finding that the law is an ordinary product labeling requirement. And as for the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s discrimination claims, the judge dryly noted that the corporate plaintiffs "are not a politically unpopular group that has been subjected to purposeful and unconstitutional discrimination.”

While some of the trade groups’ claims will proceed to trial, the judge completely denied industry's request to block implementation of the law while trial is pending. And the judge specifically found that, based on the information presented so far, the “compelled speech” claim (on which Free Speech For People’s amicus brief focused) is not likely to succeed at trial.

On the ruling, Legal Director Ron Fein explained, "Overall, this decision is a significant victory for the people of Vermont, who have the right to know what’s in their food so that they can make informed decisions. The decision is also a line in the sand against encroaching corporate First Amendment challenges to disclosure and labeling laws. Of course, higher courts might step in to save industry’s bacon. But in Vermont, industrial food manufacturing corporations just got a lesson in people power."

Free Speech For People thanks Vermont attorney Anthony Iarrapino for assistance with our amicus brief.

Download the Order on Motions [PDF]

Recall they passed a GMO bill that would go into effect when other NE? states joined to make harder to sue, but

"Four national organizations whose members would be affected by Vermont's new labeling law for genetically engineered foods filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court challenging the measure's constitutionality.

"Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law — Act 120 — is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that do nothing to advance the health and safety of consumers," the Grocery Manufacturers Association said in a statement about the lawsuit.

"Act 120 exceeds the state's authority under the United States Constitution and in light of this GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate."

The Legislature passed the labeling law in April, and Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the bill in May. The labeling requirements would take effect in two years: July 1, 2016.

Lawmakers, the governor and the attorney general expected the law to be challenged in court. Trade groups had promised to fight the law in court.

READ THE LAWSUIT: PDF: Lawsuit vs. Vermont GMO law

Attorney General William Sorrell noted Thursday he had advised lawmakers as they deliberated that the law would invite a lawsuit from those affected "and it would be a heck of a fight, but we would zealously defend the law."

"We have been gearing up," Sorrell said when reached Thursday afternoon in New York City. His office had yet to be served with the complaint.

"I want to see the nature of the attack on the law," he said, but added, "I don't think there are going to be any surprises."

The statement from the Grocery Manufacturers Association summarizes the grievances of the four plaintiff organizations: GMA, the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.

:{Farmers disagree on impact of GMOs

:{Real progress, big questions after GMO law:(style="font-weight:700"):}:

"Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements — and restrictions — that will affect, by Vermont's count, eight out of every ten foods at the grocery store," the GMA said. "Yet Vermont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, including milk, meat, restaurant items and alcohol, are exempt from the law. This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact.

"The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day," the association continued. "It must point to a truly 'governmental' interest, not just a political one."

The groups added that the federal government has the sole authority over regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce, and the U.S. Constitution prohibits Vermont from doing so.

"The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork," the association said.

The Vermont Right to Know GMOs Coalition, which lobbied for the law, argued that labeling would bring transparency to the information consumers would have about their food.

"The people of Vermont have said loud and clear they have a right to know what is in their food," said Falko Schilling, consumer protection advocate with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

Schilling said lawmakers determined there was a lack of consensus about the safety of genetically engineered foods "so putting labels on is a reasonable and prudent thing so people can decide for themselves."

The lawsuit, filed at U.S. District Court in Burlington, contends the Food and Drug Administration has "confirmed the safety of more than 100 genetically engineered crops for human consumption" since 1994.

The court complaint suggests the motivation for the new mandate is to respond to public-opinion polling "showing a consumer desire for labeling," but notes the law exempts dairy and restaurants, creating big gaps on the information consumers will have if they are concerned about genetically modified foods.

The lawsuit argues the state needs a compelling interest to restrict information that food manufacturers provide about their products. But at the same time, the complaint states that the law indicates private dollars should be tapped first for any legal battles. The measure caps state funding at $1.5 million.

"The state's unwillingness to use its own funds to administer and defend Act 120 is express confirmation that Vermont does not have a 'state' interest in the survival of the law," the lawsuit reads.

Schilling at VPIRG countered that Vermonters wanted the law so badly they were willing to share in the cost of defending the measure, and lawmakers decided to give them the opportunity to help. "But the state does fully support this law."

The lawsuit has drawn attention from national organization on the other side of the issue from the four plaintiffs.

Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, defended the Vermont law, saying 60 other countries either have banned GMOs or require mandatory labeling of foods that contain them.

Cummins added, "Every U.S. citizen should be concerned when a multi-billion dollar corporate lobbying group sues in federal court to overturn a state's right to govern for the health and safety of its citizens." He called the lawsuit was a way to intimidate other states considering labeling laws.

Contact Nancy Remsen at 578-5685 or nremsen@freepressmedia.com. Follow Nancy on Twitter at www.twitter.com/nancybfp.

divestment bill lost LOE.org

===

Bad news for the polluter-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, but wonderful news for the planet.

In 2012 and 2013, ALEC tried to roll back states' renewable energy standards, and failed. Now it's trying to roll back solar net-metering programs, which let homeowners sell electricity from their rooftop panels into the grid, and that campaign isn't going so well either.

Case in point: In Vermont, Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) just signed a bill that will expand the state's net-metering program, allowing solar panel owners to sell more of their clean electricity into the grid.

The bill will nearly quadruple the size of a cap on the amount of solar power that utilities must be willing to buy from their customers. It also creates pilot projects that could allow for solar projects as large as 5 megawatts to be built under the scheme. The AP reports:

Alternative energy proponents pushed for the increased cap after some Vermont utilities had reached the 4 percent cap and stopped taking new net-metered power.

"Our success exceeded our wildest dreams," Shumlin said before signing the bill into law, noting that since he took office in 2011 the state had quadrupled the amount of solar energy on the state's electric grid.

Vermont's increased use of alternative energy has helped the state to become the nation's per-capita leader in the number of solar energy jobs.

GMO Labeling Passes Vermont House as Activists Prepare to March Against Monsanto

by Rebekah Wilce [1] — May 15, 2013 - 7:58am

Topics: Food [2], Genetic Engineering [3], Politics [4]

Projects: Food Rights Network [5]

State Faces Threat of Monsanto Lawsuit

GMO labeling legislation has been stalled in the Vermont legislature for three years, in part because of a concern that biotechnology companies would sue the state if it passed. The concern seems justified, as Monsanto [9] -- the world's largest GE seed company [10] -- reportedly threatened [11] to do so last year.

According to Organic Consumers Association [12] Executive Director Ronnie Cummins and Vermont farmer Will Allen, "Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to force unlabeled genetically engineered foods [11] on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones."

GMO Labeling Bills Across the Country

California's Prop 37 to label GMOs was narrowly defeated in 2012, as the Center for Media and Democracy reported [13]. Afterwards, Jennifer Hatcher, senior vice president of government and public affairs for the Food Marketing Institute, who had previously said that Prop 37 "scared us to death [14]," said in an official statement, "This gives us hope that you can, with a well-funded, well-organized, well-executed campaign, defeat a ballot initiative and go directly to the voters. We hope we don't have too many of them [14], because you can't keep doing that over and over again . . ."

Contrary to industry hopes, however, similar bills have been introduced [15] in Connecticut, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, and Iowa [16] in 2013. Food and Water Watch and other organizations are encouraging supporters to petition for a national GE labeling law [17]. The passage in the Vermont House of Representatives of that state's long-sought labeling bill marks an important and historic step towards realizing eaters' right to know whether or not foods contain GMOs.

Tens of Thousands to "March Against Monsanto" Worldwide

Frustrated with Monsanto's bullying of governments and farmers in the United States and abroad, tens of thousands of activists around the world will "March Against Monsanto [18]" on Saturday, May 25, according to organizers.

Marches on six continents, in 36 countries, and in 47 U.S. states -- totaling events in over 250 cities -- are coordinated to occur simultaneously at 11am Pacific time. A Facebook page [19] founded in February has been instrumental in organizing the events.

Goals [20] of the march's organizers include:

"Voting with your dollar by buying organic and boycotting Monsanto-owned companies [21] that use GMOs in their products.
"Labeling of GMOs so that consumers can make those informed decisions easier.
"Repealing relevant provisions of the US's 'Monsanto Protection Act. [22]'
"Calling for further scientific research on the health effects of GMOs.
"Holding Monsanto executives and Monsanto-supporting politicians accountable through direct communication, grassroots journalism, social media, etc.
"Continuing to inform the public about Monsanto's secrets.
"Taking to the streets to show the world and Monsanto that we won't take these injustices quietly."

In Madison, Wisconsin, where the Center for Media and Democracy is based, activists will march on the state capitol at 1pm Central time on Saturday, May 25 [23].

Center for Media and Democracy • 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 • Madison, Wisconsin 53703

Phone: 608-260-9713 • Fax: 608-260-9714

---

Source URL: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/12108/gmo-labeling-passes-vermont-house-activists-prepare-march-against-monsanto

Links:

[1] http://www.prwatch.org/users/35294/rebekah-wilce

[2] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/food

[3] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/environment/genetic-engineering

[4] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/politics

[5] http://www.prwatch.org/projects/food-rights-network

[6] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F05%2F12108%2Fgmo-labeling-passes-vermont-house-activists-prepare-march-against-monsanto&linkname=GMO%20Labeling%20Passes%20Vermont%20House%20as%20Activists%20Prepare%20to%20March%20Against%20Monsanto

[7] http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=H%2E0112&Session=2014

[8] http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/2013/05/09/house-approves-gmo-labeling-bill/Y4Kde8VhN7PdBlUkGZJA8N/story.html

[9] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto

[10] http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/MonsantoReport.pdf

[11] http://www.alternet.org/story/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_pass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled

[12] http://organicconsumers.org/

[13] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/11/11844/direct-democracy-results-ballot-propositions-across-country

[14] http://supermarketnews.com/health-amp-wellness/prop-37-proponents-continue-battle#ixzz2Gm6JgeDB

[15] http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/may/10/vermont_house_passes_first_gmo_labeling_bill/

[16] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11983/bills-label-genetically-engineered-foods-introduced-illinois-and-iowa

[17] https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=225&_utma=195521467.862483735.1361045995.1361049244.1361133812.3&_utmb=195521467.6.10.1361133812&_utmc=195521467&_utmx=-&_utmz=195521467.1361045995.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&_utmv=-&__utmk=242349890

[18] http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/p/press-release.html

[19] https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

[20] http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/2013/04/why-do-we-march.html

[21] http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/MonsantoReport.pdfhttp://i0.wp.com/www.occupymonsanto360.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/seed-company-ownership.jpg

[22] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto_Protection_Act

[23] https://www.facebook.com/events/230279737110748/

===

Following the extreme weather events slamming Vermont over the past few weeks, the state is saying it's time for change. And that call for action is coming from the top.

Speaking to a large crowd in front of the Vermont Statehouse in Montpelier for 350.org's Moving Planet day of action on September 24, Governor Peter Shumlin

http://governor.vermont.gov/

said it was time to get up and do something to "make this planet livable for future generations."

Citing a warm and humid fall and the destruction wrought by Irene, Shumlin declared, "This is not the Vermont we knew." He called on his fellow Vermonters to lead the country in adapting to renewable energy.

"We will not join the others in the denial, in the pretend, in the 'let business happen as usual,' because our kids and our grandkids mean more to us than our own greed. And we're going to get off oil and move forward as quickly as we know how," Shumlin proclaimed.

Shumlin also expressed solidarity with Bill McKibben and over 1,200 others arrested last month in Washington, D.C. for protesting the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline.

He said to loud cheers, "When our brothers and sisters from this great state, whether its Bill McKibben or all the people next to him, stand in Washington and are willing to sit behind bars for our future, we stand with them."

Governor Shumlin is also encouraging his state to lead the way in healthcare reform. Last month, he wrote, "I have launched an ambitious effort, with support from the Vermont legislature, to implement a single payer system in Vermont." He is optimistic that his plan could curb healthcare spending growth in Vermont by two percent and save the state nearly a billion dollars over five years.