Monsanto Threatens to Sue Vermont if Legislators Pass GMO Labelling Bill

6th April 2012

By Will Allen and Ronnie CumminsAlterNet

What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation.

The world’s most hated corporation is at it again, this time in Vermont.

Despite overwhelming public support and support from a clear majority of Vermont’s Agriculture Committee, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes.

The popular legislative bill requiring mandatory labels on genetically engineered food (H-722) is languishing in the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, with only four weeks left until the legislature adjourns for the year. Despite thousands of emails and calls from constituents who overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, despite the fact that a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members support passage of the measure, Vermont legislators are holding up the labeling bill and refusing to take a vote.

Instead, they’re calling for more public hearings on April 12, in the apparent hope that they can run out the clock until the legislative session ends in early May.

What happened to the formerly staunch legislative champions of Vermont’s “right to know” bill? They lost their nerve and abandoned their principles after Monsanto representative recently threatened a public official that the biotech giant would sue Vermont if they dared to pass the bill. Several legislators have rather unconvincingly argued that the Vermont public has a “low appetite” for any bills, even very popular bills like this one, that might end up in court. Others expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to “go it alone” against Monsanto in court.

What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation.

Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to force unlabeled genetically engineered foods on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones. When Vermont became the first state in the nation in 1994 to require mandatory labels on milk and dairy products derived from cows injected with the controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, Monsanto’s minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge’s decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment “right” to remain silent on whether or not they are injecting their cows with rBGH – even though rBGH has been linked to severe health damage in cows and increased cancer risk for humans, and is banned in much of the industrialized world, including Europe and Canada.

Monsanto wields tremendous influence in Washington, DC and most state capitals. The company’s stranglehold over politicians and regulatory officials is what has prompted activists in California to bypass the legislature and collect 850,000 signatures to place a citizens’ Initiative on the ballot in November 2012. The 2012 California Right to Know Act will force mandatory labeling of GMOs and to ban the routine practice of labeling GMO-tainted food as “natural.”

All of Monsanto’s fear mongering and intimidation tactics were blatantly on display in the House Agriculture Committee hearings March 15-16.

During the hearings the Vermont legislature was deluged with calls, letters, and e-mails urging passage of a GMO labeling bill – more than on any other bill since the fight over Civil Unions in 1999-2000. The legislature heard from pro-labeling witnesses such as Dr. Michael Hansen, an expert on genetic engineering from the Consumers Union, who shredded industry claims that GMO’s are safe and that consumers don’t need to know if their food is contaminated with them.

On the other side of the fence, Monsanto’s lobbyist and Vermont mouthpiece, Margaret Laggis employed inaccurate, unsubstantiated, fear-mongering claims to make Monsanto’s case. She warned during the hearings that if this law were passed, there would not be enough corn, canola, and soybean seed for Vermont farmers to plant.

Laggis lied when she said that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had done exhaustive feeding tests on genetically modified foods. Hansen corrected her, testifying that all of the GMO feeding tests submitted to the FDA were conducted by Monsanto and other GMO corporations and that the FDA had not done any GMO testing of its own.

Laggis lied again when she claimed that a recent Canadian study showing that more than 90% pregnant women had high levels of a genetically modified bacterial pesticide in their blood resulted from them “eating too much organic food” during pregnancy. Again, Hansen refuted this nonsense by pointing out that the Bacillus thuingensis (Bt) bacterium spray used by organic growers is chemically and materially different from the GMO Bt bacterium which showed up in the pregnant women’s blood and the umbilical cords of their fetuses. Hanson pointed that the high levels of Monsanto’s mutant Bt in the women’s blood was due to the widespread cultivation of GMO corn, cotton, soy, and canola.

The committee heard testimony that European Union studies have been conducted which showed that even short-term feeding studies of GMO crops caused 43.5% of male test animals to suffer kidney abnormalities, and 30.8% of female test animals to suffer liver abnormalities. Studies also have shown that the intestinal lining of animals fed GMO food was thickened compared to the control animals. All of these short-term results could become chronic, and thus precursors to cancer.

Studies like these have prompted 50 nations around the world to pass laws requiring mandatory labels on GMO right foods.

In the end, none of the scientific testimony mattered. Monsanto operatives simply reverted to their usual tactics: They openly threatened to sue the state.

Unfortunately in the US, industry and the government continue to side with Monsanto rather than the 90% of consumers who support labeling. Monsanto’s biotech bullying is a classic example of how the 1% control the rest of us, even in Vermont, generally acknowledged as the most progressive state in the nation.

Vermont activists are organizing a protest at the state capital on April 12 to coincide with the next round of hearings on H-722, and are asking residents to write letters, make calls, and e-mail their legislators and the Governor. For more information, please go to the website or the Facebook page of the Vermont Right to Know Campaign.

[adrotate group=”14″]

About the Authors

Will Allen is the co-manager of Cedar Circle Farm in East Thetford, Vermont. He is also the Author of The War on Bugs, a history of farm pesticides and fertilizers since 1810. He is on the policy advisory boards of The Organic Consumers Association and Willing Hands. He has attended all of the agriculture committee hearings on H-722, where the testimony referred to above was delivered.

Ronnie Cummins is the National Director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Millions Against Monsanto campaign. He also is a member of the Steering Committee of the California Ballot Initiative to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, and co-author of the book, Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.


Wake Up World's latest videos


Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus


  • If it kills a bug, it’s a drug. Put it on the label. GMO products are designed to kill bugs and tolerate pesticide (bug killer) application. GMO products should be labelled.

  • Randy

    Pass the damn law, they aren’t telling Monsanto they have to label their products, they are telling Monsanto that IF they want to do business in Vermont they have to label their products. A much different thing, if a company wants to do buisness then they will comply with the costs, if the costs are too high they won’t do buisness. The way Monsanto is acting, they are so deep down the rabbit hole it will bankrupt their country if the public finds out what GMO products do to us in the long run…does asbestos ring a bell here?

  • Chris

    If a country threatened to do what Monsanto is doing, it would be considered to be an act of war.
    Perhaps it is?

  • Vermont must stand up to the biotech bully! Let this serve as an example: On 13 February this year, the court in Lyon, France, found Monsanto legally responsible for the poisoning of Paul François, a French farmer after he inhaled the corporation’s pesticide Lasso. Monsanto “must entirely compensate him” stated the court judgment. If a single person can stand up to Monsanto, then the Vermont legislature can do so!

  • Aliengirl

    It’s MY money and I have a right to KNOW what I am buying with it. Last I checked, this is a Free-Will dimension. There is ALWAYS something sinister when Industries want to hide the facts. SO PEOPLE, you can live without Corn, Soy and Canola..They are not good for you anyway. It is a fact that GMO’S cause organ failure in animals fed a strict diet of GMO feed. Just GO ORGANIC and the HELL with Monsanto. Poland BANS Monsanto from their country. Cuba is purely Organic…So what’s with America? Are we THAT stupid?

  • Kattmanduu

    As the post from Meris Michaels says, if one guy can win against this corporate terrorist aka Monsanto then the state of Vermont can as well. With that bill passed it will have a ripple effect with other states. And I suggest to people who grow real organic foods to build sealed greenhouses to not allow for cross pollination from Monsanto’s terrorist crops. That is one way for them to destroy the whole food supply with their poison plants. Maybe folks should take the lead on this and sue Monsanto for 10 trillion dollars because of their acts of corporate terrorism like this. Their actions threaten our very right to Life, and if that isn’t terrorism then Bin Laden was the popes best friend. We need to gather all the data we have on roundup and make a counter ad to run on TV and in the papers in the big farming states, higher population states and in foreign media as well. The internet would be a good place to start with the ad campaign. We also need to start a local campaign to ban the use of roundup and like chemicals within 5 miles of any body of fresh water and or the tributaries that feed them and all municipal water supplies because those chemicals all end up leaching into the ground water via natural flow of surface water after rain and snow fall. That would really hit them where it hurts them the most. And another note about corn, soy and canola. We could best use that as fuel or lubricating oil verses food, tree bark has more nutritional value than they do.