Annie Gasparro and Jacob Bunge reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “The U.S. food industry is fighting one of its fiercest regulatory battles in years over labels for ingredients made with genetically modified organisms. And it is losing—to Vermont.

“The country’s first law requiring mandatory GMO labels is slated to go into effect in Vermont on July 1 after an industry-backed federal law that would block states’ authority stalled in the U.S. Senate last week. Facing fines up to $1,000 a day per product, food makers from giants like General Mills Inc. to regional businesses like Vermont Fresh Pasta are making big adjustments, many of which extend beyond the state’s borders.

“Vermont is a tiny market for most companies, but the integrated nature of supply chains gives it an outsize effect. On Friday, General Mills said it is slapping GMO labels on its packaged food nationwide, saying it would be too complex and expensive to create a separate distribution network for the 626,000-person state of Vermont.”

The writers pointed out that, “Some companies, fearing such labels will be a sort of scarlet letter and scare off consumers, are replacing ingredients altogether. Vermont Fresh Pasta, which touts its fresh, local fare, said it has swapped out canola oil, which typically contains GMOs, for olive oil, which has no genetically modified version.”

And today’s Journal article added that, “Other businesses appear confused about whether they need to use special labels.

“Food is exempt from labeling in Vermont if it is a direct animal product like meat and eggs, is certified as non-GMO, if none of the ingredients have a genetically modified version, or if the GMO ingredients make up less than 0.9% of the product’s weight.”

Meanwhile, a separate article today at The Wall Street Journal Online stated that, “Candy maker Mars Inc. joins a small group of U.S. food companies adding special labels to products that contain genetically modified organisms.

“Mars, which makes M&M’s chocolate and Wrigley gum, said it is adding GMO labels to its foods across the U.S. in response to the looming deadline of a Vermont law that requires such disclosure.”

Lauren Manning indicated late last week at AgFunderNews Online that, “Farmobile, an ag data collection and software service, is now offering farmers legal agreements that govern the ownership and control of their agronomic data.

“Developed in response to farmer feedback and concerns about the risks associated with sharing farm data, the agreements seek to simplify the relationship between a farmer and an Agricultural Technology Provider (ATP). This includes any company that uses a farmer’s data to provide decision support, field mapping, prescriptions, or other similar services.

“As big data becomes more common in farming, many farmers have expressed concerns about the data ownership rights involved. Once a farmer shares his or her data with a third party, he or she sometimes has little control over what happens to that data next. The vendor may sell the data to a marketing group or use the data for other purposes unrelated to servicing the farmer. Many farmers who use decision support services have no clue who has their data or what is being done with it.”

Ms. Manning added that, “In developing the agreements, Farmobile worked with the Farm Bureau Federation. Last year, the Farm Bureau led a coalition of ATPs and farm groups to develop the Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data. This document outlines a number of policies to guide ATPs and farmers in creating clear legal relationships about farm data. The document underscores education, ownership, access, control, and transparency among other rubrics.

“‘To the best of my knowledge, Farmobile is the only company that offers farmers a way to receive value for their data,’ a spokeswoman for the Farm Bureau told AgFunderNews. ‘Some of my members believe the data provides them sufficient value by reducing input costs, etc. But the majority believe that if companies are benefitting from the use of their data, farmers too should benefit.'”

Recall that earlier this month, the Farm Bureau stated in a news release that: “A coalition of major farm organizations, commodity groups and agriculture technology providers (ATPs) debuted a tool designed to help farmers understand how their data will be used when they adopt precision agriculture technologies.”

In her AgFunderNews article, Ms. Manning also noted that, “According to the Farm Bureau spokeswoman…'[F]armobile’s agreements are currently under review with the Farm Bureau’s Transparency Evaluator, which will assess whether the agreement comports with the Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data.’ [Jason Tatge, Farmobile founder and CEO] is one of the 37 signatories to the document and was a member of the group that developed the role of the Transparency Evaluator.”

Annie Gasparro reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “General Mills Inc. is changing its labels nationwide to indicate whether its foods contain genetically modified organisms, ahead of a Vermont law that will mandate it as of July.

“‘The complexity and the cost of having one system for Vermont and one for everywhere else is untenable,’ Jeff Harmening, the company’s chief operating officer of U.S. retail, said in an interview.

“He said he is still hopeful that Congress will pass a national law that would supersede such state laws, but the company had to move ahead to comply with Vermont.”

The article explained that, “Two years ago, the Vermont legislature passed a bill that made it the first state to require food makers to label products made with the technology. It stemmed from consumer backlash as some people raised concerns about their safety and environmental impact.”

Ms. Gasparro also reminded readers that, “General Mills’ decision comes after a federal bill that would pre-empt any state law on GMO labeling stalled on a procedural hurdle in the Senate two days ago, shortly before lawmakers left Washington for a two-week recess. Congressional aides were expected to continue the negotiations during the break.”

The Journal article added that: “The Vermont law applies only to packaged foods that contain GMO ingredients and fresh produce sold at retail outlets in the state. It doesn’t apply to meat and dairy products made from animals that consume GMO feed.”

Harrison M. Pittman, Elizabeth Rumley and Rusty Rumley of the National Agricultural Law Center, recently penned an interesting article titled, “14 ag law stories that could change the way you farm.”

The authors noted that, “Since 2015, there have been a number of legal developments for the agricultural sector. Many of these issues will continue to play out over the next year and will impact agriculture throughout the Mid-South and other regions of the country.

“In particular, there were important developments in environmental regulation of agriculture, food safety regulation, and use of drones in agriculture.”

The labeling of genetically modified foods was an issue identified in the article; the authors indicated that, “The issue of GM food labeling continues to be a hotly debated and controversial issue playing out at both state and federal levels of government.

“The Vermont GMO labeling law, set to go into effect on July 1, 2016, would be the first state law requiring mandatory labeling of certain foods containing GM ingredients. The Vermont law would require GM products to be labeled as ‘Produced with Genetic Engineering’ unless it falls under an exemption.”

Recall that the Senate failed to pass a measure to address this issue this week (a recap of this debate is available here), and the article also noted that, “An Ag & Food Law Consortium webinar from July 2015 provides an update on legal issues in GM labeling.”

Another issue identified in the article was food safety.

Specifically, the authors pointed out that, “While the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law almost five years ago, 2015 was an important year in terms of implementation. Two major regulations — the ‘produce safety rule’ and the ‘good manufacturing practices’ rule — were finalized.

“The produce safety rule addresses growing, harvesting, and packing holding conditions of fruits and vegetables that are typically consumed raw. The good manufacturing practices rule outlines requirements, including the necessity of a written food safety plan and monitoring preventative controls that covered facilities must meet.

“Together, these rules regulate the majority of food that American consumers purchase and consume.”

With respect to the Endangered Species Act, the paper stated that: “The Endangered Species Act, a federal law meant to protect endangered and threatened species, continues to stir controversy. Lawsuits have been filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) by organizations in several states, asking that specific species be ‘delisted‘ and protections for those species be removed.

“Other new lawsuits argue to the contrary — that FWS acted wrongfully in refusing to list other species, denying them the protection of the law.

“Meanwhile, Congress has considered several bills and dozens of riders that might change either the mechanism of the law itself or the ability of FWS to enforce its provisions.

“An Ag & Food Law Consortium webinar provides a basic overview of the structure, operation, and implementation of the Endangered Species Act.”