Minnesota Law Review

Genetically Modified Food Fight: The FDA Should Step Up to the Regulatory Plate so States Do Not Cross the Constitutional Line

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) leaped into the spotlight last year with California’s Proposition 37, which proposed mandatory labeling for all foods containing GMOs. Consumers argued they have a right to know what’s in their Cheerios. Manufacturers fought back that such state labeling laws would be expensive and unwieldy, and would provide little benefit for a great burden. Despite the ballot initiative failing at the polls, a growing number of states are pursuing labeling schemes, and food producers and grocery stores such as Whole Foods are scrambling to respond to the growing consumer demand. The FDA, however, has stepped back and excused itself from the debate, refusing to regulate GMOs. The question remains: Can states constitutionally legislate in the area of GMO labeling? This Note addresses the preemption and Commerce Clause implications of such labeling.

This Note argues that under both preemption and Commerce Clause evaluations, mandatory GMO labels originating in state laws are unconstitutional. This Note further argues both that the FDA has the authority to enact GMO labeling regulations and that it should do so based on consumer concern. The suggested labeling solution balances the consumer “right to know” with the lack of definitive scientific evidence of negative effects from GMOs. This Note suggests a voluntary labeling regulation with GMO presence defined and measured in the finished product rather than in ingredients. Voluntary labeling allows manufacturers to capitalize on the demand for GMO-free products while establishing consistent label standards that consumers can rely on. It also avoids negative effects on national food supplies, as this Note argues mandatory labeling is likely to result in. While this solution may not allow consumers to know what’s in every box on the grocery shelf, it does provide them an option to pursue and encourage non-GMO products by putting their money where their mouth is.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]