Vermont legislators ‘reckless’ with state funds defending GMO labeling law

On the front page of the May 9, 2014, Bennington Banner, Gov. Peter Shumlin was all smiles holding up a ceremonial bill-signing pen on the steps of the Statehouse. The bill the governor was so elated about was the GMO labeling law making Vermont the first state in America to have such a law. John Herrick, of VTDigger, noted in the article Gov. Shumlin’s remarks:

“Vermonters have spoken loud and clear: They want to know what’s in their food.”

If Vermont were to lose a lawsuit that challenged the GMO law, it would cost the state some $8 million. This piece of bad news comes on the heels of the legislature’s announcement of a possible $70 million deficit next year in the state’s general fund budget.

What I am missing is a complete lack of common sense on the part of those whose job it is to bring some sanity to state government spending. To forecast that a fund of $8 million needs to be established to defend a law that is really unnecessary borders on fiscal irresponsibility at best.

I am willing to speculate that the hundreds of thousands of Vermonters who only want to have food on their tables would not wish for the state to divert its scarce resources defending an unnecessary piece of legislation. And let’s not kid ourselves when we hear that the Attorney General’s office will be doing the legal work — based upon past experience, it will not. It will be done by engaging the most highly trained legal minds from outside Vermont, at billing rates north of $600 per hour.

Read the full, original article: Vermont’s lust for litigation

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-11_49_36-AM-2
‘You don’t understand Tolkien’: Skeptic Pope trolls tech giants about the exaggerated, risk-less benefits of AI
Screenshot-2026-06-04-at-12.05.08-PM
Cases of brain inflammation surge as U.S. measles pandemic approaches 2000
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-01_27_58-PM
Viewpoint—N.A.D.+: Why Gwenyth Paltrow’s heralded anti-aging supplement doesn’t work
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-1.24.46-PM
Challenging anti-GMO disinformation: Why genetically-tweaked crops offer bushels of benefits
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_42_17 AM (1)
Viewpoint: Greenpeace and poison: How environmental advocacy groups rely on compliant (and often ignorant) journalists to spread disinformation and spark litigation
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
downsyndrome_compilation_MID_1
CRISPR breakthrough that can remove the chromosome responsible for Down syndrome raises ethical questions
tick-DNA
GLP podcast: Spread meat allergy with gene-edited ticks? Bioethicists pose vile ‘thought experiment’
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_21_36 AM
Limiting gender affirming interventions: Trump administration targets Texas even though it already bans youth access

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.