Nathan Arnosti
Positionality Statement:
Nathan Arnosti is a senior History and Geography joint major from Saint Paul, Minnesota. His mother is a landscape architect, and his father works for the Minnesota Audubon Society. From an early age he’s had an appreciation for the values of environmental conservation, sustainability, and healthy eating, and he enjoys frequent canoeing and hiking trips in the outdoors with friends and family. He spent the summer before his junior year at Middlebury working on organic farms in Italy, and plans to work on a few more this summer in Southeast Asia with his brother and sister. Though he does not oppose genetically engineered foods, he has concerns about the challenges they pose to agricultural systems, communities, and environments across the world.
Introduction to the Visual Advocacy Network
This advocacy network can be read at a number of levels. At first glance, colors give the reader a basic understanding of the interests represented at Committee hearings: those who testified in favor of H. 112 are in green, those opposed are in red, those who were government officials (and declined to state an opinion) are in blue, those representing the unique interests of the dairy industry are in yellow, and those whose position I was unable to discern are in gray. Upon closer study, shapes give the reader a sense of the occupations of the individuals who testified: circles represent spokespeople for private businesses, squares represent advocacy groups, associations, or federations, rounded squares represent government departments, such as the Vermont Department of Agriculture, the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, or the US Food and Drug Association, and diamonds represent current university professors and students. Looking further, the reader can identify more nuanced information about each person who testified, including the business or organization they represent, which other organizations they have, or have had, affiliations with, and whether they represent interests headquartered in the state of Vermont, or outside of it. At the center are the eleven members of the House Agriculture Committee, organized by how each representative voted on H. 112 following the hearings. This diagram, if it functions as it is meant to, condenses a large, complex collection of information into a relatively compact, visually understandable format.
H. 112, titled “An act relating to the labeling of food produced with genetic engineering,” would require foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients[1] to be labeled as such in the state of Vermont. Before becoming a law, H. 112 must undergo a thorough process of review by the state government, beginning with the House Committee on Agriculture and Forest Products. In February, the Agriculture Committee conducted a series of hearings, inviting various stakeholders to testify, offering their knowledge and perspective on the bill. After discussion, the Committee approved H. 112 by a vote of 8 to 3, sending it to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.
This project seeks to understand the voices in the debate over H. 112, specifically studying the individuals who testified in front of the Agriculture Committee in February 2013. It seeks to contextualize each individual in their unique collection of experiences, interests, and relationships that “situate” their perspective on the issue of GE food labeling. Scholar Donna Haraway argues that no knowledge is objective, a claim that applies particularly well to the debate around H. 112.[2] In an attempt to situate the knowledge presented at the hearings, I’ve created a visual advocacy network that records each individual’s stance on H. 112, their occupation, connections, and the scales at which they advocate. This visual provides an ideal medium for exploring several key concepts in the ongoing debate over GE food labeling: positionality, scale, networks, and partial knowledge.
What does a diagram like this reveal? For one, some basic statistics: over the course of a month, the Agriculture Committee heard from 51 different individuals. Twenty two, or 43 percent, testified openly in favor of GE food labeling. Seven (13 percent) testified against labeling, not including the 12 (23 percent) who represented the dairy industry. Five individuals came from two Vermont schools of higher education, the University of Vermont and the Vermont Law School. Eleven (22 percent) came from out-of-state. And 18 (35 percent) were owners or employees of private businesses, from food co-ops, to restaurants, to food distributors, to seed and fertilizer companies. These numbers offer a preliminary understanding of the hearings. Yet further contextualization of the debate over H. 112 requires that we take a closer look at the arguments, and linkages, of individuals involved.
As can be seen, this debate has more than two sides. Even within strong supporters and opponents of H. 112, arguments vary by the individual. According to records on a blogger’s website, Cathy Bacon, owner of food distributor Freedom Foods, opposed H. 112 on the grounds that labeling requirements would burden Vermont businesses who sell out of state.[3] On the other hand, lobbyist Margaret Laggis argued on behalf of the biotech industry that the bill unfairly stigmatizes GE foods themselves.[4]
The same diversity of rationale exists among the bill’s supporters. Dan Barlow, representing the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, argues that the labeling law will protect Vermont businesses that rely on Vermont’s “reputation for purity.”[5] Others, such as Clem Nilan, owner of City Market, frame their argument in terms of consumers’ rights: Nilan writes that Vermonters have a right to know whether the food they consume contains GMOs.[6] Still others present starker opinions: non-Vermonters such as Jeffrey Smith, who wrote the book “Seeds of Deception,” Conrad Brunk, editor of the book Acceptable Genes? Religious Traditions and Genetically Modified Foods (2009) and Rabbi Elihu Gevirts strongly critique the practice of genetic modification entirely.[7] The positionality, as Donna Haraway would describe it, of these individuals is unique, though they share common views on H. 112.[8] Though colors may be helpful in understanding stances on H. 112, there is diversity within these positions.
This legislation affects more than just the residents of this state. Though H. 112 applies only to the state of Vermont, the bill’s passage would mark the first successful attempt to label GE foods within the United States, and thus create ripples across the country. Yet Vermont is not the first state to consider labeling laws: California’s Proposition 37 failed by a margin of six percent in the 2012 elections, and according to the national “Right to Know GMO” campaign, 24 other state governments in the United States are currently considering similar laws.[9] Given the dramatic precedent that a law like H. 112 would set, large organizations throughout the United States regularly lobby for and against such legislation in state governments, in addition to grassroots campaigns. Debates over labeling laws thus extend far beyond any state’s borders.
Whether an individual represents in-state or out-of-state interests factors into their positionality. While Cathy Bacon worries about the law’s effect on her competitiveness with food distributors in neighboring states, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), representing international interests, might be concerned about its members’ global competitiveness. Similarly, while Clem Nilan may be interested in responding to his customers’ desires for more information, a prominent anti-GE food activist such as Jeffrey Smith might see H. 112 as a first step towards curbing the widespread usage of GE foods in American food. In recognition of the importance of scale, an individual’s outline in the network is thick if they represent interests within Vermont, and thin if they represent interests based primarily out-of-state.[10]
In addition to stance and scale, this diagram contextualizes individuals in terms of their connections to others. Of the 51 individuals who testified, only one, lobbyist Margaret Laggis, claims to represent multiple interest groups. In the Committee record, Laggis represents the lobbying firm “Laggistics.” According to many Vermont news sources, including the Rutland Herald, Seven Days, and VT Digger, Laggis represents “dairy farmers” in this debate, specifically as spokesperson for Dairy Farmers Working Together and as Executive Director of the United Dairy Farmers of Vermont.[11] Laggis also is listed as treasurer for the organization Vermont Biosciences Alliance: in a short bio, Laggis claims to represent the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Syngenta, and CropLife America, among others.[12] The Vermont Secretary of State’s lobbyist registry reveals that Laggis previously lobbied on behalf of Syngenta, CropLife America, and Monsanto, though she no longer does. Instead, Laggis is registered as a lobbyist for BIO, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), and the National Confectioners Association, as well as several organizations seemingly unrelated to H. 112.[13] In short, no single source details the extent of her representation.
Laggis’ connections reflect a certain degree of disingenuousness. Despite my thorough searching, neither the firm Laggistics nor the advocacy group United Dairy Farmers of Vermont have a web presence or affiliates aside from Laggis, who claims to be “Principal” and “Executive Director,” respectively, of the organizations.[14] Then, as Vermont blogger Ashley Portman noted, CBI shares the exact address as BIO in Washington, DC, which suggests that the two organizations are distinct in name only.[15] Considering Laggis’ numerous links to biotechnology giants, perhaps organic farmer, anti-GMO activist, and supporting member of the Vermont “Right to Know GMOs” coalition Will Allen wasn’t inaccurate when describing Laggis somewhat disparagingly as a “Monsanto lobbyist and Vermont mouthpiece.”[16] Laggis’ overlapping and non-transparent connections to biotechnology firms and organizations purporting to represent Vermont dairy farmers underscores the necessity of situating the knowledge of individuals involved. As each news article that mentioned Laggis demonstrated, knowledge is always partial,[17] sometimes deliberately so.
The dairy industry has a unique involvement in the debate over H. 112. The industry is extremely influential in Vermont: according to a UVM study in 2010, dairy products account for 70 to 80 percent of the state’s agricultural sales.[18] Though the vast majority of the feed eaten by cows in the state is genetically engineered, H. 112 specifically exempts the dairy and meat industry from any labeling requirements.[19] Still, as can be seen, eight dairy farmers, and four representatives of dairy advocacy groups, testified in front of the Agriculture Committee. Though an article in the VT Digger cited “fierce opposition among the dairy industry” to this bill, only Margaret Laggis was quoted. In justifying her opposition, Laggis argued that labeling would “confuse or scare” consumers about GE foods, including dairy products.[20] That argument may represent the dairy industry, but it also may not: curiously, none of the other representatives of the industry were quoted in numerous articles in the local press about GE labeling.[21] It may be that there is no consensus among the Vermont dairy industry.
This visual approach to studying advocacy networks in the GE labeling bill has certain flaws. First, this network is far from comprehensive: many journalists, activists, lobbyists, bloggers, farmers, industry professionals, and others who are not listed have taken an active role in the broader debate. These 51 individuals are not even the only ones to speak directly to the House Agriculture Committee: in the spring of 2012, the Committee conducted hearings for what was essentially an identical bill.[22] Second, this network does not presume to be comprehensive: there are undoubtedly linkages between individuals and organizations that my research failed to uncover. In a number of cases, public information was limited: though representatives from Green Mountain Dairy Farmers Cooperative Federation, Agri-Mark Dairy Cooperative, Dairy Marketing Services, and CropLife America testified, none of these organizations list their members publicly.[23] This visual resource, like all that I relied on, represents only partial knowledge of H. 112 and the individuals involved. The visual presents other challenges as well.[24]
The advocacy network that I created is meant to visually order the hearings, and contextualize each individual within their profession, their connections, and their stance towards H. 112. It affirms, among other things, that more Vermonters testified in favor of the legislation than against it by a four-to-one ratio, that representatives of private businesses and the dairy industry played key roles in the proceedings, and that only a few individuals represented the interests of the international biotechnology industry. Lobbyist Margaret Laggis’ many enigmatic connections to out-of-state advocacy groups underscore the partiality, and the subjectivity, of the knowledge presented. Above all, this advocacy network of the House Agriculture Committee’s hearings in February 2013 illustrates the complexity of the interests and actors involved in the GE food labeling debate in Vermont.
Update: With a vote of 99 – 42 in favor, H. 112 passed in the Vermont House on May 10th. This is the first time any legislative body in the United States has passed GE food labeling legislation. The Vermont Senate will consider a companion bill in January 2014.[25]
Annotated Bibliography
An act regarding the labeling of genetically engineered foods, H. 112, VT House 2013-2014. Retrieved on May 4 2013 from http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/intro/H-112.pdf
The full text of the GE food labeling bill, following its successful passage through the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, clarified my questions about the bill’s intended scope, its structure, and its exemptions, particularly regarding the dairy industry. Every individual’s testimony was directed towards this bill and its anticipated impacts.
Barnes, T. (2009). Gregory, D. et al. Dictionary of Human Geography. 5th edition, Wiley-Blackwell: Malden.
Barnes, quoting scholar Donna Haraway, provides much of the ideological framework for this project. Haraway’s argument regarding “situated” knowledge, that all knowledge is both partial and dependent on a knowledge producer’s experience, prompted me to take a critical look at the actors within the GE food labeling debate in Vermont. Lobbyist Margaret Laggis inadvertently exemplified the concepts that Haraway describes through her multiplicity of connections to various advocacy groups.
Flagg, Kathryn (2013). “Who’s Trying to Kill the GMO Bill?” Seven Days. February 27, 2013. Retrieved April 30 2013 from http://www.7dvt.com/2013whos-trying-kill-gmo-bill
This article, written as the Agriculture Committee hearings were ending, investigated some of the individuals who opposed the GE food labeling bill, and their rationales for doing so. It gave me preliminary information about a number of individuals who testified both for and against H. 112. The article also provides a clear reminder of the impossibility of complete objectivity, as the author clearly supports GE food labeling laws.
Vermont Right to Know GMOs: A Collaborative Project of NOFA – VT, Rural Vermont and VPIRG (2013). “Who we are.” Retrieved April 27, 2013 from http://www.vpirg.org/who-we-are/
This is the home page for the Right to Know GMOs coalition, the central grassroots organization in support of H. 112. The coalition consists of three Vermont advocacy groups – NOFA VT, Rural Vermont, and VPIRG, all of which had representatives who testified in the February 2013 hearings – as well as nearly two hundred businesses, and thousands of Vermont residents, in support of GE food labeling. Unlike dairy advocacy organizations, the Right to Know GMOs coalition was quite transparent, allowing me to understand whether or not business owners who testified supported H. 112.
Website of Vermont State Legislature (2013). Retrieved May 5, 2013 from http://www.leg.state.vt.us/
The website for the Vermont State Legislature provided valuable information that formed the basis of my study, including the names of representatives who sat on the House Agriculture Committee. Lisa Leehman, the Legislative Assistant for the House Agriculture Committee, was particularly helpful, as she provided me with the Committee agendas on weeks when H. 112 was discussed.
Full list of the Political Ecology of GMOs annotated sources from all papers
Bibliography for the Essay:
Agri-Mark Dairy Cooperative (2013). Retrieved May 5 2013 from https://www.agrimark.net/
Allen, Will and Ronnie Cummins (2012). “Monsanto Threatens to Sue Vermont If Legislators Pass a Bill Requiring GMO food to be labeled,” Alternet. April 4, 2012. Retrieved April 30 2013 from http://www.alternet.org/story/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_pass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled
Almendrada, Anna (2012). “Prop 37 Defeated: California Voters Reject Mandatory GMO Labeling,” Huffington Post. November 7, 2013. Retrieved May 5 2013 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html
An act regarding the labeling of genetically engineered foods, H. 112, VT House 2013-2014. Retrieved on May 4 2013 from http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/intro/H-112.pdf
Barlow, Dan (2012). “GMO Labeling Policy,” Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. December 28, 2012. Retrieved on May 4 2013 from http://vbsr.org/public_policy/blog/gmo_labeling_policy/
T. Barnes (2009). Gregory, D. et al. “Situated Knowledge.” Dictionary of Human Geography. 5th edition, Wiley-Blackwell: Malden.
Biotechnology Industry Organization (2013). “Contact Us.” Retrieved May 1 2013 from http://www.bio.org/contact-us
Bourdeau and Bushey (2013). “Bordeau Bros of Middlebury – Contact Us.” Retrieved May 4 2013 from http://www.bourdeaubros.com/
Brunk, Conrad and Harold Coward, ed. (2009). Acceptable Genes? Religious Traditions and Genetically Modified Foods. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Retrieved on May 3 2013 from http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4870-acceptable-genes.aspx
Carapezza, Kirk (2013). “Lawmakers Hope to Advance GMO Labeling Legislation,” Vermont Public Radio. April 19, 2013. Retrieved on May 5 2013 from http://digital.vpr.net/post/lawmakers-hope-advance-gmo-labeling-legislation
Carapezza, Kirk (2013) “Legislators moving quickly on GMO labeling bill,” Vermont Public Radio via The Rutland Herald. April 21, 2013. Retrieved May 4 2013 from http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20130421/THISJUSTIN/704219935
Condos, Jim (2013). “Lobbyist Registry Database,” Vermont Secretary of State. Retrieved May 3 2013 from http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/lobby_seek.html
Council for Biotechnology Information (2010). “Education is key to acceptance of ag biotech.” June 24, 2010. Retrieved May 5 2013 from http://www.whybiotech.com/?cat=195
CropLife America (2013). Retrieved May 3 2013 from http://www.croplifeamerica.org/
Dairy Farmers Working Together (2013). Retrieved May 2 2013 from http://www.dfwt.org/
Dairy Marketing Services (2013). Retrieved May 3 2013 from http://www.dairymarketingservices.com/
Daniels, Patti (2012). “VT Ag Secretary won’t support GMO bill in legislature,” Vermont Public Radio. April 16, 2012. Retrieved May 4 2013 from http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/94161/vt-ag-secretary-wont-support-gmo-bill-in-legislatu/
Etnier, Carl (2012). “Scores Testify in favor of GE food labeling bill,” VT Digger. April 12, 2012. Retrieved May 5, 2013 from http://vtdigger.org/2012/04/12/scores-testify-in-favor-of-ge-food-labeling-bill/
Flagg, Kathryn (2013). “House Agriculture Committee Passes GMO Labeling Bill,” Off Message: Vermont’s Politics and News Blog, Seven Days. March 1, 2013. Retrieved on May 3 2013 from http://7d.blogs.com/offmessage/2013/03/house-agriculture-committee-passes-gmo-labeling-bill.html
Flagg, Kathryn (2013). “Who’s Trying to Kill the GMO Bill?” Seven Days. February 27, 2013. Retrieved April 30 2013 from http://www.7dvt.com/2013whos-trying-kill-gmo-bill
Hemingway, Sam (2007). “California Farmer Groups sign on to VT Price Plan,” Burlington Free Press via Rural Vermont. August 28, 2007. Retrieved on May 3 2013 from http://www.ruralvermont.org/agriculture-in-the-news/california_farmer_groups_sign_on_to_vt_price_plan/
Nilan, Clem (2013). “Know Your GMOs,” City Market/Onion River Co-op. Retrieved on May 4 2013 from http://www.citymarket.coop/news/co-op-news/2013/3/5/know-your-gmos
Parsons, B. (2010). “Vermont’s Dairy Sector: Is There a Sustainable Future for the 800 lb. Gorilla?” Opportunities for Agriculture Working Paper 1: 4, Food System Research Collaborative at the Center for Rural Studies, University of Vermont. Retrieved May 5 2013 from http://www.uvm.edu/crs/reports/working_papers/WorkingPaperParsons-web.pdf
Ashley Portman (2013). “Let’s Dance! VT Agriculture Committee Passes Along GMO bill,” Ashes to Alchemy blog. March 1, 2013. Retrieved May 2 2013 from http://ashestoalchemy.blogspot.com/
Rabbi Elihu Gevirts’ website, updated 2013. Retrieved May 1 2013 from http://rabbielihu.com/about-rabbi-elihu/
Right to Know GMO: A Coalition of States. Retrieved on May 3 2013 from http://righttoknow-gmo.org/states
Smith, Jeffrey (2013). “Jeffrey M. Smith Biography,” Institute for Responsible Technology. Retrieved on May 1 2013 from http://www.responsibletechnology.org/resources/media-kit/jeffrey-m-smith-bio
Stander, Andrea (2012). “Ag Committee takes testimony from Cathy Bacon,” Bob the Green Guy: Sustainable Ideas for a Sustainable Future. April 4, 2012. Retrieved May 1, 2013 from http://www.bobthegreenguy.com/ag-testimony-bacon/
Stein, Andrew (2013). “House Committee Backs Labeling Law for Genetically Modified Foods,” VT Digger through Rural Vermont, March 1, 2013. Retrieved on May 3 2013 from http://www.ruralvermont.org/agriculture-in-the-news/vt-digger-house-committee-backs-labeling-law-for-genetically-modified-foods/
Stein, Andrew (2013). “In Statehouse, GE labeling bill is praised and panned,” VT Digger. February 15, 2013. Retrieved May 3, 2013 from http://vtdigger.org/2013/02/15/in-statehouse-ge-labeling-bill-is-praised-and-panned/
Vermont Biosciences Alliance (2013). “Who We Are.” Retrieved May 2 2013 from http://vtbiosciences.org/about-vbsa/who-we-are
Vermont Milk Commission (2008). “A Final Decision and Report on the Proceedings of the Vermont Milk Commission January 15, 2008.” Retrieved May 3 2013 from http://www.vermontagriculture.com/milkcommission/documents/FinalReportVermontMilkCommission.pdf
Vermont State Legislature Legislative Directory, 2011 – 2012. Retrieved May 3 2013 from
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/comms.cfm?Body=H&Session=2012
Bibliography for the Advocacy Network of H. 112 (additional sources)
Allen Temple Baptist Church (2013). “Reverend Daniel Buford.” Retrieved May 4 2013 from https://www.allen-temple.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=359:rev-daniel-budford&catid=138
Druker, Steven (2012). “A Misleading Defense of Genetically Modified Foods,” Tikkun Daily Blog. November 6, 2012. Retrieved May 1 2013 from http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2012/11/06/a-misleading-defense-of-genetically-modified-foods/
Etnier, Carl. “Bill requiring labeling of genetically engineered food saved from procedural death,” VT Digger. March 19, 2012. Retrieved May 3 2013 from http://vtdigger.org/2012/03/19/bill-requiring-labeling-of-genetically-engineered-food-saved-from-procedural-death/
Hallenbeck, Terri (2012). “GMO Label Movement Faces Hurdles in Vermont,” Burlington Free Press. April 23, 2012. Retrieved May 3 2013 from http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120423/NEWS03/120422010/GMO-labels-in-vermont
Hower, Mike (2013). “Abbott Labs, DuPont Reject Investor Proposals to Eliminate GMOs,” Sustainable Brands: The Bridge to Better Brands. May 1, 2013. Retrieved May 3, 2013 from http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/food_systems/abbott-labs-dupont-reject-investor-proposals-eliminate-gmos
Moats, Thatcher (2012). “GMO Labeling bill faces new challenge,” Vermont Press Bureau via Vermont Today. March 30, 2012. Retrieved May 1, 2013 from http://www.vermonttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120330/NEWS01/703309833/-1/LINKS;
Natario, Nick (2013). “Vermont Leaders Look at Impacts From Adding GMO Labels to Products,” Fox 44 News, Burlington-Plattsburgh, February 15, 2013. Retrieved May 1 2013 from http://wfff.dua1.worldnow.com/story/21220442/state-leaders-look-at-impacts-from-adding-gmo-labels-to-products
Netiya (2013). “Who We Are.” Retrieved May 4, 2013 from http://www.netiya.org/about/
Racette, Dyeanne (2013). “Dyeanne Racette’s Public Library,” Diigo. Retrieved May 2 2013 from https://www.diigo.com/user/doctorracette
Rogers, Dave, Andrea Stander and Falko Schilling (2013).”GMO labeling is good for state,” The Barre Montpelier Times Argus. March 14, 2013. Retrieved April 28 2013 from http://www.timesargus.com/article/20130314/OPINION04/703149944
Rural Vermont (2013). “Vermont Right to Know GMOs.” Retrieved April 27, 2013 from http://www.ruralvermont.org/vtrighttoknowgmo/
Stander, Andrea (2012). “Ag Committee takes testimony from Robert merker on H.722,” Bob the Green Guy: Sustainable Ideas for a Sane Future. April 4, 2012. Retrieved April 28 2013 from http://www.bobthegreenguy.com/ag-testimony-merker/
Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (2013). “Vermont Agricultural Organizations.” Retrieved May 4, 2013 from http://www.vermontagriculture.com/about/agorgs.html
Vermont Public Interest Research Group (2013). “Vermont Co-ops Unanimously Support GMO labeling legislation.” April 16, 2013. Retrieved April 29 2013 from http://www.vpirg.org/news/vermont-co-ops-unanimously-support-gmo-labeling-legislation/
Vermont Public Interest Research Group (2013). “The GMO bill has been scheduled!” April 15, 2013. Retrieved April 28 2013 from http://www.vpirg.org/news/the-gmo-bill-has-been-scheduled/
Vermont Right to Know GMOs: A Collaborative Project of NOFA – VT, Rural Vermont and VPIRG (2013). “Who we are.” Retrieved April 27, 2013 from http://www.vpirg.org/who-we-are/
[1] Also called genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. I will use the terms interchangeably according to each author’s preferred phrase.
[2] T. Barnes (2009). Gregory, D. et al. “Situated Knowledge,” Dictionary of Human Geography. 5th edition, Wiley-Blackwell: Malden.
[3] Andrea Stander (2012). “Ag Committee takes testimony from Cathy Bacon,” Bob the Green Guy: Sustainable Ideas for a Sustainable Future. April 4, 2012. R May 1, 2013 at http://www.bobthegreenguy.com/ag-testimony-bacon/; This source covers Bacon’s testimony from March 2012, when a nearly identical GMO labeling law was debated in the House Agriculture Committee. The material, offered by the Executive Director of Rural Vermont, contains significant editorializing.
[4] Kirk Carapezza (2013). “Lawmakers Hope to Advance GMO Labeling Legislation,” Vermont Public Radio. April 19, 2013. Retrieved on May 5 2013 from http://digital.vpr.net/post/lawmakers-hope-advance-gmo-labeling-legislation
[5] Dan Barlow (2012). “GMO Labeling Policy,” Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. December 28, 2012. Retrieved on May 4 2013 from http://vbsr.org/public_policy/blog/gmo_labeling_policy/
[6] Clem Nilan (2013). “Know Your GMOs,” City Market/Onion River Co-op. Retrieved on May 4 2013 from http://www.citymarket.coop/news/co-op-news/2013/3/5/know-your-gmos
[7] Jeffrey Smith (2013). “Jeffrey M. Smith Biography,” Institute for Responsible Technology. Retrieved on May 1 2013 from http://www.responsibletechnology.org/resources/media-kit/jeffrey-m-smith-bio; Conrad Brunk and Harold Coward, ed. (2009). Acceptable Genes? Religious Traditions and Genetically Modified Foods. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Retrieved on May 3 2013 from http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4870-acceptable-genes.aspx; Rabbi Elihu Gevirts’ website, updated 2013. Retrieved May 1 2013 from http://rabbielihu.com/about-rabbi-elihu/
[8] Barnes 2009
[9] Anna Almendrada (2012). “Prop 37 Defeated: California Voters Reject Mandatory GMO Labeling,” Huffington Post. November 7, 2013. Retrieved May 5 2013 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html ; Right to Know GMO: A Coalition of States. Retrieved on May 3 2013 from http://righttoknow-gmo.org/states
[10] This binary system simplifies what is unquestionably a more complex picture for the sake of clarity. However, throughout my research, in-state versus out-of-state seemed to be the most relevant scalar divide, by far.
[11] Kirk Carapezza (2013) “Legislators moving quickly on GMO labeling bill,” Vermont Public Radio via The Rutland Herald. April 21, 2013. Retrieved May 4 2013 from http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20130421/THISJUSTIN/704219935 ; Kathryn Flagg (2013). “Who’s Trying to Kill the GMO Bill?” Seven Days. February 27, 2013. Retrieved April 30 2013 from http://www.7dvt.com/2013whos-trying-kill-gmo-bill ; Andrew Stein (2013). “House Committee Backs Labeling Law for Genetically Modified Foods,” VT Digger via Rural Vermont, March 1, 2013. Retrieved on May 3 2013 from http://www.ruralvermont.org/agriculture-in-the-news/vt-digger-house-committee-backs-labeling-law-for-genetically-modified-foods/; Sam Hemingway (2007). “California Farmer Groups sign on to VT Price Plan,” Burlington Free Press via Rural Vermont. August 28, 2007. Retrieved on May 3 2013 from http://www.ruralvermont.org/agriculture-in-the-news/california_farmer_groups_sign_on_to_vt_price_plan/
[12] Vermont Biosciences Alliance (2013). “Who We Are.” Retrieved May 2 2013 from http://vtbiosciences.org/about-vbsa/who-we-are
[13] One such company is Rent-a-Center, a national chain of stores selling furniture, appliances, and electronics. Jim Condos (2013). “Lobbyist Registry Database,” Vermont Secretary of State. Retrieved May 3 2013 from http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/lobby_seek.html
[14] Council for Biotechnology Information (2010). “Education is key to acceptance of ag biotech.” June 24, 2010. Retrieved May 5 2013 from http://www.whybiotech.com/?cat=195
[15] Ashley Portman (2013). “Let’s Dance! VT Agriculture Committee Passes Along GMO bill,” Ashes to Alchemy blog. March 1, 2013. Retrieved May 2 2013 from http://ashestoalchemy.blogspot.com/; Council for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved May 5 2013 from http://www.whybiotech.com/contactus/index.asp; Biotechnology Industry Organization (2013). “Contact Us.” Retrieved May 1 2013 from http://www.bio.org/contact-us
[16] Will Allen and Ronnie Cummins (2012). “Monsanto Threatens to Sue Vermont If Legislators Pass a Bill Requiring GMO food to be labeled,” Alternet. April 4, 2012. Retrieved April 30 2013 from http://www.alternet.org/story/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_pass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled
[17] Haraway
[18] Parsons, B. (2010). Vermont’s Dairy Sector: Is There a Sustainable Future for the 800 lb. Gorilla?. Opportunities for Agriculture Working Paper 1: 4, Food System Research Collaborative at the Center for Rural Studies, University of Vermont. Retrieved May 5 2013 from http://www.uvm.edu/crs/reports/working_papers/WorkingPaperParsons-web.pdf
[19] An act regarding the labeling of genetically engineered foods, H. 112, VT House 2013-2014. Retrieved on May 4 2013 from http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/intro/H-112.pdf
[20] Andrew Stein (2013). “In Statehouse, GE labeling bill is praised and panned,” VT Digger. February 15, 2013. Retrieved May 3, 2013 from http://vtdigger.org/2013/02/15/in-statehouse-ge-labeling-bill-is-praised-and-panned/
[21] It is, of course, possible that they spoke to a news source that I missed.
[22] Six of eleven committee members remained on the Agriculture Committee between 2012 and 2013: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/comms.cfm?Body=H&Session=2012; Carl Etnier (2012). “Scores Testify in favor of GE food labeling bill,” VT Digger. April 12, 2012. Retrieved May 5, 2013 from http://vtdigger.org/2012/04/12/scores-testify-in-favor-of-ge-food-labeling-bill/
[23] Agri-Mark Dairy Cooperative (2013). Retrieved May 5 2013 from https://www.agrimark.net/; Dairy Farmers Working Together (2013). Retrieved May 2 2013 http://www.dfwt.org/; Dairy Marketing Services (2013). Retrieved May 3 2013 from http://www.dairymarketingservices.com/; CropLife America (2013). Retrieved May 3 2013 from http://www.croplifeamerica.org/
[24] Notably, I was challenged by the necessity for visual simplicity. The network fails to reflect that a member of the Agriculture Committee, Harvey Smith, was a long-time dairy farmer. Considering that Smith was one of three Committee members to oppose H. 112, this connection is not insignificant. The visual also fails to fully explain the position of Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Ross, who has said he backs the labeling of GMOs in theory, but believes that H. 112 as it is written will not hold up in court. Finally, my simple color and shape scheme does not differentiate between business owners by profession: though they are marked identically, Cathy Bacon owns a food distributing company, while Jim Bushey owns a seed, fertilizer, and farm equipment supplier. These details undoubtedly affect each individual’s positionality.
[25] Andrew Stein (2013). “House decides GMO labeling lawsuit is worth the risk,” VT Digger. May 10, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013 from http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/10/house-decides-gmo-labeling-lawsuit-worth-the-risk/