This time on Ask a Food Lawyer, instead of answering questions, I’m doing the asking. Numerous food lawyers across the country are working hard to improve the food system. From drafting legislation to challenging corporate misconduct to supporting sustainable alternatives, these smart lawyers are playing a critical role, yet receive little credit for the important work they do.

Janelle Orsi is an attorney in Oakland, California who practices “sharing law.” In addition to her law practice, she is executive director of the Sustainable Economies Law Center, a non-profit organization whose mission is to provide “education, research, advice, and advocacy for just and resilient economies.” She is also author of “Practicing Law in the Sharing Economy,” a guide for lawyers interested in navigating the emerging field of sharing law. I included her on my recent list of the top ten lawyers in the food movement for offering free advice sessions, or “legal cafes,” for small community-based food and other entrepreneurs through SELC. For more information about Janelle and SELC, visit theselc.org and follow them on Twitter @JanelleOrsi and @TheSELC.

What is “sharing law” and how does it intersect with the good food movement?

Sharing law is a term I use to describe legal work related to any community-based project or business formed on the basis of sharing resources, like cohousing, cooperative businesses, urban farms, and even car sharing enterprises. The law practice of sharing law includes services like advising clients and drafting agreements and bylaws to form legal entities and to define how sharing will take place.

If we are going to move from the current centralized food system to a local, diversified new food economy, sharing has to be part of the solution. Corporate control of our food system vests decision-making power with a very small group of people whose profit-maximizing goals often deplete resources from communities rather than strengthen them. I think the cooperative model offers a solution to this problem by distributing power among many small-scale producers, owned by community members or workers whose goals are in closer alignment with those of the community as a whole. I envision a localized, small-scale food supply chain from farm to fork, built on a foundation of sharing and cooperative ownership.

Besides having your own law practice, you co-founded the Sustainable Economies Law Center. You must be busy. What’s a typical day like for you?

I don’t think there is such a thing, that’s what makes it so interesting! When I started my practice, I spent most of my time with individual clients. When I realized I needed to address some of the bigger issues in sharing law, I co-founded SELC and stopped seeing as many clients. Now, I spend most of my time teaching workshops on sharing law to other lawyers, mentoring legal apprentices on their way to becoming lawyers, writing, and doing interviews about a variety of sharing law subjects. I really don’t practice law all that much anymore, except for when I provide legal advice to clients at our Resilient Communities Legal Cafes. I’m on the computer a lot!

SELC recently championed the California Homemade Food Act, which makes it legal in California to sell certain food products made at home. Why did SELC take this on and how does this law benefit the public?

One major strategy for SELC is to whittle away at the legal barriers we think unreasonably prevent people from starting small-scale food businesses. Before the California Homemade Food Act passed, California law prohibited anyone from selling food produced in his or her home kitchen. A couple years ago, we noticed several other states had passed laws allowing people to produce and sell non-potentially hazardous foods out of their home kitchen. On the premise that some foods made at home didn’t pose a health safety risk and that face-to-face interactions between buyer and seller would incorporate higher levels of trust and accountability, we decided to push for a change in the law. It was the first piece of legislation we successfully carried through the state legislature and we’re glad to see so many cottage food operations starting up as a result.

What other legislation is SELC working on?

The Neighborhood Food Act is the next step in our drive to change the law regarding food production. Currently, zoning ordinances in most cities and counties in California restrict or prohibit commercial agriculture in urban areas, making the sale of food produced in one’s backyard, community garden, or on an empty lot illegal. Even if it isn’t illegal, the required permits and soil tests are often cost-prohibitive. Our proposal will make it easier for people living in urban areas, including people in housing governed by homeowners associations and tenants on leased property, to grow and sell food regardless of the zoning classification of the property.

As the sharing economy grows, what will prevent it from cooptation by corporate interests?

That’s a good question. I suppose that risk always exists, but I think that the cooperative model is our best bet against cooptation. There are two distinct features of a cooperative model that make it hard to fake. First, cooperatives are democratically controlled by their members, each having equal decision-making power. This tends to maintain high workplace standards and increase accountability within the cooperative and in relation to the public, features that don’t exist in the corporate model. Second, profits distributed to cooperative members are based on patronage dividends, which reward each member according to their involvement in the coop. So, in a potential sale to a corporation, the incentive to sell to make a big profit doesn’t exist for any single individual.

What role do you think lawyers play in building and supporting the good food movement?

Anybody starting a new food enterprise should talk to a lawyer. It’s not that I want to increase business for lawyers, it’s that many legal issues inevitably arise when starting a new food business, and some can make or break the business. So, it’s important to have a lawyer to spot potential issues at the start, before investing a lot of time, energy, and money.

In addition to representation, I think lawyers can provide valuable insight in forming new policy. Lawyers often come up against legal barriers when representing clients and can anticipate problems in the law’s application or interpretation. I think lawyers should be advising policymakers as well as leading food policy reform.

Lastly, I think lawyers must be promoters of the good food movement as well as participants. It’s necessary for the public to invest in a new food business to make it viable; for that to happen, there must be a relationship of trust between the community and the business. I think lawyers can help foster that relationship.

What, as a lawyer, is most exciting to you about the good food movement?

Well, as a human being, I just really like food! As a lawyer, I think the food movement is, and will continue to be, the testing ground for many of the changes we need across sectors to move towards a new economy. Cooperatives, community supported enterprises, local currencies, and local investment are all already playing out in the food sector, so I think it is very fertile ground for new legal models. Part of the reason I think food is attracting so much attention is because it directly affects everyone. Unlike say, energy or finance, people make choices about food every day, several times a day! The more times people have to think about their choices, the more potential exists for change.

Many thanks to attorney Neil Thapar for assistance with this interview.

With the federal government all but ignoring the numerous ways food companies deceive shoppers with dubious health claims, the courts are becoming a more popular alternative for action.

As you may recall from civics class, we have three branches of government, and when two of them – the executive and the legislative – have essentially checked out, that leaves only one place to turn for a legal remedy: the judiciary. Despite years of brainwashing by the right wing about the evils of trial lawyers, litigation is a critical and yet underutilized tool for obtaining justice under a broken and compromised political system.

Under both federal and state law, it’s illegal to engage in deceptive marketing. This is a broad concept that applies to any entity that advertises. The idea is that consumers should not be swindled into buying a product; they deserve the straight facts to make informed purchasing decisions. And while such laws do help deter shady activities, deceptive marketing statutes get violated all the time, mostly due to lack of enforcement.

It may be unsettling to realize that on grocery store shelves right now are likely hundreds of food products that contain illegal deceptive claims. While the federal government does have specific definitions for some phrases such as “low fat” or “low salt,” otherwise almost anything goes on the front of a food package because the feds have turned a blind eye. Without proper government oversight, the only recourse is for private law firms to set these companies straight.

Here are some examples of deceptive food marketing cases currently gaining traction. (Full disclosure, I am a consultant for Reese Richman, one of the law firms bringing such cases.)

Natural Claims

The Food and Drug Administration is unwilling to provide useful guidance on the definition of “natural,” resulting in ubiquitous use of the word by marketers, no matter how nutritionally deficient the product. Factor in the growing interest in organic along with consumer confusion over that label’s meaning and you have a marketing bonanza in “natural” food.

Some lawsuits are being filed over products sporting the natural label that contain genetically-engineered ingredients. Two such examples are ConAgra’s line of Wesson cooking oils and Frito-Lay’s snack products. To back up their claims, lawyers are even relying on Monsanto’s own definition of genetically-modified organisms: “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.”

In a positive development in the ConAgra case last November, the judge found that that the plaintiffs adequately described “why genetically-modified products cannot be considered natural” and “they understood that the phrase ‘100% Natural’ meant that Wesson Oil was not made from genetically modified organisms, and that they purchased the product based on this false understanding.” This is a huge step forward for these types of cases.

In a similar action against Frito-Lay, the court recently made a preliminary ruling in favor of the plaintiff allowing the case to move forward. In its defense, Frito-Lay argued that no reasonable consumer would expect the phrase “all natural” to actually refer to all of the ingredients in the product. The court disagreed, since a reasonable consumer could interpret “all natural” to mean, um, all natural.

Such cases have tremendous potential to rock the processed food world, given how many products containing GMO ingredients are currently touting the meaningless natural label. Moreover, with increasing calls for mandatory GMO labeling at both the federal and state levels, along with voluntary retailer actions from the likes of Whole Foods, this issue is not going away anytime soon.

Other cases challenging the natural label are over products containing ingredients that are obviously not natural. One such lawsuit is against the Kellogg-owned Kashi GoLean brand of products. From the complaint:

For example, Kashi’s ‘All Natural’ GoLean Shakes are composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, including sodium molybdate, phytonadione, sodium selenite, magnesium phosphate, niacinamide, calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, thiamin hydrochloride, potassium iodide, and other substances that have been declared to be synthetic substances by federal regulations.

Not sounding very natural. The judge has allowed this case to move forward.

Products Aimed at Children

Marketing to children qualifies as illegal deception because a child cannot understand how marketing works. What could be more deceptive than taking advantage of a child’s emotional vulnerability? Unfortunately, we have zero enforcement of this obvious legal violation due to weak-kneed government officials, once again leaving it up to the court system.

To date only one lawsuit has been filed directly challenging marketing to children— against McDonald’s over Happy Meals—an obvious target. The case was brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the only nutrition advocacy group with a litigation department. (This helps explain why this tool is so underutilized.) Unfortunately, the judge dismissed the case last year. While suing over marketing to children does face certain procedural challenges, with the right venue and strategy, I am hopeful we can gain traction in time.

In lieu of directly challenging food makers for targeting children, another strategy emerging is suing over child-oriented products that make deceptive health claims. One such example is the General Mills’ product, Fruit Roll-Ups.

Also filed by Center for Science in the Public Interest, this case took the company to task for its claims their products were “fruit flavored,” “naturally flavored,” a “good source of vitamin C,” and low in calories, fat, and gluten. (Seriously, low in gluten?) In December, this case was settled when General Mills agreed to stop using the most egregious practices; for example, no longer putting images of strawberries on a product that contained none. Duh.

Chutzpah Claims

Taking the prize in the chutzpah line of cases is Coca-Cola’s vitaminwater brand. This lawsuit alleges deceptive marketing for positioning the product as a health tonic, when some varieties contain a whopping 33 grams of sugar (in 20 ounces), among other unhealthful ingredients such as dyes. That case has also been allowed to move forward, despite Coca-Cola’s desperate argument that “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage,’ a claim that was skillfully ripped apart by John Robbins and as well as hilariously pilloried by Stephen Colbert.

Another product deserving a chutzpah award is Chobani yogurt, a brand that has taken on near-iconic status in the most health-washed category of all. Chobani is being sued over its “all-natural” claim (among other statutory violations) because the label lists “evaporated cane juice,” which is just a fancy way of saying sugar. This, despite the FDA’s explicit warning to food makers not to use the phrase because the accurate description of the ingredient is actually “dried cane syrup.” But juice sounds so much more “natural” than syrup.

In a recent Twitter exchange, I had some fun with the poor social media person at Chobani. Despite the lawsuit, the company continues to use the phrase “evaporate cane juice.” When I asked why not just call it sugar, the reply was: “It’s specifically the form we use. Not all sugars are created equal.” But I got no response when I next tried to ask exactly how their sweetener was any different from sugar. (Maybe the lawyers got hold of the Twitter account.)

Rounding out the chutzpah category is Nutella, which got in legal trouble for advertising its dessert-like product as healthy breakfast. Although the case was settled for $3 million, it was also the subject of some ridicule by those who thought it was obvious that Nutella is a treat. But that critique misses the point: Under the law, companies are not allowed to market its junk food products as healthful. In a seminal case against Gerber for deceptively marketing children’s “fruit snacks,” the company tried to use the Nutrition Facts label as a defense, since the ingredients and amount of sugar are clearly listed there. But the judge explained that information being available elsewhere (like on the back of the package) does not make it OK for a company to deceive consumers in other ways, such as on the front of the package or in ads.

Litigation Challenges

While litigation represents an important tool for holding food companies responsible, there are also numerous challenges. For example, the strategy requires targeting one product or line of products at a time, which is not the most efficient approach for sweeping change. However, strategic selection of the worst (and largest) offenders can send a strong message to an entire industry.

Another limitation is how long the court process can take: often several years just to get through the preliminary phase. And, corporate defense lawyers are skillful at dragging out the process in hopes the plaintiffs will give up. Finally, the results are sometimes less than ideal. Most cases end in settlement because they are too costly to bring to trial, and negotiation necessitates compromise.

But given the widespread health-washing by a desperate food industry at a time when the American public is starting to realize that actual fruit may be a healthier option than Fruit Loops, litigation is a critical, if imperfect, tool.

Why Get Involved in Litigation?

Advocacy groups engaged in the good food movement should take notice. While major foundations may be too skittish to fund litigation, organizations can still team up with private lawyers to bring more of these sorts of cases. Nonprofits can play different roles such as: 1) offering specific expertise as consultants; 2) asking their members to serve as plaintiffs; 3) being a named plaintiff themselves in certain types of actions; or 4) serving as co-counsel.

Perhaps the best motivator for a nonprofit group to get involved in litigation is the potential for being awarded part of a “cy pres” fund: money set aside in a settlement for nonprofits doing good work that is sufficiently related to the case. Several good projects got their start with cy pres money, including a California-based group called CANFIT, which works with adolescents around health and nutrition. That settlement fund was from a deceptive marketing case against Kraft Foods, and some 20 years later the group is still going strong.

We have our work cut out for us with so much deception in the marketplace, but with better coordination and teamwork, we can make real progress through the legal system. It’s a shame that we have to turn to the courts at all, but that’s the political reality right now. Someone has to hold the food industry accountable.

By Michele Simon and John Stewart

This week, when tobacco giant Philip Morris International hosts it annual shareholders’ meeting in New York, the company will honor outgoing CEO Louis Camilleri for his years of service. But a look back at Camilleri’s tenure shows a trail and death and destruction unworthy of celebration.

In 2008, parent company Altria Group spun off the international division of Philip Morris to focus more on “emerging markets,” the euphemism corporations use to describe the exploitation of Global South nations. For decades, as the regulatory environment and public sentiment has turned against smoking in the U.S., tobacco corporations have set their sights overseas. As a result, Philip Morris International now derives more revenue from Asia than from the European Union, and nearly 80 percent of tobacco-related deaths occur in the Global South.

While the Marlboro man has been retired in the United States, he is alive and well as a marketing icon in several countries around the world. Sales of Philip Morris International’s brands grew in other nations last year, with shipments of 927 billion cigarettes and revenue of more than $31 billion — an accomplishment for which the CEO is well compensated. Also in 2012, Camilleri received an astonishing $24.7 million, up 23 percent from the previous year.

Second in size only to state-controlled China National Tobacco Corp., Philip Morris International is the biggest bully of the tobacco industry globally. On Camilleri’s watch, the company has engaged in numerous aggressive marketing tactics and legal maneuvers to ensure increased sales in nations that are trying to stem the rising tide of smoking deaths. Here are just a few recent examples:

• In 2010, Philip Morris International filed a lawsuit against Norway challenging that country’s ban on point-of-sale tobacco advertising displays. Last year, the Oslo District Court ruled in favor of Norway’s landmark law. How many lives were lost during the policy’s delay?

• In 2012 in the Philippines, Philip Morris International circumvented that nation’s ban on advertising by paying for an article in a popular magazine that praised the company’s efforts on disaster aid and relief. The NGO HealthJustice Philippines filed a legal complaint against the company.

• Also in the Philippines, Philip Morris International sued to stop that country from banning deceptive words such as “light” and “low tar” on tobacco packaging. In 2010, the courts rejected the company’s challenge.

• In 2009, Uruguay issued an executive order demanding graphic health warnings cover 80 percent of cigarette packaging. It also required a single design, preventing corporations from using colors to indicate allegedly less harmful varieties. In response, Philip Morris International sued the country for $2 billion through an obscure World Bank court. Although tobacco control philanthropist Michael Bloomberg stepped up to help the small country fend off this legal bullying, the case will be tied up in international courts for years.

• In 2010, the company filed a lawsuit against Brazil, arguing that images the government requires on cigarette packages do not accurately depict the health effects of smoking and “vilify” tobacco companies.

On this page on the Philip Morris International website, the company makes clear that it has little patience for such inconveniences as the World Health Organization’s global tobacco treaty, adopted in 2003. Formally known as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the treaty specifically prevents industry interference in public health policy, thanks to the active work of civil society, such as organizations like Corporate Accountability International. All of the above challenged policies are included in the treaty, which has been ratified by 175 countries and prohibits advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. As a result, more than 60 percent of countries have some form of ad ban already in place. But that’s just a nuisance to Philip Morris International.

Calling such policies as point-of-sale display bans and plain packaging “extreme,” the company invokes familiar rhetoric about “communication with adult smokers” and whines about bans on charitable contributions, “use of journalistic expression or political commentary” and “restrictions on the rights of the tobacco industry to participate in the democratic process.” This is rich coming from a company whose modus operandi is to upend the democratic process in every nation it does business with.

But it’s also no surprise given Philip Morris International’s leadership. Hardly a class act, CEO Louis Camilleri remarked at the 2011 shareholder’s meeting that it wasn’t really “that hard to quit” smoking. Also, in this Michael Moore style 20/20 segment on ABC, Camilleri attempted to dodge hard questions about why his company was targeting children in Indonesia. (Included is the infamous and startling video of the “smoking baby.”)

Will Philip Morris International change its destructive ways with Camilleri stepping down as CEO? (He remains as board chair.) During his tenure, nearly 30 million people died from tobacco-related causes globally. When will the tobacco industry’s largest player stop obstructing public policy in nations that are trying to save lives and reduce suffering among its citizens? With this change in leadership, Philip Morris International has the opportunity to stop being the world’s bully.

John Stewart directs the Challenge Big Tobacco Campaign for Corporate Accountability International. This post originally appeared at Corporate Accountability International.

The rider pertains to transgenic crops that have been deregulated by the USDA but then had that approval overturned by a judge — a scenario that has occurred with genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets.

In such a situation, the agency “shall” immediately issue permits or a partial deregulation order that would temporarily allow farmers to continue growing and selling the crop until USDA is done re-evaluating its environmental effects, according to the rider.

Why is this such a big deal? The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry’s pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA’s approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets.

So the biotech industry, unable to make its case to a judge, figured why not just rewrite the Constitution instead, with the help of a Democratic Senate led by Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Despite Montana Senator Jon Tester’s best attempts to stop the so-called biotech rider, the measure was pushed through. (Industry had tried to get a similar measure passed more than once last year.) Tester minced no words, in an article in today’s POLITICO about this and other industry power grabs such as weakening small farmer protections:

These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country. They deserve no place in this bill. We simply have got to do better on both policy and process.

If President Obama signs the budget deal with this provision, it could have long-lasting and serious consequences. This list of pending petitions to USDA to approve genetically-engineered crops includes new versions of corn, soybean, canola, and cotton. Once these crops get planted, it will be too late to do much about it. That’s why groups such as the Center for Food Safety file lawsuits when USDA turns a blind eye to the potentially harmful environmental consequences of these unique crops.

Here is how Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety described the situation:

In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto. This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.

The biotech industry, with the help of Congress, is attempting an end-run of the judicial system. Since judges can’t get be bought off, just go to your friends in Congress instead.

Unfortunately, most of the mainstream media has not picked up on this unprecedented Big Biotech power grab, and in the case of NPR, has even spread misinformation about the rider’s effects:

But a closer look at the language of the provision suggests it may not be granting the USDA any powers it doesn’t already have.

“It’s not clear that this provision radically changes the powers USDA has under the law,” Greg Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, tells The Salt.

This interpretation was echoed, unsurprisingly, by the biotech industry, in Capital Express:

“It doesn’t require the USDA to do anything it wouldn’t otherwise have the authority to do,” said Karen Batra, communications director for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “The language is there to protect farmers who have already made planting decisions.”

But as Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety explains, the new language makes what is currently discretionary or optional on USDA’s part, mandatory, a huge difference:

The word “shall” forces the USDA to continue allowing biotech crop cultivation even if its commercialization was overturned. They’ve taken away the discretion of the secretary of agriculture. Its real not-so-hidden purpose is to take away the ability to effectively vacate the approval of a crop that’s been approved illegally.

If there is any good news, it’s that the continuing resolution the provision hitched a ride on is only valid for six months. But industry seems confident it can make the workaround permanent. Likely what will follow is a protracted court battle over the policy’s constitutionality; remember that whole separation of powers thing? Still, any such legal challenge will likely take years to be resolved. Even USDA thinks the provision is unconstititional. Secretary Vilsack’s office told POLITICO that he has asked the Office of General Council to review the language, “as it appears to pre-empt judicial review of a deregulatory action which may make the provision unenforceable.”

Meanwhile, the grassroots movement continues to grow to demand labeling of foods containing genetically-engineered ingredients. While important, we cannot let labeling distract us from pro-biotech policies at the other end of production. The fewer GMO crops that are allowed to be planted in the first place, the fewer end-products containing GMOs.

But it’s not too late. You can still demand that President Obama refuse to sign the budget bill into law unless the biotech rider (aka Monsanto Protection Act) is removed. Food Democracy Now! has already gathered more than 175,000 signatures demanding Obama do the right thing. From that organization’s action alert:

By sneaking Section 735 into a federal appropriations bills, Monsanto has successfully planted a dangerous provision in U.S. law that strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect American’s health and the environment while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new, untested genetically engineered crops.

Even if their new GMO crops are ultimately proven to be harmful to human health or the environment, Section 735 allows them to be planted the minute the USDA approves them!

Even more alarming, currently 13 new crops are awaiting approval at the USDA and AquaBounty’s GMO salmon is on the verge of being approved by the FDA. This new provision opens the door wide open for these approvals.

If the biotech industry can so easily override our court system, which is our last resort in stopping these dangerous crops from being planted, we will have no place left to turn. And Monsanto will have completed its hostile takeover of the U.S. government.

Take action now by calling and emailing the White House here.

New York City
March 20: CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College
• Force Fed: How Food Industry Disinformation Undermines Public Health
For details, see PDF flyer.

Boston
March 21-23
Consuming Kids Summit: Reclaiming Childhood from Corporate Marketers
• Is This Even Legal? Demystifying the Laws on Marketing to Children (panel)
• Slowing Down the Clown: Policy Tools to Protect Children from Fast Food in Your Area (workshop)

Southern California
April 9: Urban and Environmental Policy Institute, Occidental College, Los Angeles
• Force Fed: Deconstructing Food Industry Lies
Class begins at 1:30pm; Room: Lower Herrick.

June 18-20: 7^th Biennial Childhood Obesity Conference, Long Beach
• Marketing healthy foods to children: Do the ends justify the means? (panel discussion)

I remember when Colleen formed a relationship with Joe Connelly in 1999, and together they started VegNews magazine in 2000. (I wrote a column on food politics for the magazine briefly around 2004 and until recently, was friendly with Joe as well.) Things have been falling apart in their relationship for the past few years, but have recently taken a very ugly turn. Despite numerous attempts by Colleen to settle their differences, Joe has taken the drastic step of filing a lawsuit against Colleen. In a case that gives new meaning to the phrase “frivolous lawsuit,” Joe is suing Colleen for breach of contract and fraud, among other incongruous causes of action, claiming Colleen owes him the ridiculous sum of $4.5 million.

The case boils down to this: Joe claims he is the sole owner of VegNews and Colleen is just an employee. So in the split, he should get all of the business and she gets nothing. In contrast, Colleen has only ever asked for her rightful half of the value of VegNews. Having witnessed the magazine’s progress since the beginning, here is my take: Joe was a good writer, but Colleen brought the business smarts and creativity to turn their vision into a reality. What began as a tabloid newsletter in just a few years morphed into an award-winning lifestyle magazine, distributed widely and appearing on newsstands nationally. This could not have happened without Colleen’s golden touch. Moreover, since the beginning, Colleen has been responsible for selling advertising space, the magazine’s main source of revenue; her success is due to her warm personality and business acumen. While Joe was writing book reviews, Colleen was forming lasting relationships with clients, vendors, and staff, keeping the magazine going.

There has never been any question that Joe and Colleen started VegNews together, grew it together from a seed of an idea to a national magazine. But now, Joe seeks to rewrite history by claiming he is the sole founder and owner of VegNews. This is contrary to both reality and common sense. The sad thing is anyone who knows Joe and Colleen understands the truth: that Colleen is the creative genius behind VegNews. Even if you don’t know them, there is plenty of proof of their obvious partnership. Joe and Colleen have been interviewed over the years as co-founders. For example, in this 2009 feature on the couple in the San Francisco Chronicle, they are both referred to as “founders of the magazine VegNews.” In this 2010 podcast interview by Our Hen House, they are celebrated as a “vegan power couple, publishers of the uber-popular VegNews Magazine.” This is how the entire vegetarian movement thinks them: the couple that started VegNews together, and still runs it together 13 years later. Here is how another friend, Davy Davidson, put it in her declaration filed to support Colleen’s defense:

Throughout my relationship with Joe and Colleen, Joe has always referred to Colleen as his business partner and co-founder of VegNews. I have been part of the vegetarian community for a number of years and through my activities and business affairs have developed a close network of friends and associates who are familiar with VegNews and who know Colleen and Joe personally and as the partners behind VegNews.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Sorry Joe, but filing a lawsuit can’t change history or reality. To make matters worse, since the case was filed last August (and even before) Joe has engaged in numerous forms of harassment and unethical business practices, including locking Colleen out of the magazine’s finances and other important records she needs to function. Things have gotten so bad in the VegNews office that Colleen’s lawyer has filed a motion to have the business placed in receivership. This is an untenable situation for everyone involved. The VegNews staff is dedicated to putting out a high-quality magazine and deserves a stable work environment, one that isn’t full of tension and uncertainty.

While I am used to writing about injustices committed by powerful food industry interests, this one is being perpetrated by an individual who I used to respect. The worst part is how my dear friend Colleen – an incredibly talented, dedicated, and beautiful woman in every sense of the word – is being made to suffer so needlessly at the hands of a ruthless and bitter man. How can Joe claim to be an ethical vegan while demonstrating not one ounce of compassion for a woman he once loved? This lawsuit needs to come to an end; litigation is an ugly, lengthy, and expensive process. Joe can choose to negotiate a reasonable settlement with Colleen right now so they can both move on with their lives.

I am writing this in hope that bringing this injustice to light will motivate others to also rally support around Colleen Holland. Let’s send a strong message to Joe Connelly that he should settle this case in a fair and compassionate manner. Now.

Here are a few of the legal documents from the case:

- Amended Complaint filed by Joe Connelly
- Cross-Complaint filed by Colleen Holland
- Motion to Appoint Receiver filed by Colleen Holland
- Colleen Holland’s Declaration
- Davy Davidson’s Declaration in support of Colleen Holland
- Al Whaley’s Declaration in support of Colleen Holland

Last month, Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association and one of the leaders of the GMO labeling effort, recently published an article about how “representatives of Wal-Mart, General Mills, Pepsi-Frito Lay, Mars, Coca-Cola and others” met with the FDA on January 11 “to lobby for a mandatory federal GMO labeling law.”

The story was then picked up by Tom Laskawy at Grist, who reported that at the meeting, a Walmart representative said the retail giant would no longer oppose GMO labeling and that “[o]ther food company executives agreed, saying that the fight had become too expensive, especially given the prospect of more state-level initiatives.”

The story kicked into high-gear when the New York Times’ Stephanie Strom covered it last week, adding a few new details, such as the meeting being attended by “20 major food companies” as well as two GMO labeling advocates: Gary Hirshberg, co-chair of the Just Label It federal campaign, and Charles Benbrook, professor at Washington State University. The Times story gave the impression that the meeting is something to celebrate. After all, if Walmart comes to the table, that’s a big deal.

But missing from both of these accounts is the ominous potential downside of federal GMO labeling: a sneaky legal concept known as preemption. Most advocates don’t find out about it before it’s too late.

Preemption simply means that a higher law trumps a lower law: so federal trumps state, and state trumps local. But in practice, it’s industry’s way of ensuring uniformity and stopping grassroots efforts. How I do know this? From years of experience of seeing it happen in various public health issues. It’s such a huge problem that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded an entire project called “Preemption and Movement Building in Public Health” to educate advocates about how to handle it.

Here is the pattern: a grassroots effort builds over time to enact local or state laws (such as gun control, indoor-smoking laws, or restricting alcohol sales), and industry fights these efforts for years, until they can no longer win. At that point, industry lobbyists turn around and either get their own weak bill passed, or work with advocates to pass a compromise version. In exchange, this law will preempt or prevent any state or city from passing a different or stronger law. Forever.

No industry likes to deal with 50 different state laws, or even a handful of expensive state-level battles. We recently saw this exact scenario play out in the food movement, with menu labeling in chain restaurants. For decades, the restaurant industry successfully fought federal efforts to require calorie counts and other basic nutrition information on menus. Then over the last few years, numerous states and cities started enacting their own laws, much to industry’s dismay. Enter the compromise struck between the leading proponent of  menu labeling, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the restaurant industry: federally-required menu labeling for calories only, in exchange for all state and local laws being preempted, past and future. (See this document labeled “compromise endorsements” for the bill’s supporters, which include the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a leader of the No on Prop 37 campaign on GMO labeling in California.)

Now, almost three years after passage, we still don’t have federal menu labeling as the final regulations are stalled at FDA, while certain industry members fight it. We also no longer see states or cities taking up the issue, figuring the feds took care of it. See what I mean about stopping a grassroots movement in its tracks? Public health lawyer Mark Pertschuk noted: “the rapidly growing grassroots movement for meaningful menu labeling may never recover.” He also cites the irony of this 2009 memo from President Obama opposing preemption in all federal rule-making. The memo correctly notes: “Throughout our history, state and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national government.”

Amen to that. I am not opposed to federal labeling on GMO food. I agree this is where the problem must ultimately be solved. However, any federal standard must set a floor and not a ceiling, and not hand preemption over to industry. The role of the federal government is to set minimum standards, while still allowing states to go further. This, however, is not the end-game that Walmart et al. have in mind.

I asked Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now! and leader of the grassroots GMO labeling efforts about this issue. He told me it was a huge concern among movement leaders: “Ultimately the conversation represents a seismic shift in where we were four years ago on GMO labeling. But we know that anything coming out of Washington D.C. will be a weaker standard, which would not be good for either farmers or consumers. The goal is to make sure that a federal law doesn’t undermine state efforts.”

As Cummins noted about the meeting: “We should be wary of any compromise deal at the federal level, one that would preempt the passage of meaningful state GMO labeling laws that have real teeth.”

Very wary indeed.