For related articles and information, please visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto.

A recent ruling on country-of-origin labeling may have implications in legal battles over the labeling of genetically modified organisms.

A recent court ruling that upheld mandatory country-of-origin labeling of meat may come to bear on litigation over labels for genetically engineered food.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last month found that requiring meat producers to label their products with country-of-origin information doesn’t violate their free speech rights.

The ruling essentially said the government has a substantial interest in enforcing the COOL law even though the mandatory labels aren’t meant to correct consumer deception.

Meat packers had argued that COOL simply aims to satisfy consumers’ idle curiosity and thus the government doesn’t have a substantial interest in compelling such speech, but the court rejected this argument.

Advocates of labeling foods with ingredients containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, believe the ruling buttresses their argument that such labels are constitutional.

“You have a factual disclosure. The court ruled that companies don’t have the right to hide that information from consumers,” said George Kimbrell, attorney for the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit that supports GMO labeling.

The free speech implications of mandatory GMO labeling are becoming a key legal question, as food manufacturers are suing the government of Vermont over a recently passed state law that requires such labels.

Such litigation may also be on the horizon in Oregon if voters pass a GMO labeling ballot initiative in November.