GMO Food Labeling Bill Finally Introduced in Senate

NOTE: This column is copyrighted material; therefore reproduction or retransmission is prohibited under U.S. copyright laws.

A bill that would federally preempt a potential patchwork of differing state laws regarding the labeling of human food and animal feed containing biotechnology-enhanced ingredients and set up a voluntary labeling system was introduced late Feb. 19 by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). Whether or not the measure gains bipartisan support will be key in the days and weeks ahead -- especially from Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) ranking member on the Senate Ag panel. Link to Roberts’ bill.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is scheduled to hold a business meeting to consider the proposal Feb. 25 at 10 a.m. ET.

A sense of urgency is created by the July 1 effective date of Vermont’s mandatory law requiring on-package labels of foods containing ingredients that have been genetically modified. Farm groups and food industry lobbyists say the measure is needed to avert major supply chain disruptions and inefficiencies in production, storage, transportation, manufacturing and distribution of food and feed that would translate into significant cost increases for consumers.

The bill would establish a national standard for the safety and labeling of foods made with GMOs and develop an accompanying public education campaign providing “science-based information, including any information on the environmental, nutritional, economic, and humanitarian benefits of agricultural biotechnology, through education, outreach, and promotion to address consumer acceptance of agricultural biotechnology.”

The Roberts bill would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national voluntary standard for bioengineered foods. Of note, it would trump all state-led GMO labeling laws. “No state or political subdivision of a state may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce any requirement for a food that is the subject of the bioengineered food labeling standard under this section that is not identical to that voluntary standard.”

The bill instructs USDA to establish a set of standards within two years for labeling foods that do contain or may contain bioengineering. The bill also directs USDA to conduct an outreach and education campaign on the safety of bioengineered food.

The Food and Drug Administration has said GMOs on the market now are safe, and the federal government does not support mandatory labels. But supporters of labeling counter that consumers have a right to know what’s in their foods, and say Congress shouldn’t be trying to pre-empt states.

NGFA supports Senate measure. “We believe that the hearings conducted by both the Senate and House on this issue have demonstrated overwhelmingly the need for a national, uniform solution that does not involve on-package labeling of biotech-enhanced products, which would run the risk of unjustifiably stigmatizing this safe and important technology that enables our nation’s farmers and agribusinesses to competitively and affordably feed a growing population,” National Grain & Feed Assn (NGFA) President Randy Gordon said. “If states create different labeling rules, food and feed manufacturers would be forced to either not serve that market or transfer the heavy costs of compliance to consumers. A national standard also would avoid the potential for labels to have different meanings in different states, which would lead to even greater costs and further confuse consumers.”

The NGFA said the approach taken by Roberts would provide an efficient mechanism for consumers who wish to know about the biotech content of food to access such information, without forcing other consumers to incur exponential increases in food costs.

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) also applauded the proposal that it said will give consumers fact-based information without the added costs and confusion of differing state laws.“We are grateful to Chairman Roberts for his leadership towards advancing a common-sense solution to the GMO food labeling issue that protects our nation’s farmers, consumers, grocers and small businesses,” said Brian Baenig, BIO’s Executive Vice President of Food & Agriculture. “We want consumers to know more about food and farming, but that information needs to be truthful and conveyed in a way that doesn’t stigmatize beneficial farming methods such as biotechnology,” said Baenig. “Tools such as the SmartLabel, QR codes, 1-800 numbers and other educational resources can deliver an abundance of information about food ingredients, nutrition, allergens, product usage, brand information and more.”

“Farmers and growers have embraced biotechnology as a way to produce more food on less land in an environmentally sustainable way,” continued Baenig. “This bill supports farmer choice and the use of technology while providing consumers with useful information about the foods they buy and serve their families. We look forward to working with Congress to move this bill forward in the coming weeks.”

“Increased costs associated with this law may force companies to have to segregate their products, facilities, etc. in order to remain in the Vermont market,” said USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack in recent testimony before the House Appropriations Committee. “I think we can deal with this by respecting the safety of GMOs while addressing the consumer’s right to know.”

The American Soybean Association (ASA) also welcomed the legislation. “We’ve heard repeatedly that Americans want more information on what’s in their food, and we are invested in providing that information to them. Chairman Roberts’ bill is one that moves the food production industry in a direction of greater transparency, while at the same time protecting farmers’ ability to use what science has repeatedly proven to be a safe and sustainable technology,” said ASA President Richard Wilkins. “As growers, our primary concern is the ability to continue to produce food in the quantity and of the quality that American consumers demand, and we are acutely aware of consumers’ desire for us to reduce our impact on the environment in the process,” added Wilkins. “This is the dual promise of bioengineering. It has been proven safe repeatedly for nearly 20 years, and we can’t stand by while a small subset of activists willfully misinterprets and misrepresents bioengineering to advance their agenda.”

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) also applauded Roberts for his bill. It is “an important first step to restoring sanity to America’s food labeling laws,” said NCGA President Chip Bowling. “GMOs are perfectly safe and America’s farmers rely on this proven technology to protect our crops from insects, weeds and drought. Important food safety and labeling decisions should be made by the scientists and qualified policymakers at the FDA, not political activists and campaigns. Yet, despite the scientific evidence, states such as Vermont are quickly moving toward costly, confusing mandatory labeling legislation. It is imperative that the Senate takes up this issue quickly to avoid a situation in which all American consumers pay a high price and gain little actual information.” NCGA said that multiple studies have shown that the associated costs with Vermont’s GMO-labeling law and a subsequent patchwork of state laws “will cost American families hundreds of dollars more in groceries each year – with low-income Americans being hit the hardest.”

Comments: The fate of Roberts’ legislation, sources advise, depends on whether or not Sen. Stabenow opposes it, and if so, whether or not she actively seeks to defeat it when it gets to the Senate floor. It is not yet clear that the bill can muster the 60-vote threshold needed to move the measure forward.

NOTE: This column is copyrighted material; therefore reproduction or retransmission is prohibited under U.S. copyright laws.