GMO Food-Labeling Bill: Senate Expected to Clear, Then House

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

The Senate works one of two ways, very slow (usually) or very fast (when there is a recess coming). With a political convention and summer recess slated to begin at the end of next week that will last into September, the Senate today should vote on a hard-to-get compromise GMO food-labeling measure. The topic then turns to the House.

Timeline. The Senate has scheduled votes this afternoon on advancing two immigration-related measures. One would withhold federal money from municipalities or states that bar police from turning over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities. The other would toughen penalties for those illegally re-entering the United States. If neither measure garners the 60 votes needed to advance, the Senate plans to hold a vote to limit debate on a bipartisan food-labeling measure regarding disclosure of genetically modified crops. Cloture is expected to be invoked, as the legislation is a compromise hammered out by Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).

The Senate action will be on a motion to invoke cloture to limit debate on a shell bill (S 764) that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to use as a legislative vehicle for a GMO food labeling measure. McConnell needs 60 votes to advance the bill, which seems likely given the 68-29 procedural test vote on June 29 that laid the ground work for future action.

The next step is for the amended bill go to the House for a vote, or the Senate and House could go to conference to work out differences between the Senate measure and a GMO voluntary labeling bill (HR 1599) the House passed in July 2015. Like the Senate proposal, the House bill would preempt the Vermont measure that took effect July 1 and other future state and local GMO labeling laws.

The House appears to want the issue over with. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), sponsor of the House alternative bill, said the House probably would accept the Senate version. “Other than the issue of whether the disclosure ought to be mandatory or not, the Senate bill is a good one and I’m hopeful that they’ll get it done and bring it over to the House and we can pass it this year as well,” said Pompeo. “We could go to conference [House-Senate negotiations for a compromise text]. I think it’s more likely that we pass the Senate version.”

Senate opposition is coming from Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). There is some concern about what some lawmakers believe to be weak enforcement of the Senate compromise.

Labeling/transparency details. Under the Senate proposal, food companies could put GMO information on food labels; display a special symbol developed by USDA; or use an online disclosure system accessible through websites or bar codes consumers can scan, an idea championed by USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack. The Senate measure would direct USDA to define genetically modified foods or ingredients and establish the criteria for mandatory disclosure of GMO contents to consumers. .

GMO labeling bill would cover refined ingredients: USDA. The Senate compromise legislation creating a nationwide labeling system for foods made with genetically modified ingredients would cover highly refined sugars and oils, according to a USDA letter. The letter is a response to a request from Sen. Stabenow for the agency to clarify the definition of bioengineering described in the bill. Critics of the bill have argued that it does not cover some refined ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup and canola oil. The letter also counters a June 27 Food and Drug Administration letter to lawmakers saying the agency had concerns that the bill could “raise confusion” among consumers in terms of what foods would be covered.

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