Next Steps for GMO Food Labeling in Congress

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

The Senate by the end of the month should finally vote on a bill that will likely provide a path ahead for the sensitive issue of GMO food labeling – GE (genetically enhanced) is a term used by others.

But what the final Senate bill’s language will contain is still murky. It will be different from the version that passed the Senate Ag Committee Mar. 1 because some of the three of the nine Democratic senators on the Ag panel supporting the markup measure did so on expectations the language would change once the bill got to the full Senate floor. For example, one of the three Senate Democrats voting for the Ag panel measure, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), says it will need amendments to pass the whole Senate. She said she voted to allow the bill to go to the entire Senate so changes can be made and that she will not support a final bill “until it includes more transparency and a national uniform standard that works for consumers.”

Timeline of Senate vote. Reports have surfaced that the bill could be taken up on the Senate floor as soon as this week. But Senate Ag Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) today on AgriTalk said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to have debate and a vote on the measure next week. Roberts said his goal is to have a bipartisan agreement reached before the end of this week. He would not detail any of the possible compromises needed to garner what he said was the needed support of “at least 20 Democrats.”

Four Senate Democrats filed legislation last week that would make labeling mandatory. The bill pushed by Roberts (R-Kan.) is voluntary.

Robert’s bill would direct USDA to write regulations for voluntary labeling of GE foods that preempt state laws on the matter, and direct USDA and HHS to produce a report on whether consumers are getting the information they seek about what is in their food as well as undertake an education campaign to let people know that GE foods are safe and regulated by FDA.

Both bills would preempt a patchwork of state laws requiring labeling of GE foods, the first law of which is set to take effect in Vermont in July (Vermont’s Act 120).

Roberts said he is willing to work with Democrats on a floor amendment that addresses their concerns. Democrats have stressed that any legislation preempting state laws must contain a pathway to mandatory labeling.

Details of Senate Democratic alternative. Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity Act would require food manufacturers to indicate on nutrition labels if a product contains GE food, also know as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in one of four ways. The bill would not require manufacturers to include a statement on the front panel of their products.

Merkley comments. “Rather than blocking consumers’ access to information they want, the U.S. Senate should move forward with a solution that works for businesses and consumers alike,” Merkley said in a press release. “There is a way to give consumers the information they are asking for without placing unfair or conflicting requirements on food producers. This legislation provides the common-sense pathway forward.”

Under the Democrats’ mandatory labeling measure, manufacturers would be able to choose from one of four options for updating their nutrition labels to show the product contains GE foods, including:

• Using parenthesis following the relevant ingredient to indicate the ingredient is “Genetically Engineered.”
• Using an asterisk next to an ingredient with an explanation at the bottom of the ingredients list.
• Using a “catch all” statement at the bottom of the ingredient list stating the product was “produced with genetic engineering.”
• Using a symbol developed by FDA in consultation with manufacturers that would “clearly and conspicuously” disclose the presence of genetically engineered ingredients.

Items cited by lawmakers and others in the labeling debate:

• GE foods are safe based on the scientific testimony presented at a hearing by USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency and FDA in October, and are necessary to feed an ever-growing domestic and international population.
• A patchwork of state laws requiring labeling would cause problems. State-by-state policies would make it harder for many food companies to market their goods. But labeling proponents note that some US food companies opposing labeling requirements here have been complying with mandatory labeling requirements in other markets outside this country in order to enter European and other country markets.
• Differences of opinion regarding the cost of labeling. Some say the costs of compliance would be passed along to consumers, with food industry and other opponents estimating increased costs per consumer ranging up to hundreds of dollars annually. But Consumer Union, which issues Consumer Reports, says that increased costs would be about a penny a day.
• Transparency issues. How would consumers be able to find out about GE foods? And in what timeframe would such consumer information be available? Some are pushing smartphone apps to scan and identify food that has been produced without genetically modified organisms. But others note a wifi signal may not be so easy to get in some to many stores. Others say the burden should not be on consumers to spend extra time to scan every item they may want to buy, adding possible complexities for senior and mothers with small children.
• USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack said he is willing to sort out a mandatory GMO food-labeling system. “If Congress is unwilling to make these tough decisions ... then delegate the responsibility to the Department of Agriculture,” Vilsack said at the National Farmers Union convention. “We’ll be happy to make the tough decisions.” The system would look like the SmartLabel initiative launched by the food industry last year, he said. That approach uses QR codes, which can be scanned by smartphones, on packages along with toll-free telephone numbers and websites to provide information about ingredients.

Does Roberts have 60 votes? While proponents of his measure say yes, veteran Senate sources say no. Roberts noted that he may not even have the backing of all 54 of the chamber’s Republicans, some of whom may not even be available to vote on the bill because they (Cruz and Rubio) are out campaigning for president, as is Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running in the Democratic presidential contest.

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