Sen. Roberts Laments Failure of Cloture on GMO Labeling Plan

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

Failure of the US Senate to invoke cloture on the Biotechnology Labeling Solutions bill prompted criticism by the architect of the plan, Senate Ag Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who challenged those opposed to the plan to produce an alternative.

Supporters of the legislation needed 60 votes to invoke cloture and protect it from Democratic filibusters, but the vote was 48-49 after Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who supported the measure, changed his vote to have the right to act on the measure again at a later date. Besides McConnell, Independent Angus King of Maine and Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Dean Heller of Nevada and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted with the majority of Democrats against invoking cloture, which would have limited debate to up to 30 hours.

Sen. Collins’ comments. “I think we need a national standard, but I did not believe that requiring people to have smart phones and go to the grocery store and read a QR was a practical solution to this problem,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted against the measure.

Democrats voting for cloture: Thomas Carper of Delaware, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota voted with the majority of Republicans for cloture. Donnelly and Heitkamp, Senate Agriculture Committee members, backed Roberts’ original labeling bill (S 2609) because they said it would stop a proliferation of differing state laws and labeling that implies genetically modified food products are unhealthy. Committee member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) voted for Roberts’ bill with the caveat that further work needed to be done on it. Klobuchar voted against cloture.

Roberts’ frustration clearly showing. “For more than a year, I have called on my colleagues across the aisle to come to the negotiating table to address the problems facing the nation’s marketplace should states continue to mandate confusing and differing biotechnology labeling standards,” Roberts said after the 48-49 vote. “I have repeatedly put forward proposals to protect farmers, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. I have been flexible and have compromised in order to address concerns about making information available to consumers.”

Opponents of the Roberts bill, he observed, have not put forth an alternative, noting "…opponents of this approach would not put forward a proposal for a vote. Why is that? Will their proposals pass the Senate or better yet, the House? In short, where is their solution? Without their own solution, opponents of this bill must favor the status quo. We cannot stand on the sidelines and risk increasing costs for consumers and further uncertainty in the marketplace for farmers and manufacturers.”

More time needed. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, said consensus was possible with more time to negotiate. “I still believe we need and can achieve a policy that creates a uniform national system of disclosure for the use of GMO ingredients and do it in a way that has common sense and works for everybody,” said Stabenow. “The national disclosure system needs to provide real options for disclosing information about GMOs that work for both consumers and food companies.”

Roberts further warned that if there is not action on the issue, “everyone loses. I have acted to provide a responsible, enforceable, scientific and proactive approach to arm consumers with the information they want to make informed choices about what to put on the dinner table. But most important, I respect the work of our farmers and ranchers that produce the food and fiber to feed a troubled and hungry world. Farmers, manufacturers and consumers should ask their senator if they can say the same.”

From the House side came an even sharper rebuke from House Ag Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas). He pointed to opposition from Democratic lawmakers who “have refused to move from their position calling for a mandatory warning label for products of biotechnology. They have chosen to side with activists who have publicly acknowledged their objective is to stigmatize a safe and valuable tool for America’s farmers and ranchers.” Reminding that biotechnology is not an issue of safety, Conaway said, “government-mandated warning labels having nothing to do with product safety and serve no purpose other than to disparage one product over another. These Senators cannot continue to say that they are advocates for America’s farmers and ranchers when they consistently oppose those who provide the food we eat and the clothes on our backs.”

Comments: Despite the failure to invoke cloture, most sources believe that enough support will be garnered to move the legislation forward, most likely after the upcoming congressional recess ends in early April. However, Sen. Roberts must find what changes are necessary to garner enough Democratic votes for the bill’s passage. In doing so, that will likely present another hurdle ahead as the bill that passed the House is deemed to be far more food industry focused versus whatever comes out of the Senate. The House passed a voluntary-only bill in 2015.

The pending Senate bill would establish a voluntary labeling system for GMO foods and preempt state laws requiring mandatory labeling. If there is no substantial participation from industry after two years, the USDA could then transition the system to a mandatory one, under the bill. The measure would create a voluntary labeling system in which consumers could access GMO information through a toll-free number or a QR code printed on the package. Opponents criticized the system as impractical, with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) calling it a “house of mirrors.”

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