Senate GMO Labeling Deal Would Preempt, Ban State Disclosure Mandates

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

It took Senate Ag Committee leaders a year after the House passed its GMO food labeling measure to come up with a bill of their own as the lengthy negotiations between the Senate Ag leaders finally came to an end with an agreement announced this afternoon but leaked earlier to various lobbyists and farm groups. Link to copy of bill.

The Senate deal would create the first nationwide standard for foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). But consumers will likely have difficulty figuring out if the food they are buying is genetically modified because it would not mandate a printed disclosure on the exterior. Instead, the agreement offers three options for disclosure: text on the packaging, a symbol, or an electronic link that would direct consumers to a website for more information.

Score a win for the “disclosure” language to Senate Ag Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and many in the food industry and a loss on that matter to ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who still got her release on the matter out before Roberts, as did some farm groups and lobbyists. When Roberts finally issued his statement/release he said, “In negotiations with Ranking Member Stabenow, I fought to ensure this standard recognizes the 30-plus years of proven safety of biotechnology while ensuring consumer access to more information about their food. “I urge my colleagues to support this approach. It is a far better alternative than Vermont’s law with its destructive ramifications up and down the supply chain.”

In a statement, Stabenow said the agreement “covers tens of thousands of food products exempt from Vermont’s law, and protects the integrity of organic food.”

The agreement calls for banning state-imposed labeling requirements, and detail what the national GMO label should include.

In a concession to the biotech industry, the bill would tightly define genetic engineering in a way that does not include new techniques like gene editing.

Also, beef, pork, poultry and eggs would not be subject to labeling, though the deal would cover many other grocery staples.

Producers who’ve secured a “certified organic” designation from USDA would be allowed to clearly display a “non-GMO” label on their products.

Under the Senate agreement, when a majority of a product is made with meat, no GMO label would be required. In the case of a pepperoni pizza, for instance, a label would be needed if the flour in the crust originated as GMO wheat, Stabenow said in a statement.

Timing of floor action in Senate, House. As previously reported, the goal is to have the Senate vote on the measure as soon as next week. Action in the House could come between July 5-15.

It will be interesting to see the response to the Senate plan from House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) because he has been a GMO labeling skeptic -- and late Thursday Conaway released a statement, saying, “I applaud the tireless efforts of Chairman Roberts to find an agreement on biotechnology labeling. It is important to note that nearly one year ago, 275 House members voted on a bill to establish a voluntary nation-wide program that would give consumers access to information about their food, protect advancements in food production and innovation, and end the patchwork of state laws threatening interstate commerce. Unfortunately, due to Senator Stabenow dragging this process out for months, Congress will not be able to act before Vermont’s mandatory labeling law goes into effect on July 1. Although the House acted in a timely manner, I have just received the text of the this agreement and will need time to review the language and the varied impacts, be they positive or negative, before stating my support or opposition.”

Concessions made to the food industry may be enough for Conaway to signal his support and perhaps have the House pass the Senate bill should that chamber clear the measure as is expected. President Obama is expected to sign a measure if presented to him.

However, Roberts said he has talked with Conaway, who wants to go to conference with the House-passed bill, HR 1599. “He thinks this is the best possible bill under the circumstances in the Senate knowing we have to get 60 votes,” said Roberts in an interview with Bloomberg. “But I don’t know that I can get 60 votes to go to conference.”

The Obama administration praised Roberts and Stabenow for their work but did not officially endorse the bill. “It is our hope that their colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives recognize the difficulty of their work, and the importance of creating a path forward,” USDA spokeswoman Catherine Cochran said.

Key provisions of the bipartisan Senate proposal include:

• Preemption: immediately prohibits states or other entities from mandating labels of food or seed that is genetically engineered.
• National Uniform Standard: USDA establishes through rulemaking a uniform national disclosure standard for human food that is or may be bioengineered.
• Disclosure: requires mandatory disclosure with several options, including text on package, a symbol, or a link to a website (QR code or similar technology); small food manufacturers will be allowed to use websites or telephone numbers to satisfy disclosure requirements; very small manufacturers and restaurants are exempted.
• Meat: foods where meat, poultry, and egg products are the main ingredient are exempted. The legislation prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from considering any food product derived from an animal to be bioengineered solely because the animal may have eaten bioengineered feed.

Comments: It will be easy to say Vermont proponents of its state law will not like the Senate bill because that version is more lenient, allowing food companies to use a text label, a symbol or electronic label accessed by smartphone. Vermont’s law would require items to be labeled “produced with genetic engineering.”

As for timing, one thing is clear: The Senate approach will not become law prior to the July 1 implementation date for Vermont’s law because the House is on its recess and will not return until July 5, when it will have until July 15 to work out a deal with the Senate. But the primary purpose of the GMO food labeling bill in the Congress was to halt any patchwork of state efforts. Vermont is the only state now that has cleared a labeling bill and the federal effort would be to ban other states and eventually make Vermont’s law mute.

As for reaction, the food industry’s main lobbying group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said it is backing the senators’ deal. The group has opposed mandatory labeling nationwide, but advocated for electronic labels in negotiations. But a group that has advocated labeling criticized the deal. “This deal seems to be designed to ensure that big food processing companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by misleading consumers,” said Wenonah Hauter, director of Food & Water Watch.

Sanders and the Farm Bureau. Of note, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Socialist Democrat who supports his state’s mandatory law, who wants a voluntary GMO labeling standard, announced his opposition to the Roberts-Stabenow deal. Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said his group will take some time to review the plan as it opposes mandatory food labels. “There are no – and never have been any – documented health risks from genetically engineered food in the marketplace,” he said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement that he is still evaluating whether he supports the agreement. Unlike Vermont’s law, which requires labelling on packages, the agreement means consumers could have to scan a product with a digital device to get GMO information. That is why Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin and Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell oppose the federal approach. “Not a good day for Vermont if this bill passes,” said Sorrell, whose office has been gearing up to enact the state’s new regulations. “A consumer would need to have a smartphone and have the appropriate app on your smartphone to be able to hold it up to a box of breakfast cereal to see if there are GMOs in it. This looks to me like an industry-friendly bill and not a consumer-friendly bill. I hope it doesn’t get the 60 votes it needs to pass.” Shumlin pointed out Vermont’s law requires “GMO information printed right on the label.” He further said the federal proposal would “delay for several years the right for consumers nationwide to know what’s in their food.” Large food manufacturers would be given two years to comply; and smaller ones would get three years.

The deal brought mixed comments from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who said he was glad it would solve the problem of a patchwork of state labeling laws. But, while he will support the plan, he said he hopes lawmakers would move away from “a non-science based agenda driving law and rules.” He added that, “The science has proven that GMO foods are safe and equivalent to non-GMO foods from a safety perspective. Giving consumers a choice is a good thing, and it’s time to realize that there’s a place for all types of food in our consumer-driven economy without stigmatizing another scientifically safe alternative.”

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