Senate Gets Closer to Final GMO Bill Vote

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

The Senate moved closer to final action on legislation later this week that would preempt a Vermont mandatory labeling law for certain genetically modified foods, advancing a bipartisan measure supported by the food industry but opposed by anti-GMO advocates. The 65-32 bipartisan vote on a procedural motion was delayed briefly by protesters against the GMO agreement but is expected to be approved by the Senate, perhaps yet this week.

Active protest. Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association, and Adam Eidinger, a local activist and founder of “Occupy Monsanto,” dropped more than $2,000 worth of dollar bills onto the Senate floor around 4 p.m. to highlight the influence of large corporations in shaping the legislation. “The Senate is being bribed,” the activists shouted. “This is not what democracy looks like.” The pair, along with a third protester, were led out of the Senate chamber by security.

The legislation would require USDA to determine which foods qualify as genetically modified and allow companies to choose the method of disclosing GMO ingredients to consumers using on-package text, a USDA-created symbol or an internet link to direct customers to more information.

In the House, Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) backs a voluntary labeling bill (HR 1599) that his committee helped write that passed the House in July 2015 on a 275-150 vote. Before the Senate vote, Conaway acknowledged that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had spoken with him about the Senate proposal. “When the Senate does something, I’ll be in a position to talk about something besides other than the 275 votes I got for the House bill,” Conaway said.

Senate Ag Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) described Conaway’s outlook toward the Senate bill as “guarded,” but noted that the compromise legislation is probably all that can pass Congress. “This is the last train that’s leaving town, and you’ve got to understand that this is about as far as we can go and get 60 votes and gain votes from Democrats and not lose votes with Republicans,” Roberts said before the vote.
“This is an important step forward,” Senate Ag ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said. “I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan agreement that will ensure consumers in every state have easy access to important information through a mandatory, national label for foods containing GMOs.”

In a July 6 press conference before the vote, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said there would probably be litigation over the bill language, and courts would look to the statute, not an agency’s interpretation. “If the plain language of the statute is clear there is no reason, in fact no permission, no allowance, to look beyond it,” Blumenthal said. “So whatever the general council of any agency thinks, and in fact no matter what we think individually, and whatever we say on the floor of the Senate, it’s the language of the statute that is determinative.” Lawmakers in recent days received conflicting information about the bill’s language from the Food and Drug Admin. and USDA.

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