Republicans and Democrats may have just found common ground in the least likely of places: labeling regulations for food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). On June 23, members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry announced they had agreed to a long-awaited piece of proposed legislation on GMO labeling. If passed, the bill says it will “establish a national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods.”
In a joint statement, Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) said the proposal was the result of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans on the committee.
“This bipartisan agreement is an important path forward that represents a true compromise. Since time is of the essence, we urge our colleagues to move swiftly to support this bill,” they said
Speaking separately, Stabenow described the proposed legislation as a “win for consumers and families”: “For the first time ever, consumers will have a national, mandatory label for food products that contain genetically modified ingredients.”
At first glance, the bill looks like a major step forward for campaigners who have long argued for greater corporate transparency over GMOs. However, it has received a relatively lukewarm response from campaigners.
Writing for The Conversation, a skeptical Professor Jane Kolodinsky from the University of Vermont has argued the bill is unlikely to be a silver bullet to the long-running controversy over GMO labeling. “In my view, the proposed federal legislation, while consistent across the country, makes it very difficult for consumers to obtain the information they want to know — namely, whether a product has been produced using GM technology or ingredients,” she said.
Kolodinsky may have a point. Although the bill requires some form of disclosure of GMO ingredients, companies are offered a broad variety of options. The simplest option available would be to simply state whether or not a product contains GMOs on the packaging. Another option would be to provide a Quick Response code, allowing consumers to quickly scan the label with a smartphone. A third option open to companies would be to direct consumers to a phone number or website able to provide details of the product’s ingredients.
Kolodinsky argued the plethora of options potentially available to food manufacturers won’t make it much easier for the average consumer to determine whether a product contains GMOs. “For a consumer purchasing multiple products, this will be a cumbersome process,” she said.
Other GMO-labeling advocates have agreed the bill fell short of expectations.
“We are disappointed that the proposal will require many consumers to rely on smartphones to learn basic information about their food,” said Gary Hirshberg, the chairperson of GMO-labeling campaign group Just Label It.
“This proposal falls short of what consumers rightly expect — a simple at-a-glance disclosure on the package,” he added.
Both Hirshberg and Kolodinsky argued that senators should have modeled the proposal on a piece of Vermont legislation. Slated to come into effect on July 1, the legislation will require clear text label on products including GMOs. It will also ban manufacturers from claiming products are “all natural” if they contain GMOs. Some estimates suggest over 75 percent of processed foods consumed nationwide include GMO ingredients.
If the Senate committee’s bill is passed into law, it will automatically kill the Vermont legislation — and this is no accident.
Commenting on the bill, the agriculture committee’s chair, Roberts, said the proposal was intended as a counter to Vermont’s attempt to impose state-level regulations. “Unless we act now, Vermont law denigrating biotechnology and causing confusion in the marketplace is the law of the land,” Roberts said.
He didn’t explain how the Vermont law denigrates GMOs.
Defending the bill, Stabenow argued the committee’s proposal is significantly larger in scope than the Vermont law and will cover many products that were excluded under the state’s legislation.
“The agreement also closes glaring loopholes under the Vermont law, which would have allowed tens of thousands of processed-food products, like frozen dinners or entrees that contain meat and GMO ingredients, to go unlabeled,” she said.
She continued, “Under the law in Vermont, for example, a cheese pizza could be labeled but a pepperoni pizza could not, even if it contained a GMO ingredient.”
This loophole exists because foods containing meat products are regulated by the USDA.
However, it’s unclear whether the committee’s bill will actually close that loophole. The bill includes a provision that exempts products where the “most predominant ingredient” is meat, poultry or eggs.
Nonetheless, Roberts has claimed the committee’s bill is superior to the Vermont law.
“It is a far better alternative than Vermont’s law with its destructive ramifications up and down the supply chain,” he said.
Many large agribusiness firms have long opposed GMO labeling, fielding arguments ranging from increased packaging costs to fears that labels could make GMO products less competitive. In particular, the Vermont legislation has infuriated industry advocates. When Vermont’s House first approved the law in 2014, the Grocery Manufacturers Association condemned the regulations as “misguided.” That same organization now supports the committee bill.
“We thank Senators Roberts and Stabenow for their hard work and leadership to find the solution that can give consumers more information about genetically engineered ingredients and prevent different state labeling laws,” the association said in a statement.
They added, “It is critically important that Congress approve this legislation as soon as possible because Vermont’s mandatory labeling law is already having negative impacts.”
Roberts received over $900,000 in campaign committee contributions from agribusiness between 2011 and 2016, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Stabenow received over $1 million in the same period from agribusiness.
— Ryan Mallett-Outtrim
A law that allows for far far more information on many aspects of how food is produced vs four words on a label. It is clear this new bill/law will benefit consumers who want to learn about breeding methods and food production methods. It will also thwart those who have been trying to get a “;skull and cross bones” label on food to help accelerate their anti-GMO fear marketing.
Nonsense.
This is a draconian anti consumer bill. It is the wish list for the corrupt GMO pesticide industry who Wager represents with his industry PR astroturfer pots.
The law would postpone labels for 2 years. It would require that the labels be QR codes which require a cell phone and data plan to read. It would exempt many products would be labeled under the Vermont law.
Only 64% of Americans own a smartphone. That means that more than a third of all Americans will not be able to access GMO information if products are labeled with QR codes. Moreover, those left out are disproportionately low income and those living in rural areas. According to Pew Research Center, only 50% of low income people in the U.S. own a smartphone; only 52% of rural Americans own a smartphone; and only 27% of seniors own a smartphone. Even those who do own smartphones are not guaranteed consistent access to the internet.
A substantial majority of Americans would be deprived of their right to know if GMO labeling were done through QR codes.
Don’t listen to Wager’s corrupt industry spin he is here to astroturf your mind and deceive you about the facts as he has tried to do here.
If a $hill like Wager is for it you know it is bad.
And here we go again with your pro-GMO nonsense. People such as myself, demand & have every right to know what all goes into the foods that we eat and feed our families. Do you not care about this Wager? How is this in anyway “trying to get a skull and cross bones” label on foods? Should we be this concerned? Organic is labelled so label GMOs also. The EU does it and so can the rest of the world, period! Do you think the EU labels GMOs for the reasons you’ve mentioned? I highly doubt it! It is information added to an already existing ingredient list. Does this image look scary to you? lol
Coming from a well known pro-GMO activist and propagandist, I see why you like this opaque, non-transparent bill. People without cell phones, or who can’t afford extra data charges (the poor and elderly, primarily) will certainly not benefit. And anyone with a busy lifestyle (eg, the majority of people) will not stand around scanning every item in the grocery store.
I’m not surprised a pro-industry, pro-GMO meat puppet like yourself favours this insidious, underhanded bill. It totally suits your nature…
Funny how all that far far more information manufacturers will now be providing isn’t going to raise costs at all,but these same manufacturers have thrown a hissy fit over four little words(hardly a skull and crossbones) on a label.Besides Robbie why should you even care,you don’t even live in our country.