The GMOs-in-food disclosure bill written by leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee “is actually a non-labeling bill” that “exempts major portions of current and future GMO foods from labeling,” said a coalition of organic food, environmental and consumer groups on the same day the largest U.S. farm group announced support for the bill. “The bill is not perfect but it correctly puts the federal government in the driver’s seat in important areas such as protecting interstate commerce and new crop development techniques,” said the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Both of the statements pointed to the bill’s narrow definition of GMO foods as derived from traditional biotechnology, which transfers genes from dissimilar plants or animals into an organism. It would exempt gene editing and similar techniques so long as the result could be achieved by conventional breeding or found in nature. Agricultural groups say gene editing, a new and less expensive approach than DNA transfers, should be excluded from federal biotechnology regulation.
Agriculture chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas and Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the senior Democrat on the committee, unveiled the bill last week and will need 60 votes for Senate passage. Their bill pre-empts state GMO food-labeling laws and requires nationwide disclosure of GMOs via wording on the package, a symbol printed on the package or a digital link, such as a QR code.
“There is no public health or scientific justification for the bill’s mandatory disclosure provisions, but the national uniformity established by this bill is paramount,” said AFBF. Until now, the group opposed mandatory labeling.
Vermont’s first-in-the-nation GMO-labeling law takes effect Friday and requires a “made with GMOs” label on food packages. Several of the largest U.S. food companies have begun labeling their products nationwide to ensure compliance with the state law. Vermont says it will allow a six-month grace period.
Farm groups and foodmakers have pressed for federal pre-emption to avoid the possibility of conflicting state laws. They also wanted to keep labeling voluntary but conceded on that point in order to win pre-emption. The sector says GMO labels will be falsely interpreted as a warning and will smear a technology that is safe.
In a letter to senators, 70 groups said the bill was sloppily drafted and should be defeated. “In fact, 99 percent of all GMO food could be exempt from labeling as the bill leaves it entirely up to a future USDA secretary to determine what ‘amount’ of GMO ingredients in a food qualifies it for labeling,” said the bill’s opponents. “The bill provides no civil or criminal penalties whatsoever against those not in compliance with GMO labeling requirements.”
Pre-emption of state laws would take effect immediately, but the USDA would have two years to establish the mandatory disclosure standard. Stabenow said the Senate bill will cover a broader array of foods than the Vermont law.