The only consumer-friendly solution to the GMO food-labeling impasse in the Senate is to require printed disclosure of ingredients on the package, says Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley. “It has to meet the one-second test,” Merkley told a conference of the Organic Trade Association, meaning that shoppers can tell at a glance if GMOs are present.
“That’s what I’m fighting for. That’s the battle we’ve got to win,” said Merkley, sponsor of a mandatory labeling bill. The labeling debate has centered on federal pre-emption of state labeling laws and whether labeling will be mandatory at the federal level or remain voluntary. In a party-line vote on March 15, senators defeated a pre-emption bill sponsored by Agriculture Committee chairman Pat Roberts.
Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the senior Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, and Roberts have conferred without success on a compromise labeling bill. Stabenow has said mandatory disclosure must be an element of a compromise but has not said what form that would take.
Merkley told reporters that he has spoken to Stabenow and Roberts about the issue. “It’s got to be a national standard that is consumer friendly,” he said. “It needs to be clear on the package.”
“Overall, 75 percent (of Americans) are in support of GMO labeling legislation and 78 percent of supporters say it should be mandated by the federal government as opposed to the state government,” said The Harris Poll, based on its online survey of 2,015 adults from April 29-May 3. “When looking specifically at GMO labeling, a large majority, 80 percent, agree that there should be mandatory GMO labeling as consumers have a right to know what is in their food or whether it has been altered or changed in some way that is not natural and could impact consumer health.”
State legislators are taking a wait-and-see aproach on labeling due to the stand-off in Congress and the unresolved lawsuit by foodmakers against Vermont’s first-in-the-nation label law, said a labeling advocate. In New York state and Massachusetts, GMO label bills are making little progress.
Consumer activists rallied in Albany on Tuesday in support of the New York bill, said Public News Service. The legislative session is set to end on June 16. “Advocates have maintained that the bill has the support of a majority in the Assembly and is sponsored by almost half of the senators,” said the news service.
In Massachusetts, the state House Natural Resources Committee approved a label bill that would not take effect until five other states, including a bordering state, with a combined population of at least 20 million people, enact similar laws. “This means that no matter what, we’d have to wait for New York,” said Massachusetts Right to Know because the six New England states total 8 million people. After Natural Resources, the GMO label bill was sent to the House Ways and Means Committee for consideration.
The campaign for congressional action has been based in part on the potential for a thicket of conflicting state laws. However, no state has passed a label law since Vermont in May 2014.
Vermont’s label law takes effect on July 1 with a six-month grace period for compliance. Maine and Connecticut have label laws on the books but they will not go into force unless other states pass similar laws. Connecticut needs at least four other states with at least a combined 20 million residents. Maine requires four contiguous states to ratify label laws. The Maine law automatically expires in 2018 if there is no bloc of GMO-labeling states.