Two decades after U.S. farmers began cultivating genetically engineered crops, the United States is headed for mandatory nationwide disclosure of GMO ingredients in food, reversing the long-standing federal policy that labels are not needed because the foods are safe to eat.
“The president will sign the bill,” said a White House spokeswoman despite requests for a veto from civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and an array of environmental and consumer groups.
The House gave final congressional approval to the GMO disclosure bill on a lop-sided 305-117 rollcall one week after a similarly bipartisan 63-30 vote in the Senate. Sponsored by Senate Agriculture chairman Pat Roberts and the senior Democrat on the committee, Debbie Stabenow, the bill pre-empts state GMO food-labeling laws and allows foodmakers to use a symbol, a digital code or wording on the package to alert buyers of genetically modified ingredients.
“This is a hard-fought compromise,” said Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader, a farmer from Oregon. “The other side has to, I hope, accept victory.” Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern, speaking immediately after Schrader during House debate, said the fight wasn’t over: “Sooner or later, we are going to get clear GMO labeling.”
Farm groups and foodmakers, who fought GMO labeling for years, agreed to mandatory disclosure plan in order to attain their chief goal, a national standard rather than a potential thicket of conflicting state laws. Vermont’s first-in-the-nation label law took effect on July 1.
McGovern raised the some objection as labeling activists — that food companies would keep consumers in the dark by using digital codes, which must be scanned by a smartphone and require an Internet connection.
“This bill is a sweetheart deal for the food and agri-chemical industries, who want to keep consumers guessing about the contents of their food,” said Gary Ruskin of U.S. Right to Know, a pro-labeling group.
In a letter to the president, Jackson said 100 million Americans, particularly poor, elderly and minority group members, either do not own a smartphone or live in areas with poor digital service. “There are serious questions of discrimination presented here and unresolved matters of equal protection of the law,” wrote Jackson.
The trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association, an advocate of “smart labels,” said: “This is a win-win for every American family in every state.”
Farm-state lawmakers said the GMO labeling drive, which arose years ago, was a clear attempt to smear GMOs and drive them from the marketplace. House Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway said the disclosure bill will “turn the page on a debate that has unnecessarily maligned this life-saving technology.”
“I still believe voluntary labeling is best,” said Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the Democratic leader on the committee, but the Senate bill was “the only alternative that is available at this point.”
Besides objecting to the disclosure system, activists said the Roberts-Stabenow bill uses a narrow definition of GMOs with the result that many products would escape labeling altogether. Nor does the bill specify a penalty for failure to label, they said. Stabenow says the bill is tougher than its critics say. Consumer protection laws will cover mis-labeling, she said.
While the bill would pre-empt states immediately, USDA would have two years to design the disclosure system.
“Every day, Republicans are for states’ rights, except, maybe today,” said Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio, who said consumers have a right to know what is in their food.
Almost all of the corn, soybeans and sugar beets in the United States are grown from GMO seeds, so the vast majority of processed food in supermarkets contains GMOs. Half of U.S. cropland is planted to GMOs, chiefly corn, soybeans and cotton but also canola and sugarbeets.