Two decades into the era of agricultural biotechnology, the Senate passed, 63-30, a bill that requires foodmakers nationwide to say if their products contain GMO ingredients. The bill, which also pre-empts state GMO food-labeling laws, now goes to the House for action one week before Congress adjourns for the summer.
The Senate bill, written by leaders of its Agriculture Committee, has the potential to end years of dispute over GMO labeling, but it also could be challenged in court if it is enacted. Under the Senate bill, mandatory disclosure would begin in two years, after USDA writes the regulations for it.
“Tonight’s vote is the most important vote for agriculture in the last 20 years,” said Agriculture chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas. Like other farm-state senators, Roberts said the bill would preserve use of GMO crops. Co-sponsor Debbie Stabenow, the senior Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, said Senate approval of the first mandatory GMO-disclosure bill “marks a significant milestone in the fight for a more transparent food system.”
Opponents said the Roberts-Stabenow bill is riddled with loopholes that would exempt many GMO foods and the option for digital codes or a symbol would stymie, rather than bolster, the consumers’ right to know. “It is, in fact, an effort to see consumers do not get a label they can use,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat.
The largest U.S. farm group called for speedy congressional resolution of the issue. “Now that the Senate has done its job, we ask the House to move swiftly so this needed legislation can be delivered to the President for his signature,” said the American Farm Bureau Federation. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, speaking for the food industry, said: “We call for the House to vote on this commonsense solution next week before its July recess.”
The House passed a state pre-emption bill last summer that would keep labeling voluntary, as it has been at the federal level for years. Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, sponsor of the House bill, said early this week that it was likely the House would accept the Senate bill.
Senators passed the disclosure bill six days after Vermont’s first-in-the-nation GMO-labeling law took effect. Vermont requires a special “made with GMOs” label on food packages. Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana said labeling advocates wanted to drive GMOs out of use. “Make no mistake. The Vermont law is an attack on our Montana way of life,” he said.
Half of U.S. cropland is planted to genetically engineered varieties, chiefly corn, soybeans, cotton and sugar beets. Because of heavy farmer reliance on GMO seeds, almost all processed foods contain GMOs.
Farm groups and foodmakers opposed GMO labeling as a slur on a technology that is safe. In the end, state pre-emption, to avoid the possibility of conflicting state laws, proved to be the paramount goal.
Stabenow says the Senate bill is stronger than its critics think. The USDA will have the power to demand labels on foods derived from new methods of genetic engineering even though the bill mentions only the classical GMO approach of DNA transfer, she said. While the bill is nearly silent on penalties for failure to label, Stabenow said existing state and federal consumer protection laws would apply. “We spent a lot of time” on that point, she told reporters.