The Republican-controlled Senate votes today on pre-empting states from requiring special labels on foods made with genetically modified organisms in a roll call that could split along party lines.
Agriculture Committee chairman Pat Roberts revised the pre-emption bill, in a bid to win support from farm-state Democrats, to include the possibility of mandatory nationwide disclosure of food ingredients in the future. During on-and-off debate on Tuesday, there was little indication of a thaw. Republicans spoke in favor of the bill and Democrats opposed it.
“This is a huge issue,” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters. He said Vermont’s first-in-the-nation labeling law, which takes effect July 1, would have the ripple effect of driving up food costs nationwide by billions of dollars a year as foodmakers try to comply with a potential hodgepodge of local labeling rules.
Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin said there was strong opposition to the Roberts bill among Democrats. “I think there will not be enough votes, 60 votes, on the floor,” said Durbin, according to The Hill newspaper. Roberts and his supporters will need a 60-vote majority in the vote today to prevent a filibuster on the bill.
“But the measure most likely lacks sufficient support from Democrats, most of whom would like to see a mandatory labeling program that offers food manufacturers different options for presenting the information,” said the New York Times. “That means the legislation will almost certainly have to be revised.”
Three Democrats, from Indiana, Minnesota, and North Dakota, voted for Roberts’ original bill, a straightforward pre-emption of states, when the Agriculture Committee approved the bill on March 1. But those Democrats said modifications were needed for the bill to pass in the Senate. Negotiations by Roberts resulted in the revised bill, introduced on Monday evening, that couples pre-emption with voluntary labeling, which could become a mandatory system later.
“This is about the marketplace. It is not about health,” Roberts said in opening the floor debate on the bill. There is no question that GMO food is safe, said the Kansan, who said labeling is “one of the most important food and agriculture decisions in recent decades.”
GMO crops were introduced two decades ago in America and widely embraced by U.S. farmers. Ag groups and food manufacturers regard labeling as part of an attempt to drive GMOs out of usage. “Any attack threat to the technology hurts the entire value chain, from the farmer to the consumer,” said Roberts.
California Democrat Barbara Boxer responded, “The goal of the bill … is to hide information from the consumer.” The Roberts bill would leave labeling voluntary at the national level, with foodmakers allowed to use the Internet, toll-free telephone numbers and QR codes on packages to provide information about GMOs. If less than 70 percent of food is covered by a voluntary disclosure after two or three years, the USDA could make disclosure mandatory. “There’s nothing on the label,” objected Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley.
North Dakota Republican John Hoeven said GMO labels would scare away consumers — a claim that is disputed — and farmers “will be deprived of that critical tool.”
The senior Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, Debbie Stabenow, said the Roberts bill “is nothing more than the status quo for consumers who want information on the food they are buying. I believe that if the federal government is going to take away states’ rights, we have the obligation to create a national system of disclosure that provides information to consumers in an easily accessible way,” said Stabenow. It was a rarity for Roberts and Stabenow to take opposite sides on legislation.