Federal GMO Labeling Bill Heading to the House as US Remains Divisive on Level of Food Transparency

11 Jul 2016 --- The US Senate has pushed through a GMO labeling Bill that requires food companies to label products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A week after Vermont’s GMO-labeling law went into effect, the Senate passed a mandatory bill with a 60 to 33 majority last week. 

It means a nationwide standard, which is far more lenient than the legislation that went into effect on July 1 in Vermont, will be set and will prevent and overrule state-led legislation. 

While Vermont had called for stricter and transparent GM labeling, the bill would allow companies to use a computer scanning code on the packaging or a toll-free number or website which would direct consumers to find out whether the food was altered in any way. 

This puts the onus on individuals to look up information online, while under Vermont’s ruling, shoppers could quickly glance at the label and see what, if any, GMO contents were included in the product. 

The new legislation will avoid a patchwork state-by-state approach to GM labeling and has been praised by The Coalition for Safe Affordable Food. 

“The Senate has provided all Americans a transparent and consistent system of disclosure that will give consumers access to more product information than ever before, and we urge the House to consider this legislation,” says co-chair Pamela G. Bailey who is also president and CEO of Grocery Manufacturers Association. 

“Nearly 1,100 organizations in the food-producing community are united behind this bill to set a uniform, national standard that protects American family farmers and small business.”

The national Corn Growers Association (NCGA) has also praised the vote and is now urging the House to act quickly.

“The Roberts-Stabenow agreement ensures consumers have the access to product information they deserve without stigmatizing this safe, proven technology that America’s farmers value,” 
says NCGA president Chip Bowling. 

“Now, we urge the House to build upon the Senate’s work by quickly taking up and passing this legislation.”

Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate’s agriculture, nutrition, and forestry commission, has said the bipartisan bill allows farmers to continue using sound science to produce more food with less resources, whilst giving food manufacturers flexibility in how information is disclosed. 

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) senior vice president, J. David Carlin, also says the bill ‘moves the country one step closer to implementation of a nationwide disclosure system for GMOs’.

“This bill would provide consumers with access to more product information than ever before,” he says. 

“If passed by the House, the legislation would establish a federal framework for labeling and prevent a state-by-state patchwork of mandates that would only confuse and increase food prices.

“We now ask the U.S. House to take up the bill and send it to President Obama for his signature.”

The bill and GM labeling in general is a divisive issue in the U.S. with many in the organic sector calling for much more transparency in food labeling.

Campaign group, Just Label It, says the GMO labeling bill passed by the Senate falls short of what consumers expect, a simple at-a-glance GMO disclosure on the package. 

“It also contains ambiguities that could needlessly narrow the scope of biotechnologies covered and is vague on what GMO content levels require labeling and enforcement penalties for non-compliance,” says Just Label It chairman Gary Hirshberg. 

“These weaknesses mean that the fight for national mandatory GMO transparency now shifts to USDA and to the marketplace, where companies should think twice before they remove GMO labels from their packages. 

“Pro-GMO labeling efforts now need to focus on effective implementation that delivers what all consumers want and deserve. While we regret that VT’s landmark labeling bill will now be postponed, it is now certain that within a few years, every GMO food will carry on-package disclosure.”

By Gaynor Selby