The battle over labeling food made with genetically modified organisms has shifted from Vermont to Washington. A Vermont assistant attorney general testified today before a Congressional committee about a federal proposal that would block state laws requiring the labeling of food made with GMOs.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health’s Thursday hearing was titled “A National Framework for the Review and Labeling of Biotechnology in Food.” Legislators billed it as “an opportunity to learn about the role genetic engineering plays in our nation’s food supply as well as to hear about state-specific labeling regulations and their potential impact on interstate commerce and consumers.”
The panel also reviewed a draft amendment to the proposed Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. The measure and the amendment offered by Kansas Republican Mike Pompeo and North Carolina Democrat G.K. Butterfield would restrict states’ ability to label GMO foods and create a voluntary USDA certification system.
Vermont at-large Representative Democrat Peter Welch questioned what their problem is with allowing labeling. “It’s a consumer right to know issue. I agree with my colleagues that a national standard would be good. But there is no national standard in this bill. It’s a voluntary labeling, which means there will be no labeling what-so-ever. If GMO’s are so safe, and I’m not here to challenge that assertion, but if they’re so safe why not label? Why would anyone be afraid of so labeling those products so that consumers would have a right to know?”
Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz helped draft the regulations to implement Vermont’s GMO labeling law. He told representatives that the federal draft legislation would prematurely derail Vermont’s law and end any GMO labeling efforts by states. Daloz told the committee that the state is simply providing consumers with information. “It’s not a warning. It’s a notification. There was tremendously strong demand in Vermont for this labeling bill. The legislature found that giving consumers this information enables them to make a choice similar to calorie counts. This is the state simply providing information for consumers.”
But critics of GMO labeling, including L. Val Giddings, a Senior Fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, say GMO labeling necessarily misleads the public. “While the state of Vermont, I am completely confident, does not intend to mislead consumers the folks who pushed them into adopting this legislation and who are leading the campaigns have very different motives. The intention of the folks pushing these mandates for information on labeling is directly to mislead consumers as to their safety as a means of growing their market share.”
Rural Vermont advocated for the state’s GMO labeling law. Executive Director Andrea Stander heard much of the hearing and was impressed with the Vermont assistant Attorney General’s testimony. But she felt it was clear that the committee overwhelmingly opposed labeling. “We did hear that there may be a companion bill in the Senate. That’s more disturbing to me because so far we’ve been fairly sure that even if this did pass the House it wouldn’t make it through the Senate.”
Vermont’s GMO labeling law is being challenged in court by the Grocery Manufacturers of America and other groups.
