The Farmer's Daughter USA

Hi, I'm Amanda! My family farms corn and soybeans in Southwest Michigan. I'm also a practicing attorney.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Work with Me
    • Speaking
    • Giveaways
    • Social Media Consulting
    • Sponsored and Guest Posts
  • About Me
    • Media
    • Terms of Use

Senate Ag Committee Reaches GMO Labeling Deal

June 24, 2016

Late Thursday night, Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) reached an agreement about creating a national GMO labeling bill. The deal has been long-awaited, especially in light of the fact that Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling bill will go into effect on July 1st. Although that law will essentially be a national labeling standard, a federal solution would preempt the law and provide one, consistent labeling requirement for the entire nation.

The Deal

According to NPR:

Under the plan, food companies would be required to disclose which products contain genetically modified ingredients. But companies would have a range of options in just how they make that disclosure: They could place text on food packaging, provide a QR (Quick Response) code, or direct consumers to a phone number or a website with more information.

The definition of GMO is extremely narrow. As Agriculture.com reports: “The definition of genetic engineering, or “bioengineering,” would be restricted to traits developed through recombinant DNA techniques, which involve transferring a gene from one organism to another. Techniques such as RNA interference as well as gene editing would be exempt.”

The law would not go into effect for up to two years, because federal regulations would have to be written first. Animal products from animals fed GMO feed would not meet the definition of genetic engineering and, therefore, would not require a label.

Interestingly, the federal government would not have the ability to recall food or impose fines for violating the law. State governments, however, could pass laws to enforce the labeling requirement pursuant to the consumer protection statutes.

The Reaction

So far, it’s an interesting reaction the the bill with politics, as usual, making strange bedfellows. Both opponents and proponents of mandatory GMO labeling laws are dismayed with this deal. Perhaps that means it was a true compromise?

The American Farm Bureau Federation released a statement about the agreement, in which they stated:

We appreciate Chairman Roberts’ diligence in taking action prior to the Vermont law’s going into effect. This deal clearly seeks to prevent a 50-state mismatched quilt of differing labeling standards. But the mandatory feature holds significant potential to contribute to confusion and unnecessary alarm. Regardless of the outcome, we continue to believe a national, voluntary standard remains the best approach. Our board will deliver a decision soon.

Not surprisingly, many GMO labeling activists are squarely opposed to the compromise because it doesn’t require labeling directly on the package. The Center for Food Safety (an anti-modern agriculture organization, despite the name) and the organic food company Stonyfield Farm are squarely against any such bill.

The Good Parts

Despite the fact that we will now have a mandatory GMO labeling requirement in the United States, this isn’t really the worst thing in the world.

Companies won’t have to put a scary looking label on the actual package. For the minority of consumers that actually care about such things, they can take the extra steps necessary to find out about any genetically modified ingredients. A code, phone number, or website identifying the GMO ingredients is a good compromise. If you want to know, you can waste your own time looking it up.

It eliminates the potential for a patchwork of costly and confusing state-by-state laws. That’s great because such a scenario would be costly and completely unhelpful. One can only imagine if a Vermont-style law was passed in each state that things would be absolutely hopeless. This legislation will effectively trump Vermont’s law and stop it in its tracks, as well as any other state that tries to do this type of thing.

It’s also limited in scope. The definition of “GMO” is limited and doesn’t include newer technologies. And it only counts if the gene is taken form organism and placed in another. That means Arctic Apples, which simply turn off a gene in the apple, should not have to carry a label. Nor do animal products have to carry a label.

There aren’t any penalties for not complying at the national level. While I’m positive that states will fill the gaps, at the very least this will hopefully keep the costs of implementing the labeling in check. It will also protect companies from lawsuits in federal courts and hefty fines.

It will also put an end to all of the GMO labeling campaigns that seem to happen each cycle in different states. I cannot stress how good this is – these campaigns amounted to nothing more than anti-GMO propaganda being poured into consumers hands for months on end. The campaigns had no check, could say whatever they wanted, and never seemed to shy away from lying. It was also an opportunity to raise money for their efforts. The federal law should put an end to that circus.

The Bad Parts

Well, it’s a mandatory labeling requirement for GMOs…so that’s obviously bad.

I also think this is too little too late.

Forgive me for giving a civics lesson, but here we go. The Senate Agriculture Committee does not get to pass legislation into law. The bill will have to be passed by the entire Senate, perhaps as early as next week. But the House hasn’t passed any legislation like this – it passed a voluntary labeling scheme last summer. That means this great compromise bill will have to be passed in the House, which is in recess until July 5th. Then, of course, President Obama will have to sign it into law.

Folks, Vermont’s law goes into effect on July 1st.

By now, companies have been working to comply with that law, which requires labeling on the actual package. Pepsi, Campbell’s, and others have already starting printing those labels. So, while the federal law that which will eventually be passed (hopefully…) won’t require on-package labels, many large companies have already started taking that approach. Whether we have a federal solution or not, we already have GMO labeling.

By imposing mandatory labeling on genetically modified crops, it also means that activists have a victory. They may be complaining about it not being precisely what they wanted, but they did get mandatory labeling. Mandatory. Labeling. That’s a win for them whether they want to admit it or not (though I kind of like seeing them upset about it, I won’t lie…).

Conclusion

I’m sure there will be much more discussion in the days and weeks ahead. I’ll also be looking for answers to other lingering questions (does this apply to medicinal uses of biotechnology?). Of course, we have to actually get this compromise passed into law, and who knows how likely that is or how long it will take.

But I am overall disappointed and frustrated. We now have mandatory GMO labeling and we’re stigmatizing an important and necessary tool for meeting the world’s growing food demands.

signature
Share this:
«
»

Filed Under: Biotechnology, Labeling Tagged With: federal government, gmos, labels

Comments

  1. Eric Bjerregaard says

    June 24, 2016 at 7:07 am

    Never compromise with evil. Oppose evil. This would be a bad result if no overturned as it expands the federal gov’t’s power to require compelled speech. Vermont’s law needs to be overturned by the courts. All mandatory labeling is wrong without a legitimate safety issue existing.

    • Amanda says

      June 24, 2016 at 7:43 am

      I highly doubt it will be overturned. Vermont’s law was already upheld, though with passage of this federal law, it will be preempted and not matter.

      *Edit: Vermont’s law has not yet been upheld. It’s still being litigated. I still don’t think the federal law will be overturned though.*

  2. Eric Bjerregaard says

    June 24, 2016 at 7:50 am

    This is being appealed. And I hope the appeal continues.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/11/vermont-lawsuit-a-test-case-for-gmo-labeling-laws-and-the-first-amendment andhttp://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/241244-industry-group-appeals-federal-ruling-on-vermonts-gmo-labeling-law

    • Amanda says

      June 26, 2016 at 11:56 pm

      I believe only the injunction is being appealed; there has not yet been a decision by the court on whether the law is constitutional or not. I would bet that once the compromise is passed (assuming it’s passed), then this lawsuit will simply be dismissed. It will be moot and the federal courts will no longer have jurisdiction over it.

  3. Ben Edge says

    June 24, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    I believe you are mistaken about Vermont’s law being upheld. A judge just refused to issue an injunction. Has there been a ruling we are unaware of?

    • Amanda says

      June 26, 2016 at 11:52 pm

      The injunction is simply asking the court to halt the law from going into effect until after the lawsuit has been resolved. In other words, those that brought the lawsuit asked the court to tell Vermont they cannot enforce the law until after the court decides on the issues of the case. That injunction was denied. That means the law will go into effect on July 1, 2016. According to what I’ve found (http://www.natlawreview.com/article/reminder-vermont-gmo-labeling-law-vermont-act-120-goes-effect-july-1), they have appealed that decision, but there has been no decision on this. However, the injunction has nothing to do with whether the law is being upheld or not.

  4. Eric Bjerregaard says

    June 27, 2016 at 12:08 am

    Sorry, I must disagree. While the point may be moot as regards the vermont law. /It will still exist regarding the federal law. The speech will still be compelled and there is no factual justification for that. The problem is that the GMA will have no motive to oppose the horrible precedent being set.

    • Amanda says

      June 27, 2016 at 9:01 am

      No, that isn’t what I mean. The federal court literally will not be allowed to hear the lawsuit, because the case itself will be moot. You cannot continue a lawsuit if the law is not longer in effect. You have to have a real, live controversy. It’s part of the jurisdiction analysis that the courts have to go through for every case they hear. Otherwise, it would amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion and the federal courts cannot issue those. If GMA wants to challenge the precedent being set by the federal law, it would have to file another lawsuit against the new federal law.

  5. Eric Bjerregaard says

    June 27, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Hey Amanda, Perhaps my wording was unclear. That is exactly what I meant by moot regarding vermont’s law. And when I said that the GMA would have no motive to oppose the horrible precedent. I was referring to spending the money on a lawsuit filed just to prevent such precedent. When the law itself cause no undue hardship. One of my peeves is allowint the feds to gain power as this is short sighted when considering future potential loss of liberty.

Hi, I'm Amanda. My family farms corn and soybeans in Southwest Michigan. I'm an attorney and I'm passionate about agriculture!

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Subscribe via Email

Archives

Latest on Facebook

The Farmer's Daughter

4 weeks ago

The Farmer's Daughter

You can't and won't make America healthy by blaming and hindering our family farmers.

... See MoreSee Less

MAHA Report delivers scathing assessment of farm pesticides | AGDAILY

www.agdaily.com

The new MAHA report, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., links pesticides to rising childhood illness, already drawing criticism from farm groups.

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

The Farmer's Daughter

1 month ago

The Farmer's Daughter

Do you a plan for your estate? My latest for AGDAILY focuses on potential changes to the federal estate tax.

... See MoreSee Less

Perspective: A farmer's legacy shouldn't be a tax nightmare for their kin

www.agdaily.com

For farm families, estate taxes aren’t just an abstract policy debate -- they’re a very real threat to generational farms and the livelihoods they support.

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

The Farmer's Daughter

1 month ago

The Farmer's Daughter

If nothing else, this should keep you up at night. Every snake oil salesman is now in charge of HHS.

... See MoreSee Less

How RFK Jr. Is Boosting ‘Food Babe’ and Other MAHA Acolytes

www.wsj.com

The health and human services secretary has elevated lightly regulated wellness companies and allowed advisers to keep investments, after vowing to end conflicts of interest.

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

The Farmer's Daughter

2 months ago

The Farmer's Daughter

These concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

... See MoreSee Less


Photo

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

The Farmer's Daughter

2 months ago

The Farmer's Daughter

Imagine getting to donate a substantial amount of money to a charity of *your* choice and you choose....an animal rights activist group with questionable intentions??

... See MoreSee Less

Why agricultural advocates are lashing out at Celebrity Jeopardy! | AGDAILY

www.agdaily.com

David Friedberg, founder of The Climate Corporation, is drawing ire for his "charity" of choice on Celebrity Jeopardy!: Humane World for Animals.

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

Latest on Instagram

Amanda Zaluckyj

thefarmersdaughterusa

Amanda | The Farmer's Daughter USA
I'm a proud farmer's daughter & advocate for modern agriculture. U.S. farmers are leaders in sustainability.

Perusing my photos from #Denmark and getting the i Perusing my photos from #Denmark and getting the itch to travel again.
These concepts aren't mutually exclusive. #farms # These concepts aren't mutually exclusive. #farms #farmfamily #environment #soilhealth #nutritiousfood
Stop worrying about labels and just eat them! Stop worrying about labels and just eat them!
Corn is a powerhouse! #corn #farming #growcorn # Corn is a powerhouse! 

#corn #farming #growcorn #USAGrown #usagriculture
Happy St. Patrick's Day! 🍀 Happy St. Patrick's Day! 🍀
The blood moon. 🌙 And proof I woke up at 2:15 a The blood moon. 🌙 And proof I woke up at 2:15 am to see it!
3 years. 💔 #slavaukraini #supporukraine #ukrai 3 years. 💔

#slavaukraini #supporukraine #ukraine #glorytoukraine🇺🇦
Mischa will not suffer a snowman in her yard. ❄️☃️

#dogslife #dogsofinstagram #blacklab #pittiemix #snowday #snowman
We all know RFK, Jr. is well known for vaccine dis We all know RFK, Jr. is well known for vaccine disinformation. But he's also a danger to agriculture, even promising to "weaponize" regulatory agencies against our farm families.

#rfk #farmersdaughter #farmers #conspiracytheories #puremichiganfarm #rfkjr
Load More... Follow on Instagram

Copyright © 2025 · Website Design By Jumping Jax Designs