WASHINGTON, D.C. — A busy week for the House Committee on Agriculture began with a public hearing on the costs and impacts of mandatory biotechnology labeling laws, continued with a call to end the current patchwork of state-by-state labeling laws and culminated with the introduction of a federal uniform labeling standard bill that not all members of the Committee are supporting. 

House Ag Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) began the March 24 hearing by stating that in Washington and across the country, lawmakers are hearing a great deal of misinformation about biotech products – or GMOs (genetically modified organism) – and the use of biotechnology in food and agricultural production. 

“These unfounded attacks are not supported by the facts and mislead both consumers and policymakers. This misinformation could threaten our farmers’ ability to feed an ever-growing population and result in higher food costs for consumers,” Conaway said in his opening statement, before turning to a recent report by the Cornell Business School examining the consumer cost impact of a proposed mandatory label for biotech food products sold in the state of New York. 

“According to the study, implementing a mandatory biotech labeling system in the state would mean new costs for consumers in the checkout aisle. The report finds that a family of four in New York state could pay, on average, an additional $500 in annual food costs if mandatory labeling becomes law,” Conaway said. “The state would also incur an estimated $1.6 million in costs from writing and enforcing new regulations.”

Currently, 26 states have some form of biotech labeling legislation pending. In 2014, 125 bills mandating biotech labels were introduced in 30 states. House Ag Committee members, including Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), pointed out during the hearing that state-led labeling proposals are loaded with arbitrary and inconsistent policies that will ultimately result in both higher food costs and the stifling of technological innovation. Davis, who is chairman of the Biotech, Horticulture and Research Subcommittee, expressed support for a national standard to preserve interstate commerce.

“Biotech labeling is an important issue that we cannot afford to get wrong,” said Davis, who chaired a 2014 House Ag Committee hearing on the science of GMOs. “A patchwork of inconsistent or unnecessary regulations from states could add hundreds to a family’s grocery bill. As we continue this discussion regarding labeling, we must remember the benefits biotech has on our environment and the role it plays in feeding a growing population.”

Though Davis is in favor of a federal biotech labeling system, he’d prefer there were no state or federal labeling requirements for biotech food products whatsoever. “There already is an option in the marketplace for those who want GMO-free food products: It’s called organic,” he said. 

Davis: New label bill falls short

Davis feels that a bipartisan bill introduced last week by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) that establishes a federal uniform labeling standard for GMO products falls short of accomplishing what members of the House Ag Committee are striving for.

“I think there are some details with this (Pompeo) bill that we still have to work out,” Davis told Farm World. “Chairman Conaway and I are going to continue to work in the Ag Committee to find a balance that works for suppliers and the food industry and (create) a bill that can get to the president’s desk. The Pompeo bill would trigger FDA approval on labeling, and I personally think that would significantly hold up the process. I think USDA is a logical agency, with the experience they’ve had, to put together a process to determine what GMO-free labeling means and the process to implement the program.”

The American Soybean Assoc. (ASA) and the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food were among the first to champion the legislation put forth by Pompeo and Butterfield. 

“We’ve been part of the debate over biotechnology and GMOs for almost 20 years now, and what we’ve found is that the science on the safety of this technology is solid and unanimous,” noted Wade Cowan, ASA president and a farmer from Texas. “We’ve also found, however, that consumers just want to know more about what they’re eating. As consumers ourselves, we agree wholeheartedly and think that a simple, clear label for products that don’t contain GMOs is the way to provide shoppers the clarity and information they demand.”

Whether the FDA or USDA is charged with creating, implementing and enforcing a biotech labeling standard, the current state-by-state system must go, Davis agrees.

“Our biggest concern is that, with state-by-state labeling laws, it becomes difficult for the producers I represent and also the suppliers I represent to understand how to continue to be active in the marketplace, so that in the end the consumers can get the products they need and demand,” he said. 

“America feeds the world because our farmers are able to grow more crops – and safer crops that are disease free. That happened through the science, the research of biotechnology. There is a lot of hysteria over the GMO labeling issue, but the science clearly shows that our food supply is the safest in the world.”

A half-dozen witnesses offered testimony to the House Committee on Agriculture during last week’s hearing. They included Cerro Gordo, Ill., seed dealer Lynn Clarkson and Dr. David B. Schmidt, president and CEO, International Food Information Council (IFIC). Schmidt said IFIC research found that 72 percent of respondents said they were likely to purchase products made with oils modified by biotechnology to provide more healthful fats, 69 percent would likely purchase products modified to reduce the potential for carcinogens, and 69 percent said they would buy food products made with flour modified to use less land, water and-or pesticides.

“In our nearly two decades of consumer research, we’ve learned that consumers are supportive of the many benefits of food and agricultural biotechnology when clearly articulated,” Schmidt testified. 

The Pompeo-Butterfield GMO labeling bill was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.