The GMO Bill In Congress: Does It, Or Not?

It also addresses “natural” labeling claims, which have been a hotly litigated issue in recent years. But all reputable studies to date have not demonstrated that GE crop varieties generate any significant increase in yields, nor any significant improvement in overall food productivity. Therefore, labeling is not necessary.

There are two notable subjects addressed under SAFLA.

A genetically engineered food is a plant or animal that has been changed by taking genes from one species and inserting them into the DNA of another species or altering the DNA in a way that could never happen through traditional cross-breeding or in nature.

This bill, it turns out, isn’t really even so much about food labeling as it is about not labeling food.

Europe and most of the civilized world take a jaundiced view of genetically engineered fruits, vegetables, and meats. That means the corn or soy in them was grown with some genetic tweaks to fend off insects or resist weed killers.

The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for establishing the voluntary genetically engineered food certification program which will govern labeling with respect to use of genetic engineering in food production.

Many other countries require GMO labeling. This will ensure a nationally-uniform manner of labeling.

Does your favorite cereal include GMO ingredients?

What can we expect if SAFLA is enacted? Still, Vermont passed a bill requiring a label on all foods containing GMO ingredients. Further, the legislation will prohibit state and local governments from regulating GMO plants. Bain, the sociology professor, says her research shows that GMO labeling has become what social scientists call a “wicked problem,” one that is inherently contradictory and can’t be solved through scientific fact.

Presently the FDA has allowed the sale of GMO modified foods from about 1996 but as the FDA has no ability to track the safety data of human consumption most data and statistics come from industry-sponsored studies. This is modeled after the largely successful USDA Organics program.

Just what the Hill needed – another food fight. EWG excluded all lobbying disclosure forms that made no reference to GMO labeling legislation.

Through a lobbying group called the Grocery Manufacturers Association, brands including Quaker, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Mills, and Kellogg’s have spent millions trying to avoid disclosing whether their products contain GMOs.

What are SAFLA’s proponents saying?

This isn’t about whether GMOs are safe or harmful. Advocates stand behind findings of numerous renowned, well-respected groups that have all found GMOs to be safe.

At best, the law is premature. “When only the label is considered, it has no impact on consumer opposition”. The absence of a national standard risks spreading misinformation. The House vote puts it squarely on the side of the industry and against consumers. It would then certainly have been a good idea to have widespread use of non-GMO and organic crops. Stay tuned. Time will tell how both the judicial branch and legislative branch will react to last week’s passage in the House.