House of Representatives Passes Pompeo GMO Bill

On July 23, 2015, the House of Representatives passed HR 1599 with a vote of 275 for and 150 against. The majority of support came from Republicans, but 45 Democrats supported the bill as well.

HR 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, will preempt any state laws that seek to create GMO labeling requirements, including the mandatory labeling law enacted in Vermont that is set to take effect in 2016. Supporters of the bill claim that the enactment of HR 1599 will prevent the creation of an unworkable system of different state laws with no consistency, making compliance for producers difficult. Opponents of the bill claim that HR 1599 harms transparency to the consumer.

In a vote following the passage of the bill, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) made a proposed amendment to the bill’s title, aiming to change the title to “A bill to enact the 'Deny Americans the Right to Know Act' or the 'DARK Act'." The amendment failed 87 to 337.

Although the bill has passed the House, the debate is far from over. The next area of contention will be in the Senate. Opponents of the bill believe it will falter in the Senate, but supporters claim that support is growing.

Written by Tyler R. Etter- Research Assistant
July 24, 2015

Proposed GMO Labeling Bill Will Not Preempt Cultivation Restrictions

  On July 17, 2015, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mike Conaway (R-TX) and Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) issued a statement on proposed house bill H.R. 1599, The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.  According to the statement, H.R. 1599 only addresses the issue of GMO food labeling and does not go into other issues such as cultivation of GMO crops.  The statement indicated the goal of the proposed bill is to avoid a patchwork of state laws governing GMO food labeling.

  The statement was issued after a number of organizations expressed concern that the proposed bill would preempt state and county laws that have restricted or banned the planting of GMO crops.  According to a press release on the Center for Food Safety website, the organization believes H.R. 1599 “would not only prohibit all labeling of GE foods, but also to make it unlawful for states or local governments to restrict GE crops in any way.”

  The Environmental Working Group issued a news release with a similar interpretation, stating “The bill, H.R. 1599, would . . . stop state and local governments from regulating any process related to production of GMO crops.”  Other organizations, such as Just Label It campaign, have issued similar statements. 

Written by Katharine Richter - Research Assistant 

July 20, 2015

GMO Labeling Bill Passes House Agricultural Committee

  On July 14, 2015, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture approved Bill 1599, “The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.” 

  H.R. 1599 was originally introduced by Representatives Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) on March 25, 2015 and was referred to the House committee on Agriculture and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.  According to a press release on the House Committee on Agriculture website, discussions between the two committees helped evolve the legislation.

  H.R. 1599 would create a national, uniform policy related to biotechnology labeling, preempting state labeling laws.  According to the press release, Chairman of the Agricultural Committee Michael Conaway (R-TX) commented, “The current patchwork system of varied labels interferes with the free flow of goods across the country, posing a real threat to interstate commerce and typically results in inconsistent and confusing information for consumers. Creating a uniform national policy regarding biotechnology labeling is the free market solution that will allow consumers access to meaningful information…”

Written by Katharine Richter - Research Assistant

July 14, 2015

Pompeo GMO Bill to be Reviewed by Committee on Agriculture

On July 14, 2015, H.R. 1599, the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act”, will be reviewed by the House Committee on Agriculture. The review will mark the first action taken by a committee on the bill, and may signal the beginning of consideration in the full House of Representatives.

The bill seeks to create a voluntary federal certification for a product to be labeled as “non-GMO.” The bill would also preempt any individual state GMO labeling laws, an area of increasing focus as Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law’s 2016 deadline approaches.

The bill was first introduced by Representative Mike Pompeo, and currently has 68 sponsors, including 14 Democrats. Members of the National Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association will be lobbying to gather additional sponsors and support for the bill. The proponents of the bill wish to avoid a “hodgepodge of rules [that] would be unworkable for farmers” that could arise if a federal system isn't in place.

One opponent of the bill has stated that “[n]o one will be surprised if the House preempts state GMO labeling bills. The real battle has always been over the Senate.” There is a companion bill currently in the works by Senator John Hoeven, but there has yet to be a Democratic co-sponsor. 

Written by Tyler R. Etter- Research Assistant

July 13, 2015

Energy and Commerce Committee Holds Hearing on GMO Labeling Bill

On June 18, 2015, the United States House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on House Bill 1599, regarding the implementation of a national framework for the labeling of foods containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

House Bill 1599 would create a voluntary labeling standard for foods containing GMOs. The bill would require USDA certification for a product to be labeled as non-GMO as well as requiring FDA safety approval for new genetically engineered traits in crops and products. The bill would also preempt any individual state laws regarding GMO labeling, such as Vermont’s mandatory labeling law.

Testimony was heard from both proponents and opponents of the bill. One proponent of House Bill 1599 stated that a national framework would protect farmers and agricultural cooperatives from a “hodgepodge of rules” that would be “unworkable.” Another testified that compliance with Vermont’s law is “really a nightmare” for manufacturers, requiring either product reformulation or creation of a separate line of product labeling for the state.  One proponent even testified that GMO labeling is meaningless, as all food products have been altered from their original state, stating that “it is a process, not a product.”

One opponent of the bill stated that the lack of a new safety approval process through the FDA leaves safety determinations in the hands of companies.  Another opponent testified that by preempting state laws, the bill interferes with the role of states “as laboratories of democracy to develop novel…experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

To watch the full hearing, click here.

Written by Tyler R. Etter- Research Assistant

June 19, 2015

Informational Meeting Held for Pennsylvania House Bill 1265 on Milk Pricing Transparency

  On June 17, 2015, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee held an informational meeting on proposed House Bill 1265, regarding transparency of Pennsylvania state-mandated milk premiums paid to dairy farmers.

  House Bill 1265 addresses farmers concerns that they are not aware of whether they are being paid the Pennsylvania state-mandated premium (“over-order premium”) on milk sales.  The state over-order premium is currently $1.85 per hundredweight, or in terms of gallons, .16 cents.  The fee applies to every gallon of Class 1 fluid drinking milk that is produced, processed, and sold in Pennsylvania.  Farmers currently lack a verification method that the premium is being paid because payments made to the farmer do not contain a separate line item identifying the over-order premium amount paid.  The bill would make it mandatory for milk dealers, as well as dairy cooperatives, to include distinct notification on the payment form to inform the farmer how much they are being paid for the State-mandated premium. 

  Testimony was heard from both proponents and opponents of the bill.  Opponents of the bill discussed the administrative difficulties of implementing the changes required by H.B. 1265.  In addition to implementation difficulties, they argued ample transparency already exists so the bill would provide no extra benefit to the farmers.  Proponents of the bill argued it would strengthen trust between dairy farmers and cooperatives by fostering accountability and transparency in payments received.  It would also assist the farmers in adequately managing their operations by knowing how much revenue will be coming in.

  To watch the full legislative hearing, click here.

Written by Katharine Richter - Research Assistant

June 18, 2015

House Passes Bill Repealing Beef, Chicken, and Pork from COOL

  On June 10, 2015, the United States House of Representatives passed proposed House Bill 2393, which repeals Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements as applied to muscle cut meat commodities: beef, pork, and chicken.  The amendment to COOL passed through a yea/nay vote of 300-131.  The Bill still needs to be presented and voted on in the Senate.     

  

  According to the House Committee on Agriculture website, supporters of the repeal believe it’s a necessary step in order to bring the United States into compliance with the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling.  The Bill also ensures avoidance of retaliatory sanctions, such as tariffs, from two of the U.S.’s top trading partners, Canada and Mexico. 

  Although chicken was not included in the WTO ruling, which was aimed at beef and pork labeling, Chairman Michael Conaway (R-TX) stated, “We also eliminate the requirement for chicken, which faced high costs and little if any quantifiable benefits ... [n]o other products are affected.”  All other products, such as fruits, vegetables, and peanuts, would continue to adhere to COOL requirements.

Written by Katharine Richter- Research Assistant

June 12, 2015