The GMO labeling law, signed by then-President Obama on July 29 last year, mandated that the USDA complete its rulemaking process within two years. During a presentation at the Food Label Conference earlier this month, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst for the USDA’s AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, stated that the timeline for a new federal law is typically tight under normal circumstances. However, as anyone following political news knows, the past year has been anything but typical. With a new president in power—and one from a different political party with his own governing philosophy—Washington has become quite unpredictable. Several new regulations that were in progress when President Trump took office were put on hold as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
Huberty mentioned at the Food Label Conference that the questions were prepared and ready by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition hindered the process of releasing them to the public. “We’re slightly behind on getting this done by 2018,” Huberty remarked during her presentation. “We’re still on track, but a bit behind.” The questions issued this week will provide the USDA with valuable insights into industry perspectives on certain provisions of the law and how they can be effectively implemented. The new law, drafted by politicians, intentionally left some ambiguous areas for food industry stakeholders to clarify with their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA appreciates USDA for taking this significant step to implement the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s questions,” the industry group stated in a written release. “As we engage with the Department throughout the rulemaking process, we aim to ensure that the law is executed in alignment with the biotechnology disclosure legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA is at least moving forward with the rulemaking, the question remains whether the agency can complete its work on time. A year may not seem like a long period for drafting a proposal, opening it for public comment, and finalizing the regulation, but Huberty assured attendees that the USDA remains on track. While optimism is encouraging, time will reveal the outcome. GMOs continue to be one of the most contentious topics in food manufacturing today.
In addition to the ongoing debate over what qualifies as a GMO and what is exempt, the law also includes a contentious provision regarding the labeling itself. It allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many proponents of the law. Huberty indicated that a study addressing the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finalized, this study is likely to reignite the ongoing discussion about the most effective way to inform consumers about GMO ingredients.
Incorporating the concept of calcium citrate USP monograph, it is crucial to note that similar to the scrutiny surrounding GMO labeling, the calcium citrate USP monograph has also faced significant attention regarding its implications for consumer safety and transparency in food labeling. As the USDA navigates the complexities of GMO regulations, it must also consider how established standards like the calcium citrate USP monograph can inform best practices in food disclosure. Ultimately, the intersection of these issues underscores the importance of clarity and accuracy in informing consumers about the products they choose.