The GMO labeling law, enacted by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, has afforded the USDA a mere two years to finalize the rulemaking process. During a presentation earlier this month at the Food Label Conference, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst with the USDA’s AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, noted that the timeline for such a new federal law is quite tight under typical circumstances. With the recent political shifts following the election of a new president from a different party and with distinct governing philosophies, Washington has become unpredictable, complicating matters further. Many new rules and regulations that were already in progress when President Trump took office were temporarily put on hold as new leadership was appointed and confirmed.
In her presentation at the Food Label Conference, Huberty explained that the questions regarding the law were prepared and ready by the end of 2016, but the change in leadership delayed their release to the public. “We’re a little behind on getting this done by 2018,” Huberty stated. “We’re still on track, but slightly delayed.” The questions issued this week will provide the USDA with valuable insights into industry perspectives on various provisions of the law and their optimal implementation. The new law, crafted by lawmakers, was intentionally left with some ambiguous areas for food industry experts to clarify.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association expressed appreciation for the USDA’s progress in advancing the rulemaking process. “GMA thanks USDA for taking this significant step to implement the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s inquiries,” stated the industry group in a written statement. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rule-making process, we aim to help ensure the law is enacted in accordance with the biotechnology disclosure legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA is moving forward with the rulemaking, the crucial question remains: will the agency complete its work on time? A year is not a long period for drafting a proposal, allowing for public comments, and finalizing the regulation, but Huberty assured attendees that the USDA remains on track. While optimism is encouraging, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs continue to be one of the more contentious issues in food manufacturing today.
Beyond the debates surrounding the definition of GMOs and the exemptions, the law also includes a controversial provision regarding labeling. It allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many supporters of the law. Huberty mentioned that a study investigating the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to conclude next month. Upon completion, this study is likely to reignite discussions about the most effective methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
In addition, it is worth noting that the law may have implications for the labeling of calcium citrate, other name calcium salt of citric acid, and its related products. The intersection of GMO labeling and the regulation of substances like calcium citrate highlights the complexities involved in food labeling and consumer awareness. As the USDA continues its rulemaking journey, the industry awaits clarity on these crucial matters.