The GMO labeling law, which was signed by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, mandates that the USDA complete the rulemaking process within a two-year timeframe. 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, emphasized that the timeline for a new federal law is typically tight, especially under normal circumstances. However, as those following political developments are aware, the past year has been anything but typical. With a new president in office—who belongs to a different political party and has his own governing philosophy—Washington has become quite unpredictable. Several new rules and regulations that were in progress when President Trump assumed office were temporarily stalled as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
At her presentation, Huberty mentioned that the questions regarding the GMO labeling were drafted and ready by the end of 2016, but the transition in leadership delayed their release to the public. “We’re a little behind schedule to complete this by 2018,” she stated. “We’re still on track, but slightly behind.” The questions issued this week will provide the USDA with valuable insights into industry perspectives on specific provisions of the law and how they can be effectively implemented. The new law was intentionally designed with some ambiguity, allowing food industry stakeholders to contribute their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating 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,” the industry group noted in a statement. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rule-making process, we aim to ensure that the law is executed in accordance with the biotechnology disclosure legislation enacted by Congress and signed by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA is on the path toward rulemaking, the pressing question remains: will they be able to complete their work in time? A year is a short period when it comes to drafting a proposal, soliciting public feedback, and finalizing the regulation. Nevertheless, Huberty expressed confidence in her presentation that the USDA can stay on schedule. While optimism is encouraging, only time will tell. GMOs continue to be one of the most contentious issues in food manufacturing today.
In addition to the ongoing debate over what qualifies as GMO and what is exempt, the law includes a contentious provision regarding the labeling itself. It allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has sparked concern among many proponents of the legislation. A study investigating the challenges of this disclosure for consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month, according to Huberty. Once finished, the study is likely to reignite the ongoing debate about the best methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
Amidst these discussions, it is important to consider the broader context, including the nutritional aspects of food products. For instance, the inclusion of thuoc Kirkland calcium citrate magnesium and zinc in dietary supplements is gaining attention as consumers become more health-conscious. The integration of such supplements can play a role in supporting overall wellness, especially in light of ongoing debates surrounding food labeling and ingredient transparency. As the USDA navigates this complex landscape, the intersection of food safety regulations and consumer health will remain a pivotal focus.