The GMO labeling law, which was signed by former President Obama on July 29 of last year, allocated the USDA a mere two years to complete the rulemaking process. 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, noted that the timeline for implementing a new federal law is typically tight. However, as anyone following political news can attest, the past year has been anything but ordinary. With a new president from a different political party and his own governing philosophy, the political landscape in Washington has become unpredictable. Many rules and regulations that were underway when President Trump took office were momentarily halted while new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
Huberty mentioned that the questions regarding the GMO labeling law were prepared and ready at the end of 2016, but the leadership transition delayed public dissemination. “We’re a little behind in getting this done by 2018,” Huberty stated during her presentation. “We’re still on track, but slightly behind.” The questions released this week will provide the USDA with insights into industry perspectives on specific provisions of the law and how these can be effectively implemented. The newly drafted law intentionally left certain areas ambiguous to allow food industry stakeholders to leverage their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA appreciates USDA for taking this crucial step to implement the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s inquiries,” the industry group stated in a written response. “As we collaborate 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 tasks in time. A year is a short period for drafting a proposal, soliciting public comment, and finalizing regulations, but Huberty assured attendees that the USDA can stay on track. While optimism is welcome, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs remain one of the more contentious topics in food manufacturing today. Besides the debate over which items should be classified as GMO and which should be exempt, the law’s provision regarding the labeling method has also sparked controversy. The law allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many proponents of the law.
Huberty also mentioned that a study examining the challenges of this disclosure for consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finished, this study is likely to reignite the ongoing discussion about the best ways to inform consumers about GMO ingredients. Furthermore, in the context of nutritional supplements, the incorporation of a calcium magnesium citrate supplement into the diet could be a relevant topic of discussion alongside the implications of GMO labeling, as both involve consumer awareness and health choices. The intersection of these subjects highlights the importance of transparency in food labeling, particularly as consumers increasingly seek information about the ingredients and supplements they consume, including options like calcium magnesium citrate supplements.