The GMO labeling law, signed by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, mandated that the USDA complete the rulemaking process within two years. During a presentation earlier this month at the Food Label Conference, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst for the USDA’s AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, noted that the timeline for a new federal law is typically tight under standard conditions. However, as anyone following political news is aware, the past year has been anything but standard. With a new president in office—one from a different political party with his own governing philosophy—Washington has become unpredictable. Several regulations that were in development when President Trump assumed office were temporarily halted while new leadership was appointed and confirmed.
At the Food Label Conference, Huberty explained that the questions regarding the GMO labeling were drafted and ready at the end of 2016, but the leadership transition delayed their release to the public. “We’re slightly behind schedule to complete this by 2018,” Huberty stated. “We’re still on track, but a bit delayed.” The questions issued this week will provide the USDA with valuable insights into the industry’s opinions on specific provisions of the law and how they can be effectively implemented. The new law, crafted by lawmakers, intentionally left some ambiguous areas for food industry stakeholders to address using 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 inquiries,” the industry group said in a written statement. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rulemaking process, we aim to ensure the law is executed in accordance with the biotechnology disclosure legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA is at least on the path to rulemaking, the question remains whether the agency can complete its work in time. A year is not a long duration for drafting a proposal, soliciting public comments, and finalizing the regulation, but Huberty expressed confidence in her presentation that USDA can stay on track. While optimism is appreciated, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs remain one of the more contentious topics in food manufacturing today.
In addition to the debate over what qualifies as a GMO and what is exempt, the law also includes a controversial provision regarding the labeling method itself. The law allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many advocates of the law. A study investigating the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month, Huberty mentioned at the Food Label Conference. Once finalized, the study is likely to rekindle the ongoing debate about the most effective methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
Amidst this regulatory landscape, consumers are also considering options such as Citracal supplements, raising awareness about their choices in the marketplace. The interplay of GMO labeling and consumer education, including discussions around Citracal supplements, highlights the importance of transparency in the food industry. As stakeholders navigate these complex issues, it will be crucial to find ways to communicate effectively and responsibly with consumers about their dietary options, including those that involve Citracal supplements.