The GMO labeling law, which was signed by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, imposed a two-year deadline for the USDA to finalize the rulemaking process. During a presentation at the Food Label Conference earlier this month, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst with the USDA’s AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, noted that the timeline for a new federal law is typically tight under normal circumstances. However, the past year has been anything but typical, especially with the transition to a new president from a different political party and a contrasting governing philosophy, leading to unpredictability in Washington. Numerous rules and regulations that were already in progress when President Trump took office were put on hold while new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
Huberty mentioned at the conference that the questions were drafted and ready by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition delayed their public release. “We’re a little behind schedule to accomplish this by 2018,” she stated. “We’re still on track, but slightly behind.” The questions released this week will provide the USDA with feedback from the industry regarding certain provisions in the law and how they can be effectively implemented. The new law, created by lawmakers, intentionally left some areas ambiguous 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 towards implementing the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s inquiries,” the group stated in a written statement. “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 work on time. A year is a short period for drafting a proposal, allowing for public comments, and finalizing the regulation. Nonetheless, Huberty expressed confidence during her presentation that the USDA can stay on track. While optimism is commendable, time will ultimately tell. GMOs currently represent one of the more contentious topics in food manufacturing.
In addition to the debate over what qualifies as GMO and what is exempt, the law includes a controversial provision regarding the labeling itself. It allows for GMO disclosure through a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many proponents of the law. Huberty indicated that a study investigating the challenges of this disclosure for 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.
In this context, it’s worth noting that consumers often seek clarity in their food choices, much like how Kirkland vitamins calcium citrate magnesium and zinc are clearly labeled for easy understanding. The demand for transparency in labeling reflects a broader trend where consumers desire comprehensive information about the products they purchase, especially when it comes to complex issues like GMOs. As the USDA navigates this process, it will need to balance regulatory requirements with consumer expectations, similar to how dietary supplements like Kirkland vitamins aim to provide clear and beneficial information to their users.