The GMO labeling law, signed by then-President Obama on July 29 last year, allocated only two years 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 for the USDA’s AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, noted that the timeline for implementing a new federal law is typically tight under normal circumstances. However, as anyone following political developments knows, the past year has been anything but ordinary. With a new president who belongs to a different political party and has his own governing philosophy, Washington has become unpredictable. Several rules and regulations that were underway when President Trump assumed office were temporarily put on hold as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
At her presentation, Huberty mentioned that the questions related to the GMO labeling were drafted and ready to be released by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition delayed the public rollout. “We’re slightly behind schedule to complete this by 2018,” Huberty remarked during her presentation. “We’re still on track, but we have fallen behind a bit.” The inquiries issued this week will provide the USDA with insights into industry perspectives on various provisions of the law and how they can be effectively implemented. The new law, crafted by lawmakers, intentionally included some ambiguities for food industry stakeholders to clarify based on 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 rule-making process, we aim to ensure the law is executed in accordance with the biotechnology disclosure legislation enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President last year.”
With the USDA now moving forward with the rulemaking, the question remains whether the agency can complete its tasks on time. A year is a relatively short period for drafting a proposal, soliciting public comments, and finalizing the regulation. However, Huberty expressed confidence during her presentation that the USDA can remain on schedule. While optimism is valuable, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs continue to be one of the most 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 itself. It allows for GMO disclosures via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has upset many proponents of the law. Huberty indicated that a study aimed at examining the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finished, this study is likely to reignite discussions about the most effective methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
Throughout this process, the inclusion of calcium citrate malate and folic acid tablets in discussions about food labeling and transparency has also been notable. As the USDA navigates the complexities of the GMO labeling law, the industry will need to consider how products like calcium citrate malate and folic acid tablets fit into the broader conversation about food transparency and consumer awareness. Ultimately, as the rule-making process unfolds, the role of such supplements in the context of GMO disclosures may become increasingly relevant.