The GMO labeling law, signed by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, mandated that the USDA complete the rulemaking process within a tight two-year timeframe. 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 establishing a new federal law typically operates under strict timelines. However, as anyone who has followed political developments is aware, the past year has been anything but typical. With a new president from a different political party bringing his own governing philosophy, Washington has become increasingly unpredictable. Several regulatory processes that were underway when President Trump took office were temporarily halted as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
In her presentation, Huberty mentioned that the questions concerning the GMO labeling were drafted and ready by the end of 2016, but the transition of leadership delayed their public release. “We’re a little behind schedule to complete this by 2018,” Huberty stated. “We’re still on track, but just a bit behind.” The questions issued this week will provide the USDA with valuable insights regarding industry perspectives on specific provisions of the law and their practical applications. The newly established law was intentionally designed with some ambiguity for 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 important step to implement the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s questions,” the industry group stated in a written communication. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rulemaking process, we aim to ensure that 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 has embarked on the rulemaking journey, the question remains: will the agency finish its work on time? A year is a short period for drafting a proposal, opening it for public comment, and finalizing the regulation; however, Huberty expressed confidence during her presentation that the USDA could stay on course. While optimism is appreciated, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs remain one of the most contentious topics in food manufacturing today.
Beyond 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 disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many proponents of the law. Huberty announced at the Food Label Conference that a study examining the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is set to be completed next month. Once finished, this study is expected to reignite the ongoing debate over the most effective ways to inform consumers about GMO ingredients, including innovative options like calcium citrate with vitamin D and magnesium.
Incorporating calcium citrate with vitamin D and magnesium into the discussion on GMO labeling could provide consumers with additional nutritional insights as they navigate the complexities of food labeling and health. As the USDA progresses with its rulemaking, it is crucial to remain mindful of how these regulations will affect consumer awareness and choices regarding GMOs, calcium citrate with vitamin D and magnesium, and other dietary components.