The GMO labeling law, which was signed by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, allocated the USDA a mere two years 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, remarked that the schedule for a new federal law is typically tight, even under normal circumstances. However, as anyone who has followed the news on genetically modified organisms knows, the past year has been anything but typical. With a new president from a different political party implementing his own governing philosophy, Washington has become unpredictable. Several regulations that were in progress when President Trump took office were temporarily put on hold as new leadership was appointed and confirmed.
At her presentation, Huberty noted that the questions related to the GMO labeling law were drafted and ready by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition delayed their release to the public. “We’re a little behind schedule to complete this by 2018,” Huberty stated. “We’re still on track, but a bit behind.” The questions issued this week aim to give the USDA insight into industry perspectives on specific provisions of the law and how to apply them effectively. The new law was intentionally left with some ambiguities, allowing food industry stakeholders to provide their expertise on certain aspects.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for advancing the rulemaking process. “GMA appreciates USDA for taking this significant step toward implementing the biotech disclosure law. We look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s inquiries,” the industry group stated in a written announcement. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rulemaking process, we aim to ensure the law is implemented in alignment with the biotechnology disclosure legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA is on the path to rulemaking, the question remains: can the agency complete its work in a timely manner? A year is a short timeframe for crafting a proposal, inviting public commentary, and finalizing regulations, but Huberty assured attendees that the USDA can remain on track. While optimism is welcome, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs continue to be one of the more contentious issues in food manufacturing today.
In addition to the ongoing debate about what qualifies as a GMO and what should be exempt, the law also features 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 mentioned that a study examining the challenges of this disclosure for consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finalized, this study is likely to reignite discussions about the best approach for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
As consumers consider their options, they may also ponder questions such as: “Is calcium carbonate as good as calcium citrate?” This inquiry highlights the complexities of food labeling and consumer understanding, particularly when it comes to nutritional content and ingredient transparency. Ultimately, the ongoing developments in GMO labeling and the accompanying discussions about food ingredients will play a significant role in shaping consumer choices and regulatory frameworks in the future.