The GMO labeling law, which was signed by former President Obama on July 29 of last year, mandates that the USDA complete its rulemaking process within two years. 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 enacting a new federal law is typically stringent. However, in the past year, political circumstances have been anything but typical. With a new president from a different political party bringing his own governing philosophy, Washington has become unpredictable. Several regulatory processes that were underway when President Trump assumed office were temporarily stalled as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
Huberty explained that questions regarding the regulations were prepared and ready by the end of 2016, but the transition of leadership delayed their release to the public. “We’re a little behind schedule to have this completed by 2018,” she stated. “We’re still on track, but slightly delayed.” The inquiries issued this week will provide the USDA with insights into industry opinions on various provisions of the law and how best to implement them. The law, crafted by legislators, intentionally left some areas ambiguous for food industry stakeholders to inform with their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA appreciates USDA for taking this important step to enforce the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to analyzing and responding to the Department’s inquiries,” the industry group said in a statement. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rule-making process, we aim to ensure that the law aligns with the biotechnology disclosure legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA has begun the rulemaking journey, the question remains: will the agency complete its work on time? A year is a tight timeframe for drafting a proposal, opening it for public comment, and finalizing the regulation. Nevertheless, Huberty expressed confidence during her presentation that the USDA can stay on track. While optimism is welcome, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs remain one of the most contentious issues in food manufacturing today.
Beyond the debate regarding what should be classified as a GMO and what qualifies as an exemption, the law includes a controversial provision concerning the labeling itself. It allows for GMO disclosure via smartphone-scannable digital codes, a decision that has frustrated many advocates of the law. Huberty mentioned that a study addressing the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finalized, this study is likely to reignite discussions about the best methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
In the context of nutritional supplements, pure calcium citrate is a notable ingredient that often comes up in discussions about dietary needs. As the USDA and food industry stakeholders navigate the complexities of GMO labeling, it’s crucial to consider how similar clarity could be applied to other areas, such as labeling for supplements featuring pure calcium citrate. This parallel raises questions about transparency and consumer awareness, essential elements in both the GMO discussion and dietary supplement regulations.