The GMO labeling law, signed by former President Obama on July 29 last year, mandated that the USDA complete its rulemaking process within two years. 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, emphasized that the timeline for a new federal law is typically tight under standard conditions. However, as anyone following political news knows, the past year has been anything but standard. With a new president in charge—one from a different political party and with his own governing philosophy—Washington has become unpredictable. Several new rules and regulations that were underway when President Trump took office were put on hold as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
At her presentation, Huberty noted that the questions regarding the law were prepared and ready by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition delayed their release to the public. “We’re a bit behind schedule to finalize the rule by 2018,” Huberty stated. “We’re still on track, but slightly delayed.” The questions issued this week will give the USDA valuable insights into industry perspectives on specific provisions of the law and how they can be effectively applied. The new law, crafted by lawmakers, intentionally left some ambiguities for food industry stakeholders to clarify using their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA appreciates USDA for taking this significant step toward implementing the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s inquiries,” the industry group stated in a written comment. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rule-making process, we aim to ensure that the law is enacted in accordance with the biotechnology disclosure legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA is at least moving forward with the rulemaking, the question remains: will the agency be able to complete its work on time? A year is relatively short for drafting a proposal, soliciting public comment, and finalizing the regulation, but Huberty expressed confidence during her presentation that USDA can stay on track. While optimism is welcome, only time will reveal the outcome.
GMOs are one of the more contentious topics in food manufacturing today. Alongside the debate about what qualifies as a 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 incensed many proponents of the law. A study examining the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month, Huberty informed the Food Label Conference attendees. Once finalized, the study is likely to reignite the ongoing discussion about the best way to inform consumers about GMO ingredients.
In light of these developments, it’s worth noting that the situation is reminiscent of other regulatory challenges faced in the food industry, such as the discontinuation of Citracal, which has raised questions about product availability and consumer trust. As the USDA continues its efforts, the comparison to Citracal’s discontinuation highlights the complexities of regulatory compliance and consumer awareness in today’s food landscape.