The mandatory GMO labeling bill introduced by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and Ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow passed the Senate and the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Obama on July 29, 2016. Read OTA’s messages to our membership.
Joining 64 countries across the world, consumer products in the United States, with certain defined exceptions, will be required to label if they contain GMOs. Important clarifying additions include that products that are not required to label (such as products of animals fed GMO feed) do not automatically qualify for non-GMO claims in the marketplace. This bill reinforces Organic as the original non-GMO market claim and assures consumers that the USDA organic seal is the gold standard for consumers looking to avoid GMO’s, toxic pesticides, and so much more.
On the surface, we understand how some may be fundamentally dissatisfied with supporting this compromise solution because it includes an option to reveal the presence of GMOs through technology that would require a smartphone and internet access. But it also covers more products than the Vermont Law if it goes into effect. When it comes to protecting organic agriculture and trade, we have to take the long view. If you consider what the opponents of GMO labeling proposed, and what the voluntary and state by state options would have offered, it’s hard not to see how this mandatory federal legislation is a constructive solution to a complex issue. The recognition in law that certified organic is non-GMO and can always make that claim is an enormous win.
While not perfect, this bill covers thousands more products than Vermont’s GMO labeling law and other state initiatives. It will not allow products that are exempt from informing consumers about their GMO content to automatically slap on a non-GMO claim. And it makes a huge advance in recognizing and safeguarding USDA certified organic as the gold standard for transparency and non-GMO status. READ MORE >>
Transparency has always been a foundational principle for organic and this national, mandatory bill takes an important step forward in providing more information for all consumers. As this GMO labeling bill is enacted and implemented, OTA hopes that all companies, faced with the choice of how to disclose GMO ingredients, will choose to print a simple and clear statement of GMO content on the product label as the most effective and transparent way to communicate with consumers. OTA stresses that the simplest and surest way today to be guaranteed that the products they buy are non-GMO is to look for USDA Organic.
USDA clarifies interpretation of scope and applicability of Stabenow-Roberts GMO labeling bill
After the Stabenow-Roberts GMO labeling bill was introduced in June 2016, many were rightly concerned by the FDA’s comments that they would read the bill narrowly to not cover highly processed products or emerging technologies such as gene editing. The Office of General Counsel at the USDA – the agency that would implement this bill if it were to become law – has since clarified its interpretation of the scope and applicability of the proposed legislation. USDA clarified that the proposed legislation:
- provides authority to mandate labeling of food including all commercially grown GMO corn, soybeans, sugar, and canola crops used in food today;
- provides authority to require labeling of food products that contain genetically modified material resulting from gene editing techniques;
- provides authority to mandate labeling of food, including products that may contain highly refined oils, sugars, or high fructose corn syrup that have been produced or developed from genetic modification techniques.
As the agency with implementing authority, it is the USDA, not the FDA, who is responsible for interpreting and executing this legislation if it becomes law.
OTA Policy Position
OTA supports mandatory labeling of all agricultural GMOs and their products. OTA supports the consumer’s right to know, and to choose foods, fiber and personal care products based on environmental, personal health, religious, dietary or other preferences. Labeling of GMO seed, products grown from GMO seed or stock, or made with ingredients and byproducts of GMO crops is necessary for farmer, supply chain and consumer choice.
OTA’s on-going work includes weighing in through open comment processes on mandatory and voluntary GMO labeling initiatives and staying proactive on the legislative front, with regard to any related bills or regulation. OTA opposed the Pompeo Act, which passed the House of Representatives in July 2015. That legislation, if enacted, would have created a voluntary standard for labeling products as non-GMO – a standard that is unnecessary, does not solve the problem, and would conflict with the existing organic standard. OTA continues opposes any legislation that does not protect organic certification as the gold standard for a non-GMO claim in the marketplace. OTA also opposes any voluntary labeling solutions. OTA applauds Senator Stabenow for championing the USDA Organic seal, and for protecting organic as the original assurance of non-GMO ingredients and more, while crafting a mandatory federal solution to the challenging and controversial debate on GMO labeling and consumer transparency.
In November 2015, FDA released final guidance on voluntary labeling of products containing GMOs – after initially publishing that guidance in draft form in 2001. The draft guidance, released in January 2001, explains that consumers do not understand the acronyms “GMO” and “GM,” and prefer label statements referring to bioengineering. The public comment period lasted until March 2001, although the docket has remained open since then. OTA’s Organic = Non-GMO PLUS Task Force assisted OTA is developing comments to FDA on the common terminology used on existing organic products prior to FDA’s release of final guidance.
OTA's Position on FDA's Final Guidance
The Organic Trade Association is perplexed that FDA finalized this guidance without reopening the process for a new round of public comment. Given that over 14 years have passed since the draft guidance was published and significant changes have occurred with respect to public perception of organic foods and GMOs in general, the public deserves to have another chance to comment on this very critical issue.
OTA objects to FDA’s decision to not endorse the term “Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)” as an acceptable term to describe the use of modern biotechnology. GMO is a commonly used term that USDA uses, consumers understand, and an industry has developed around. All communications from NOP since 2000 refer to “GMOs.” Since 1997, the organic industry has grown from $3 billion to almost $37 billion with the acceptance of “GMO” as the common use terminology. OTA has argued that any change would be extremely disruptive to years of organic product and market development. Furthermore, a change from this historical use could cause consumers to question whether the organic standards vis a vis GMO have changed. While FDA states it will not pursue action against the GMO acronym in the marketplace, surely FDA could have recognized existing federal regulation and overwhelming consumer familiarity with the term.
As a self-evident confirmation, OTA acknowledges that FDA has reaffirmed organic certification by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP) is sufficient to substantiate a claim that a food was not produced with GMOs. The FDA specifically noted that this applies to foods sold or labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic.” The OTA commends the FDA for hearing organic stakeholders and the OTA on this point, and commends the agency for recognizing that the integrity and stringency of the U.S. organic regulatory and certification system ensures consumers that organic foods are produced and handled without the use of GMOs, including adequate segregation to assure that genetically engineered foods do not become mixed with organic foods.