Bills
| 3.23.22

Do State GMO Label Laws Need to be Blocked in Favor of a To Be Determined National Standard? (S. 764)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is S. 764?

(Updated July 28, 2020)

This bill was enacted on July 29, 2016

Update July 6, 2016: This bill was co-opted through the amendment process from its original form to serve as the legislative vehicle for genetically modified organism (GMOs) labeling standards. Originally, this legislation reauthorized the National Sea Grant College Program through 2021, with funding going to sea grant colleges, sea grant institutes, sea grant programs, and sea grant projects.

Then it served as the Senate version of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which would let the FDA to create a nationwide, uniform system for reviewing and labeling genetically engineered foods before they go to market after studying the issue. It was proposed in response to contentious efforts by nearly 30 states to implement their own GMO labeling regulations, this bill would allow the establishment of federal labeling standards that preempt all state and local laws on the matter. The legislation was then replaced another similar GMO labeling proposal crafted by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

In its current form, this bill would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to create a national GMO labeling standard within two years which would supersede all state or local labeling requirements. All food manufacturers would be required to have a label related to GMO content of some sort was the FDA's standard goes into effect.

The FDA would be responsible for figuring out all aspects of the labeling standard — like when a disclosure is required and how it evaluates claims. Once a GMO product has made it through the federal review process, it would be treated as no more or less safe than an organic product. (Certified organic products would also be able to claim that they're "non-GMO").

The new GMO label could be required to take a number of forms, whether it's text or a symbol of some sort, or a bar code. Businesses would also have alternative ways to comply with the labeling requirement when dealing with small packages. Small food manufacturers would be given an extra year to comply with the eventual standard.

There would be noteworthy exceptions to the eventual national standard — meat and dairy products. Both wouldn't be required to have a GMO label simply because the animal that produced the meat or dairy may have eaten bioengineered feedstock. Restaurants also wouldn't be required to label food that they serve.

The federal government wouldn't have the power to recall products that don't comply with the standard, and this bill wouldn't create federal penalties for violations. It does, however, leave the door open for states creating their own punishments.

Argument in favor

National labeling standards would level the playing field for producers by avoiding a costly state-by-state patchwork of labeling regulations. This bill also gives consumers more information about their food and could save them over $500 per year.

Argument opposed

Preventing states from keeping or enacting GMO labeling regulations that are stronger than the new federal standards ignores public opinion in places that want strict requirements. People should be able to know what’s in their food.

Impact

Anyone who eats, advocates for and against GMO labeling; food, agricultural, and other businesses that must comply with the regulations; states or localities that would otherwise enact their own GMO labeling regulations; and the FDA.

Cost of S. 764

The CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost a total of about $4 million over the 2016-2020 period. It would also increase both direct spending and revenues by an estimated $1 million each annually, and as a result its net impact on the federal budget would be negligible.

Additional Info

Of Note: While the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization have all said that GMOs are safe, consumers are still worried about what is going into their food. About 90 percent of the corn, soybeans, and cotton grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered — usually to make them more pest resistant or use less water.

After a 2013-14 state legislative period that saw 28 states consider GMO labeling legislation, so far in 2015 there have been 101 state-level bills addressing GMO labeling introduced. 15 of those bills have become law in 13 states. Most of these laws dealt with using scientific research to assess the best methods to regulate GMOs, and assessments of the need to regulate them, while four bills actually adopted food labeling standards.

There are also groups lobbying for state-level initiatives to require GMO labeling in 21 states, and in the 2014 elections groups in Colorado and Oregon managed to get their initiatives on the ballot. The Colorado initiative was rejected by a 66 to 34 percent margin, but Oregon’s ballot measure was defeated by a narrow margin of 50.03 to 49.97 percent — with only 837 voters making up the difference.

A law in Vermont related to GMO labels went into effect in July 2016, prompting the Senate to amend and consider this legislation.

In-Depth: When introducing the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (the predecessor to the current GMO bill) in the House, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) cited positive feedback from both producers and consumers following a December hearing that the bill would “provide clarity and transparency in food labeling, support innovation, and keep food affordable.”

Cosponsor Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) concurred, expressing skepticism about the ability of states to independently regulate food labels: 

“The potential for a 50 state patchwork of varying labeling standards would increase costs for producers and translate into higher prices for consumers to the tune of more than $500 per year for the average family.”

Groups such as Just Label It!, the Environmental Working Group, and the Center for Food Safety have rallied against the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, derisively calling it the “Deny Consumers the Right to Know Act.” The executive director of the Center for Food Safety said that:

“This bill is simply not the solution Americans are looking for. An overwhelming majority of American consumers want to know if their food has been produced using genetic engineering. That is their right and they will not relent until Congress or the FDA heed their call.”

This House version of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act was approved by the House Agriculture Committee via voice vote, and currently features 106 cosponsors — including 91 Republicans and 15 Democrats.



Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user quin.anya)