A key debate regarding products that contain genetically modified organisms — specifically, the question of whether they should have to carry labels stating as much — is set for a showdown.
Last week, legislation cleared the Senate Agricultural Committee that would block state-level laws mandating GMO labeling. The legislation, which the committee passed with bipartisan support in a 14-6 vote, favors a voluntary national standard rather than mandatory labeling. It would pre-empt a labeling law in Vermont, the first of its kind in the U.S., that’s set to go into effect in July.
The bill, backed by Agriculture Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), could be called to a Senate vote as early as next week, according to The Huffington Post’s sources. The House already approved similar legislation last year.
Backers of the Roberts bill, which include prominent industry figures like ConAgra, DuPont, Coca-Cola and Walmart, appear confident in the proposal’s chances, even as a rival group of senators has proposed alternative legislation.
The alternative bill, introduced last week, aims to protect state-level GMO laws while also working toward a plan that would avoid a national patchwork of conflicting regulations. It is backed by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
The Democrats’ bill outlines four different ways manufacturers can disclose the use of GMOs on the already-required nutrition facts panel. They include a catchall statement that the product was “produced with genetic engineering” at the end of the ingredient list and the inclusion of a symbol developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that would note the presence of GMOs. Neither front-panel disclosures nor “warnings” would be required.
In a statement provided to HuffPost, Merkley said the legislation is a step toward “a solution that works for businesses and consumers alike.” Companies supporting the bill include Ben & Jerry’s, the Campbell Soup Company and Amy’s Kitchen.
“There is a way to give consumers the information they are asking for without placing unfair or conflicting requirements on food producers,” Merkley’s statement reads. “This legislation provides the common-sense pathway forward.”
The Coalition for Safe Affordable Food, the industry-backed group pushing Roberts’ bill, was unimpressed by the Merkley legislation. In a statement, the group said the proposal “would end up stigmatizing a technology the farmers [Merkley] represents rely on… It can’t pass, period.”
“This is another mandatory labeling solution in search of a non-existent problem,” the CFSAF statement reads. “Mandatory on-package labeling is reserved for important health and safety information or to distinguish material difference in products. This doesn’t apply to biotech labeling because the overwhelming scientific consensus shows that GMOs are completely safe.”
The FDA agrees, and has noted that foods containing GMOs are regulated by the agency and must meet the same safety requirements as non-GMO foods. The agency has backed voluntary labeling of GMOs. Still, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has noted that GMO crops could carry an environmental risk.
Questions of safety aside, proponents of labeling argue that consumers have a right to know as much information as possible about the food they eat.
Andrew Kimbrell, founder and executive director of the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group in favor of GMO labeling, called Roberts’ legislation “a crazy bill” and “a non-starter,” pointing out that it contains “science-backed” language that would add information about the benefits of biotechnology to food labels. Kimbrell argued that this aspect of the bill would give an unfair, taxpayer-funded advantage to firms relying on GMO crops.
“It’s not just taking away the right to know [what’s in our food],” Kimbrell told HuffPost. “It’s adding insult to injury.”
English 
Spanish