The GMO labeling law, which was enacted by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, allocated only two years for the USDA to finalize the rulemaking process. 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 a new federal law is typically tight, even under normal circumstances. However, as anyone following political news is aware, the past year has been anything but typical. With a new president from a different political party and his own governing philosophy, the political landscape in Washington has become unpredictable. Many new rules and regulations that were underway before President Trump took office were temporarily put on hold while new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
Huberty explained at the conference that the questions surrounding the GMO labeling were prepared and ready to be released by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition impeded the process of public engagement. “We’re a little behind schedule to complete this by 2018,” she remarked during her presentation. “We’re still on track, but slightly delayed.” The questions released this week will help the USDA gauge industry opinions on specific provisions of the law and determine how best to implement them. The new law, crafted by lawmakers, intentionally left some ambiguity for food industry stakeholders to clarify based on their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA thanks USDA for taking this important step to implement the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s questions,” the organization stated in a written comment. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rule-making process, we aim to ensure the law is executed in accordance with the biotechnology disclosure legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA is embarking on the rulemaking journey, the pressing question remains: will the agency meet its deadlines? A year is a short timeframe for drafting a proposal, inviting public commentary, and finalizing regulations. However, Huberty expressed confidence during her presentation that the USDA could stay on track. While optimism is commendable, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs remain one of the more contentious topics in food manufacturing today.
In addition to the ongoing debate about what qualifies as GMO and what is exempt, the law also features a controversial aspect regarding the labeling itself. The law allows for GMO disclosure through a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has displeased many proponents of the legislation. 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 most effective methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
Furthermore, in the context of health and nutrition, bariatric calcium citrate chews have come into focus as a relevant supplement for individuals undergoing weight loss surgery. As the FDA and USDA navigate the complexities of GMO regulations, it’s crucial to consider not just the implications for food labeling but also for nutritional products such as bariatric calcium citrate chews, which cater to specific dietary needs. By emphasizing transparency in labeling practices, stakeholders can better educate the public about both GMOs and essential dietary supplements, fostering a more informed consumer base.