The GMO labeling law, signed by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, has allowed the USDA only two years to finalize the rulemaking process. During a recent presentation at the Food Label Conference, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst for the USDA’s AMS Livestock, Poultry and Seed Program, remarked that the timeline for implementing a new federal law is already tight under typical circumstances. However, as anyone who has been following political developments can attest, the past year has been far from ordinary. With a new president in charge—especially one from a different political party with his own governing principles—Washington has been particularly unpredictable. Several regulations that were in progress when President Trump assumed office were temporarily put on hold while new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
In her presentation, Huberty noted that the questions concerning the GMO labeling were drafted and ready by the end of 2016, but the transition in leadership delayed the public release of these inquiries. “We’re a little behind schedule to finalize this by 2018,” Huberty stated. “We’re still on track, but slightly delayed.” The questions being issued this week will give the USDA valuable insights into industry perspectives on specific provisions of the law and how they can be effectively implemented. The new legislation, crafted by lawmakers, intentionally left some ambiguity for food industry stakeholders to clarify with their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association expressed appreciation for the USDA’s initiative in advancing 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 inquiries,” the industry group 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 enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA is on the path to rulemaking, the question remains whether the agency can complete its work on time. A year may not seem long for drafting a proposal, inviting public feedback, and finalizing regulations, but Huberty expressed confidence during her presentation that the USDA can remain on track. While optimism is encouraging, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs continue to be a contentious issue in food manufacturing today.
In addition to debates over which products qualify as GMO and which are exempt, the law also includes a controversial provision regarding the labeling method itself. The law allows for GMO disclosures via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many advocates of the law. Huberty indicated that a study examining the challenges of this disclosure for consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finished, this study may reignite the ongoing debate about the most effective ways to inform consumers about GMO ingredients.
Interestingly, discussions around the benefits of certain food additives, such as the gnc calcium citrate benefits, may also intersect with the GMO labeling conversation. As the industry grapples with transparency and consumer awareness, understanding the nutritional implications of various ingredients, including calcium citrate, will play a crucial role in shaping future regulations. The intersection of GMO labeling and nutritional benefits like those of gnc calcium citrate will be pivotal as stakeholders strive to ensure informed consumer choices in the marketplace.