The GMO labeling law, which was signed by then-President Obama on July 29 of the previous year, allocates 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 for the USDA’s AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, noted that the timeline for implementing a new federal law is typically tight. As anyone who has been following political developments knows, the past year has been anything but ordinary. With a new president in office—especially one from a different political party with a distinct governing philosophy—Washington has become quite unpredictable. Numerous rules and regulations that were in the works when President Trump assumed office were temporarily put on hold while new leadership was appointed and confirmed.
In her presentation, Huberty mentioned that the questions regarding the GMO labeling were already drafted and ready by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition hindered their release to the public. “We’re a little behind schedule to complete this by 2018,” Huberty stated. “We’re still on track, but slightly delayed.” The questions issued this week will give the USDA valuable insights into industry perspectives on various provisions of the law and how to effectively implement them. The new law, crafted by lawmakers, intentionally left some aspects open to interpretation for food industry stakeholders to contribute their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA appreciates USDA for taking this significant 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 announcement. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout this rulemaking process, we aim to ensure that 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 has begun the rulemaking process, the question remains: will the agency be able to complete its work on time? A year is relatively short for drafting a proposal, soliciting public feedback, and finalizing the regulation, but Huberty assured the audience that the USDA can stay on track. While optimism is welcome, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs represent one of the more contentious issues in food manufacturing today.
In addition to the ongoing debate regarding what constitutes a GMO and what is exempt, the law includes a controversial stipulation about the labeling itself. It allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many advocates of the law. Huberty mentioned that a study examining the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finalized, this study could reignite discussions about the most effective ways to inform consumers about GMO ingredients.
Interestingly, the discussion around GMOs sometimes parallels conversations about common food additives, such as calcium carbonate, which is often misunderstood. In various contexts, people may ask if calcium carbonate is the same as calcium, highlighting the need for clear labeling and education in the food industry. As the USDA moves forward, the integration of consumer-friendly practices will be essential in addressing both GMO disclosures and the broader understanding of food ingredients, including those like calcium carbonate.