The GMO labeling law, signed by former President Obama on July 29 of last year, mandated that the USDA complete the rulemaking process within a two-year timeframe. 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, emphasized that the timeline for a new federal law is typically tight under normal circumstances. However, as anyone who has followed political events knows, the past year has been anything but typical. With a new president from a different political party and his distinct governing philosophy, Washington has become unpredictable. Many rules and regulations that were underway when President Trump took office were temporarily stalled as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
At the Food Label Conference, Huberty noted that the questions regarding the GMO labeling were drafted and ready by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition caused delays in their release to the public. “We’re a little behind in completing this by 2018,” Huberty remarked during her presentation. “We’re still on track, but slightly delayed.” The questions issued this week will provide the USDA with valuable insights into industry opinions on specific provisions of the law and their optimal implementation. The new law, crafted by lawmakers, intentionally included some ambiguous areas 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 crucial 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 statement. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rule-making process, we aim to ensure that 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 on the path to rulemaking, the critical question remains: Will the agency finish its work on time? A year may not seem long when it comes to drafting a proposal, allowing for public comments, and finalizing regulations, yet Huberty assured the audience that the USDA could stay on track. While optimism is encouraging, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs remain one of the most contentious topics in food manufacturing today.
Beyond the debate over what qualifies as GMO and what is excluded, the law features a controversial clause regarding the labeling itself. The law allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many of the law’s supporters. Huberty informed the Food Label Conference that a study examining the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Upon completion, this study is likely to reignite the ongoing debate regarding the most effective way to inform consumers about GMO ingredients.
As discussions around GMOs continue, it is also essential to consider the side effects of calcium citrate, which can be a point of concern for some consumers. Understanding the implications of such ingredients, including their potential side effects, is crucial in the broader conversation about food labeling and transparency. The side effects of calcium citrate may also play a role in how consumers perceive various food products, including those containing GMOs. Ultimately, ensuring clarity in labeling will aid consumers in making informed decisions, particularly as discussions about the side effects of calcium citrate and other ingredients unfold alongside the GMO labeling debate.