The GMO labeling law, signed by then-President Obama on July 29 last year, established a two-year timeline for the USDA to complete the rulemaking process. During a presentation earlier this month at the Food Label Conference, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst for the USDA’s AMS Livestock, Poultry and Seed Program, noted that the schedule for a new federal law is already tight under usual circumstances. However, as anyone following political news can attest, the last year has been anything but ordinary. With a new president in office—especially one from a different political party with his own governing philosophy—Washington has become unpredictable. Several rules and regulations that were underway when President Trump took office were temporarily halted while new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
At the Food Label Conference, Huberty explained that the questions regarding the GMO labeling law were drafted and ready at the end of 2016, but the transition of leadership slowed the release process. “We’re a little behind schedule to complete this by 2018,” Huberty remarked during her presentation. “We’re still on track, but slightly delayed.” This week’s questions will give the USDA insights into industry opinions on specific provisions of the law and how they can be best implemented. The legislation, crafted by lawmakers, intentionally left some ambiguous areas for food industry experts to address.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA appreciates USDA for taking this significant step towards implementing the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s inquiries,” the industry group stated in a written response. “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.”
With the USDA now moving forward with the rulemaking, the question remains: will the agency complete its tasks in a timely manner? A year is a short period for drafting a proposal, soliciting public feedback, and finalizing the regulation, yet Huberty expressed confidence in her presentation that the USDA could stay on schedule. While optimism is welcome, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs remain one of the most contentious topics in food manufacturing today.
Beyond the debate surrounding what qualifies as GMO and what is exempt, the law also contains a controversial provision regarding the labeling itself. It allows for GMO disclosure through a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many of the law’s advocates. Huberty mentioned that a study exploring the difficulties of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finalized, this study will likely reignite discussions on the best methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
In a related note, as consumers become more health-conscious, products like calcium citrate chewable tablets have gained popularity. The ongoing discourse about GMO labeling may influence consumer choices, including preferences for dietary supplements. As the USDA navigates the rulemaking process, the interplay between GMO disclosures and products like calcium citrate chewable tablets will be an interesting area to watch.