The GMO labeling law, which was enacted by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, mandated that the USDA complete the rulemaking process within two years. 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. However, the past year has been far from ordinary in the political sphere. With a new president, particularly one from a different political party with distinct governance philosophies, Washington has become increasingly unpredictable. Many rules and regulations that were underway when President Trump assumed office were temporarily halted as new leadership was appointed and confirmed.
Huberty stated at the Food Label Conference that the questions regarding the GMO labeling were prepared and ready by the end of 2016, but the transition in leadership delayed their public release. “We’re a bit behind on meeting the 2018 deadline,” Huberty remarked during her presentation. “While we are still on track, we are slightly delayed.” The questions released this week will give the USDA valuable insights into the industry’s perspective on specific provisions of the law and how they can be effectively implemented. The newly enacted law, crafted by politicians, intentionally left some ambiguous areas for food industry stakeholders to clarify with their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. In a written statement, the GMA expressed appreciation for the USDA’s efforts to advance the biotech disclosure law, stating, “We look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s inquiries. Throughout the rulemaking process, we aim to ensure that the law aligns with the biotechnology disclosure legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA is moving forward with the rulemaking, the question remains: will the agency complete its work on time? A year is a relatively short period for drafting a proposal, soliciting public comments, and finalizing regulations. However, Huberty assured attendees that the USDA can remain on track. Although optimism is welcome, only time will tell. GMOs continue to be a contentious topic in the realm of food manufacturing.
In addition to the ongoing debate about what qualifies as GMO and what is exempt, the law includes a particularly controversial aspect regarding the labeling itself. The law allows for GMO disclosure via smartphone-scannable digital codes, which has frustrated many advocates of the legislation. A study examining the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month, Huberty shared at the Food Label Conference. Upon completion, this study may reignite discussions about the best methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
Moreover, as individuals consider their dietary choices, discussions about supplements such as calcium citrate good for various health benefits are increasingly relevant. The intersection of GMO labeling and nutritional supplements like calcium citrate good for bone health will likely become a focal point in ongoing conversations surrounding food transparency and consumer education.