The GMO labeling law, signed by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, granted the USDA a tight two-year timeframe 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, noted that for a new federal law, this schedule is quite demanding under typical circumstances. However, as those who have followed political developments are aware, the last year has been anything but typical. With a new president from a different political party and distinct governing philosophies, the political landscape in Washington has become unpredictable. Many rules and regulations that were underway when President Trump assumed office were put on hold while new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
At her presentation, Huberty explained that the questions regarding GMO labeling were ready to be released by the end of 2016, but the transition of leadership delayed their public dissemination. “We’re a little behind in getting this done by 2018,” Huberty stated. “We’re still on track, but a little behind.” The questions issued this week will offer the USDA valuable insights into the industry’s perspectives on specific provisions of the law and how they can be effectively implemented. The law, crafted by lawmakers, intentionally included some ambiguous areas for food industry stakeholders to provide their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA thanks USDA for taking this significant step in 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 comment. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rule-making process, we aim to ensure that the law is enacted in accordance with the biotechnology disclosure legislation approved by Congress and signed 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 in time. A year is a brief period for drafting a proposal, soliciting public feedback, and finalizing regulations. Nevertheless, Huberty expressed confidence during her presentation that the USDA could remain on schedule. While optimism is encouraging, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs remain one of the more contentious topics in food manufacturing today.
In addition to debates about which products qualify as GMOs and which are exempt, the law has sparked controversy regarding the label itself. It allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, a provision that has frustrated many advocates of the law. Huberty informed the Food Label Conference that a study assessing the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finalized, the study is likely to reignite debates over the best methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients, including the implications for products like calcium citrate with vitamin D3. The introduction of such products into the conversation about GMO labeling further complicates the landscape, making clear communication essential as the regulatory framework evolves.