The GMO labeling law, 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, remarked that the timeline for a new federal law is typically tight under normal circumstances. However, as anyone who follows political news knows, the past year has been anything but typical. With a new president taking office—especially one from a different political party and with a distinct governing philosophy—Washington has become quite unpredictable. Several rules and regulations that were underway when President Trump assumed the presidency were temporarily halted as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
At the Food Label Conference, Huberty mentioned that the relevant questions were drafted and ready by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition delayed their release to the public. “We’re a little behind schedule to meet the 2018 deadline,” Huberty stated in her presentation. “We’re still on track, but slightly delayed.” The inquiries issued this week will provide the USDA with insights into industry perspectives on specific provisions of the law and how best to implement them. The new legislation, shaped by politicians, intentionally left some ambiguity for food industry experts to clarify with their knowledge.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA appreciates USDA for taking this significant step toward implementing the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s questions,” stated the industry group 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 has at least begun the rulemaking process, the question remains: can the agency complete its work on time? A year is a short timeframe for drafting a proposal, soliciting public comments, and finalizing the regulation. Nevertheless, Huberty expressed confidence during her presentation that the USDA can stay on course. While optimism is commendable, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs continue to be one of the more contentious topics in food production today.
Beyond the debate over which products should be classified as GMO and which are exempt, the law includes a controversial provision regarding the labels themselves. It allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many proponents of the law. Huberty noted that a study examining the challenges of this disclosure for both consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finalized, the study could reignite the ongoing debate about the best methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients. Additionally, the use of calcium citrate salt in food production may be a relevant consideration in these discussions, as it could influence how consumers perceive the labeling of GMO products.
Ultimately, the intersection of regulations, consumer knowledge, and ingredient transparency will be crucial as the USDA moves forward with the rulemaking process, especially regarding the implications of ingredients like calcium citrate salt in the context of GMO disclosures.