The GMO labeling law, which was signed by former President Obama on July 29 of last year, allocated the USDA a two-year timeframe to complete the rulemaking process. During a presentation at the Food Label Conference earlier this month, Andrea Huberty, a senior policy analyst with the USDA’s AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, noted that for a new federal law, the timeline is generally quite tight. As anyone who follows political news is aware, the past year has been anything but typical. With a new president in charge—particularly one from a different political party with his own governing vision—Washington has become unpredictable. Several regulations that were in progress when President Trump took office were temporarily halted as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
At the Food Label Conference, Huberty remarked that the questions were drafted and ready at the end of 2016, but the transition in leadership delayed their release to the public. “We’re a little behind schedule to finish this by 2018,” Huberty stated during her presentation. “We’re still on track, but slightly behind.” The questions issued this week will provide the USDA with valuable insights into how the industry views certain provisions in the law and how they can be effectively implemented. The new law, crafted by politicians, intentionally left some ambiguities for food industry stakeholders to clarify based on their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA thanks USDA for taking this important step to implement the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s questions,” the industry group expressed in a statement. “As we collaborate with the Department throughout the rulemaking process, we aim to ensure the law is implemented in accordance with the biotechnology disclosure legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last year.”
Now that the USDA has embarked on the rulemaking journey, the question remains: will the agency be able to complete its work on time? A year is a brief period when it comes to drafting a proposal, opening it to public comment, and finalizing the regulation. However, Huberty assured her audience that the USDA can remain on track. While optimism is appreciated, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs continue to be one of the most contentious topics in food manufacturing today.
In addition to the debate surrounding what qualifies as GMO and what is exempt, the law includes a controversial provision regarding labeling. It allows for GMO disclosure through a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many proponents of the law. 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. Once finalized, this study is likely to reignite the ongoing debate about the best methods for informing consumers about GMO ingredients.
In the broader context of food labeling, discussions have also surfaced regarding nutritional supplements, particularly comparing microcrystalline hydroxyapatite vs calcium citrate. Both substances are significant in the realm of dietary supplements, often debated for their respective benefits and applications. As the USDA navigates the complexities of GMO labeling, it will be essential to consider not only the implications for consumers but also the parallels in discussions about other nutritional components, such as microcrystalline hydroxyapatite vs calcium citrate, which may influence consumer choices and perceptions in the food industry.