The GMO labeling law, enacted by then-President Obama on July 29 of last year, allocated the USDA a mere two years to finalize the rulemaking process. During a recent presentation at the Food Label Conference, Andrea Huberty, 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, even under normal circumstances. However, the past year has been anything but ordinary, as a new president from a different political party has taken office, leading to unpredictable dynamics in Washington. Several rules and regulations that were in progress when President Trump assumed the presidency were temporarily halted as new leadership was appointed, vetted, and confirmed.
Huberty noted in her presentation that the questions regarding the law were drafted and ready for release by the end of 2016, but the leadership transition delayed their public introduction. “We’re a little behind schedule to complete this by 2018,” she stated. “We’re still on track, but slightly behind.” 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 legislation, crafted by politicians, intentionally left certain ambiguous areas for food industry stakeholders to clarify with their expertise.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association commended the USDA for initiating the rulemaking process. “GMA appreciates the USDA for taking this essential step to implement the biotech disclosure law, and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the Department’s questions,” the industry group stated in a written communication. “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 is at least moving forward with rulemaking, the question remains: will the agency complete its work in time? A year is a tight timeframe for drafting a proposal, soliciting public feedback, and finalizing the regulation. Nonetheless, Huberty expressed confidence in her presentation that the USDA could stay on track. While optimism is encouraging, only time will reveal the outcome. GMOs remain one of the most contentious issues in food manufacturing today.
Aside from the debate regarding what qualifies as GMO and what is exempt, the law includes a similarly contentious provision concerning the labeling itself. It allows for GMO disclosure via a smartphone-scannable digital code, which has frustrated many advocates of the law. Huberty informed the Food Label Conference that a study examining the challenges of this disclosure for consumers and retailers is expected to be completed next month. Once finalized, this study may reignite the ongoing debate about the most effective way to inform consumers about GMO ingredients, especially considering the potential calcium citrate interactions that consumers may need to be aware of.
In conclusion, the road ahead for GMO labeling is fraught with challenges and uncertainties, but the USDA’s commitment to progress and collaboration with industry stakeholders will be crucial in navigating these complexities, including the implications of calcium citrate interactions in the context of GMO disclosures.