NASDA passes resolution supporting FDA as biotech labeler
February 04, 2015 |06:00 AM
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture on Tuesday passed a resolution to support “a national uniform labeling policy for foods derived from genetic engineering” and to reaffirm the Food and Drug Administration “as the authority in uniform food labeling.”
The measure does not specifically support the bill introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., that would limit labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients to those with which FDA finds a food safety problem, but Louisiana Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Mike Strain told The Hagstrom Report that he supports the Pompeo bill.
For a group that generally supports states rights, the action was a remarkable victory for the food industry, which has tired of fighting labeling initiatives and legislation in the states.
“The whole issue is we need a uniform labeling system based on sound science. We don’t need a non-uniform, disjointed system,” Strain said in an interview.
Strain said he would not be opposed to putting the information about genetic modification on the quick response (QR) code that some stores now use to give consumers additional information. But he said he believes such information should be loaded only if the maker of the food wants it on the code.
Such codes can go “all the way to the farm” if the producer of the product wants it, Strain noted.
NASDA, which is made up of the agriculture commissioners and directors of the 50 states and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, passed the resolution with four abstentions.
California Secretary of Food and Agriculture Karen Ross, Connecticut Agriculture Commissioner Steven Revickzy, Oregon Agriculture Department Director Katy Coba and Vermont Secretary of Agriculture, Food & Markets Chuck Ross abstained, officials told The Hagstrom Report.
Connecticut and Vermont have passed labeling laws. Chuck Ross told The Hagstrom Report that he had abstained rather than voting no because lawyers had advised him that it would be better to abstain because the Vermont law is being challenged in the courts. He said his decision supporting an FDA labeling scheme would depend on how FDA would develop it.
In Oregon, where a labeling initiative failed narrowly in November, a gubernatorial task force on the subject has been appointed but has yet to complete its report, Coba said.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack later told the commissioners that the Pompeo bill is an “end run” around labeling, and that he is not sure supporters “can get that through” Congress.
But Vilsack also said “it’s not going to work to have 50 different standards.” He added that he believes a label “may signal unsafe” but believes that the bar code can provide the information for consumers who want it.
Vilsack also noted that he has a “commitment to coexistence” between organic and conventional crops, and that he will reconvene his Advisory Committee on Biotechnology in the 21st Century, known as AC21, in March to continue work on how both industries can prosper.
The text of the NASDA resolution, which is known as an “action item,” says:
“To support legislation that would promote the production of safe, affordable and high quality agricultural commodities through a national uniform labeling policy for foods derived from genetic engineering.”
The rationale for the resolution says, “it is important to emphasize the potential benefits that genetically modified products have provided” and that a patchwork of state laws would increase grocery bills as much as $500 for the average American family.
The rationale section also notes that labeling would require farmers to segregate crops and that food companies would have to build new plants, buy additional warehouse space and hire additional quality control inspectors. States would have to hire enforcement officers, the rationale noted.
The measure does not specifically support the bill introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., that would limit labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients to those with which FDA finds a food safety problem, but Louisiana Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Mike Strain told The Hagstrom Report that he supports the Pompeo bill.
For a group that generally supports states rights, the action was a remarkable victory for the food industry, which has tired of fighting labeling initiatives and legislation in the states.
“The whole issue is we need a uniform labeling system based on sound science. We don’t need a non-uniform, disjointed system,” Strain said in an interview.
Strain said he would not be opposed to putting the information about genetic modification on the quick response (QR) code that some stores now use to give consumers additional information. But he said he believes such information should be loaded only if the maker of the food wants it on the code.
Such codes can go “all the way to the farm” if the producer of the product wants it, Strain noted.
NASDA, which is made up of the agriculture commissioners and directors of the 50 states and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, passed the resolution with four abstentions.
California Secretary of Food and Agriculture Karen Ross, Connecticut Agriculture Commissioner Steven Revickzy, Oregon Agriculture Department Director Katy Coba and Vermont Secretary of Agriculture, Food & Markets Chuck Ross abstained, officials told The Hagstrom Report.
Connecticut and Vermont have passed labeling laws. Chuck Ross told The Hagstrom Report that he had abstained rather than voting no because lawyers had advised him that it would be better to abstain because the Vermont law is being challenged in the courts. He said his decision supporting an FDA labeling scheme would depend on how FDA would develop it.
In Oregon, where a labeling initiative failed narrowly in November, a gubernatorial task force on the subject has been appointed but has yet to complete its report, Coba said.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack later told the commissioners that the Pompeo bill is an “end run” around labeling, and that he is not sure supporters “can get that through” Congress.
But Vilsack also said “it’s not going to work to have 50 different standards.” He added that he believes a label “may signal unsafe” but believes that the bar code can provide the information for consumers who want it.
Vilsack also noted that he has a “commitment to coexistence” between organic and conventional crops, and that he will reconvene his Advisory Committee on Biotechnology in the 21st Century, known as AC21, in March to continue work on how both industries can prosper.
The text of the NASDA resolution, which is known as an “action item,” says:
“To support legislation that would promote the production of safe, affordable and high quality agricultural commodities through a national uniform labeling policy for foods derived from genetic engineering.”
The rationale for the resolution says, “it is important to emphasize the potential benefits that genetically modified products have provided” and that a patchwork of state laws would increase grocery bills as much as $500 for the average American family.
The rationale section also notes that labeling would require farmers to segregate crops and that food companies would have to build new plants, buy additional warehouse space and hire additional quality control inspectors. States would have to hire enforcement officers, the rationale noted.
