Chairman Roberts: Biotechnology Compromise Protects Producers, Informs Consumers

[proverbialwisdom]

Source: Press Release, U.S. Senate Committee

U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
06.23.16

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, R-Kan., Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, today unveiled a new bipartisan proposal to protect the use of agriculture biotechnology and to ensure consumers have access to the information they want.

“Unless we act now, Vermont law denigrating biotechnology and causing confusion in the marketplace is the law of the land,” said Chairman Roberts. “Our marketplace – both consumers and producers – needs a national biotechnology standard to avoid chaos in interstate commerce.”

“In negotiations with Ranking Member Stabenow, I fought to ensure this standard recognizes the 30-plus years of proven safety of biotechnology while ensuring consumer access to more information about their food.”

“I urge my colleagues to support this approach. It is a far better alternative than Vermont’s law with its destructive ramifications up and down the supply chain.”

Click here to read the legislative text. Key provisions of the bipartisan proposal include:

Pre-emption: immediately prohibits states or other entities from mandating labels of food or seed that is genetically engineered.
National Uniform Standard: the U.S. Department of Agriculture establishes through rulemaking a uniform national disclosure standard for human food that is or may be bioengineered.
Disclosure: requires mandatory disclosure with several options, including text on package, a symbol, or a link to a website (QR code or similar technology); small food manufacturers will be allowed to use websites or telephone numbers to satisfy disclosure requirements; very small manufacturers and restaurants are exempted.
Meat: foods where meat, poultry, and egg products are the main ingredient are exempted. The legislation prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from considering any food product derived from an animal to be bioengineered solely because the animal may have eaten bioengineered feed.

“As I have said before, I will continue to stand up for the farmers and ranchers that produce the safest and most affordable food in the world,” Roberts said. “I will not ignore the overwhelming science that has determined biotechnology to be safe, but with the implementation of Vermont’s disruptive law on the horizon, it is our duty to act. I urge my colleagues to join me.”



Read more: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/rep/press/release/chairman-roberts-biotechnology-compromise-protects-producers-informs-consumers

[Ford_Prefect]

1. Has the appearance of bait and switch to me.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

2. Bullhonkey. If its safe it should be mandatorily labeled like anything else.

These are not naturally occuring changes, nor have they been independently studied, and what studies have been performed often contradict each other.

[anigbrowl]

5. Did you even read the op? "Disclosure: requires mandatory disclosure"

I find it so depressing when people make passionate arguments about things that were not in dispute to begin with.

We have proposed legislation in front of us that requires mandatory disclosure, but you're against it because you demand mandatory labeling...which just tells me you didn't bother to read what you were commenting on.

[proverbialwisdom]

6. Define mandatory disclosure. Here it appears to require a smart phone or calling an 800 number.

[center][/center]

6/23/16 Center for Food Safety Petition: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=18370

...But QR code labeling is really no labeling at all – it’s discriminatory, incredibly burdensome, and even a threat to our privacy.

Only 64 percent of Americans own a smartphone.1 That means that more than a third of all Americans will not be able to use this form of labeling. Moreover, those left out are disproportionately low income and those living in non-urban areas. According to Pew Research Center, only 50% of low income people in the U.S. own a smartphone; only 52% of people living in rural areas own a smartphone; and only 27% of seniors own a smartphone.2 Even those who do own smartphones are not guaranteed consistent access to the internet.3 At the end of the day, a substantial majority of Americans would be deprived of their right to know if GE labeling were done through QR codes.

Knowing about the foods you purchase should be the right of everyone, not a luxury available only to those who can afford particular technologies and the capabilities to use them.

Tell your Senators to dump the DARK Act once and for all!

1. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/
2. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/chapter-one-a-portrait-of-smartphone-ownership/
3. http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-state-of-lte-4g-networks-worldwide-in-2014-and-the-poor-performance-of-the-us/

Previously, from the Center for Food Safety, other equally valid issues:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4301/latest-industry-effort-to-block-gmo-food-labeling-defeated-in-senate

Only 64 percent of Americans own a smartphone. That means that more than a third of all Americans will not be able to use this ersatz form of labeling. Moreover, as one would expect, those left out are disproportionately the poor and those living in non-urban areas. According to Pew Research Center, only 50% of low income people in the U.S. own a smartphone and only 52% of people living in rural areas own a smartphone. And even those who own smartphones are not guaranteed consistent access to the internet, and far fewer than that have ever used a QR code - less than 20 percent. Smartphones and data plans are expensive, and nearly half those who have smartphones have had to shut off their service at some point due to financial hardship.

Center for Food Safety sent a letter to all members of the Senate pointing out that the Robert’s bill was discriminatory against low income and rural Americans, minorities and the elderly, in that large percentages of these groups do not even own smartphones. Accordingly a legal analysis provided by CFS to the Senate indicated that the bill was potentially unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection under the law. The CFS letter also noted that no consumer would ever have the time to check all their products through call in numbers or QR codes and that the bill was in fact a non-labeling bill under the guise of a labeling bill. The bill also raised serious question about consumer privacy.

[proverbialwisdom]

7. This is what I find unacceptable.

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=18370

...In the last five years, Senator Stabenow has raked in over half a million dollars from companies like Monsanto, Dow, and Coca-Cola.

Stabenow’s new bill once again thwarts the democratic will of the people as it will erase state GE labeling laws passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine, and replace them with complicated computer QR codes or 800 numbers consumers would have to access instead of simple on-package labeling.

But QR code labeling is really no labeling at all – it’s discriminatory, incredibly burdensome, and even a threat to our privacy.

[proverbialwisdom]

3. Agri-Pulse: Roberts, Stabenow reach deal on GMO labeling

http://www.agri-pulse.com/Roberts-Stabenow-reach-deal-on-GMO-labeling-06232016.asp

Roberts, Stabenow reach deal on GMO labeling

By Philip Brasher
June 23, 2016

WASHINGTON, June 23, 2016 - A landmark Senate agreement on national disclosure standards for genetically engineered foods would allow companies to disclose GMO ingredients through digital codes rather than on-package language or symbols.

The agreement, reached between Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, also would use a narrow definition of genetic engineering that would exempt the newest biotech methods such as gene editing from the national disclosure standards.

Both the definition and the option for digital codes rather than on-package labeling represent major victories for farm interests, biotech developers and food companies that have long resisted mandatory GMO labeling out of fear that it would stigmatize the technology.

The legislation, which will need 60 votes to pass the Senate, would nullify Vermont's first-in-the-nation GMO labeling law, which takes effect July 1 and would bar any other state from enacting labeling requirements that differ from the federal standards.

<>

Earlier: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-agriculture/2016/06/gmo-labeling-deal-close-214927

[bananas]

9. "narrow definition of genetic engineering that would exempt the newest biotech methods such as gene editing"

[proverbialwisdom]

4. Yawn, 'cos this hasn't actually been proven to be problematic yet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-93-unborn-babies.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670

Wait, follow-up studies? None that I'm aware of.

Clearly, the work-around still exists (eat organic or Non-GMO Project Verified), but ALL should have the benefit of the Precautionary Principle, not just the well informed and affluent.

[Todays_Illusion]

8. That looks like capitulation to food industry demand, hidden in clever language, not compromise.