Congress passes bill outlawing Vermont’s GMO labels

Published online: Jul 14, 2016 News
Viewed 1269 time(s)

After skipping over the entire debate and amendment process in the Senate, and then going virtually un-discussed in the House of Representatives, a last ditch effort to overturn Vermont’s new food labeling requirement is destined for the president’s desk.

By a vote of 306-117 that did not reflect the usual “party line” voting seen on many pieces of legislation, the bill easily won approval by the full House this afternoon.

The Vermont law, which went into effect July 1, requires that many foods containing genetically modified (GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) ingredients include the simple one-sentence declaration of being “Partially Produced With Genetic Engineering.”

However, only days before that rule kicked in, Sen. Pat Roberts (KS) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI)—who have received a total of more than $2.1 million in campaign contributions this cycle from agribusiness donors—introduced “compromise” legislation that has the ostensible purpose of eventually (as in years from now) creating a national labeling standard, but which has the immediate effect of outlawing Vermont’s labeling rules.

Rather than have the bill go through the usual process of holding hearings, debating the issue, and amending and marking up the legislation in committee, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell fast-tracked the bill by simply copy/pasting its text into the empty shell of a bill that had already been passed by the Senate, but not enacted into law.

This act made sure that the unamended text was presented to the full Senate, where it passed easily last week by a vote of 63-30.

In addition to outlawing the Vermont rules—which had led companies like Campbell Soup, Mars Inc., PepsiCo, Nestlé, and General Mills to start labeling their products nationwide—the Roberts/Stabenow bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to take the next two years or so to eventually come up with a national labeling standard.

It’s that potential standard—if it ever comes to fruition—that has critics concerned about the legislation.

Source: consumerist.com