At first glance the bill appears to be pro-GMO labeling and is focused on creating a federal labeling system to eliminate consumer confusion and inefficiency’s for producers. The current system of GMO labeling is determined on a state to state basis. Several states such as Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine already have laws requiring GMO labeling and more than 30 other states have GMO labeling laws in the works4. This plethora of different labeling standards can create problems for corporations, as they must change their labels depending on each state’s laws, and it can cause confusion among consumers who are faced with different labels in different areas. H.R. 1599 would create a uniform, efficient labeling system to eliminate unnecessary confusion and economic inefficiency.2
However, there are several major flaws in the law, as environmental groups are quick to point out. For starters, the bill “grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services sole authority to mandate GMO labeling,”4 and by doing so it “limit[s] the authority of the federal Food and Drug Administration to compel companies to disclose GE ingredients.”1 H.R. 1599 will seriously hamper the FDA’s ability to mandate labeling nationwide by setting strict standards for when it can do so. It also places the final decision for such mandates in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, meaning every request for every product that might contain GMO’s must be run through a single office.
H.R. 1599 does create a system of safety review for products that might contain GMOs, but the system is flawed and built to cater to the needs of the producer, rather than the health and safety of the consumer. The system relies on industry-based science3, science that could very well be skewed towards the benefit of the producer. It also sets impossible deadlines within which the FDA must do its evaluations, ensuring that most products will never be fully evaluated. If the FDA cannot perform its evaluations within 180 days the food goes on to the market3, no more questions asked.
Because H.R. 1599 is a Federal law, it overshadows all state laws, meaning it invalidates all other state laws that might more heavily regulate GMO labeling. It even goes so far as to also prevent states from regulating the label of “natural”. Polls have shown that 64% of consumers think that the label “natural” means non-GMO3, so states have begun to regulate when companies can and cannot use such a label. H.R. 1599 puts the “natural” label under the same umbrella as the GMO label, so states no longer have jurisdiction and it becomes a federal issue. Essentially the Act prevents the states from taking a stance on food labeling, and at the same time creates a federal labeling system designed with the producers in mind, rather than the consumers. Clearly a federal stance on food labeling is needed, but is H.R. 1599 really the stance we want our Congress to take?
For a news report on H.R. 4432 Click Here
For some clips from the Congressional discussion of H.R. 4432 Click Here
Footnotes
1"Big Food's "DARK Act" Introduced in Congress." Center for Food Safety. N.p., 09 Apr. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.
2Denker, Heather. "Pompeo Reintroduces Bill to Keep Food Safe and Affordable." Office of Congressman 2Mike Pompeo, 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2015. <http://pompeo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/150325_-_release_-_safe_and_accurate_food_labeling_act_2015.pdf>.
3Foley, Libby. "Top 5 Reasons to Oppose the DARK Act." EWG. N.p., 26 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.
4McCauley, Lauren. "'Monsanto's Dream': Pro-GMO DARK Act Comes to Congress." Common Dreams. N.p., 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.
5"[video] Notes from the Hill: Congressional Hearing on the DARK Act - GMO Inside." GMO Inside. N.p., 12 Dec. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.