Senate approves, sends GMO labeling bill to House
July 8, 2016 Category: Politics
by Jeremy C. Nagel
With a late-night 63-30 vote, the U.S. Senate approved its GMO labeling bill, sending the measure forward for consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives, where it could see a vote next week. The bill aims to establish a mandatory, national GMO labeling standard and would forestall a patchwork of state-level labeling laws like the one that took effect July 1 in Vermont.
Farm Bureau policy explicitly favors voluntary labeling over mandatory, but the bill earned support from the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) on the merit of several other provisions that are consistent with the organization's policy:
- Federal preemption protecting interstate commerce and prevent state-by-state labeling laws
- National definitions and standards for labeling products containing biotech ingredients, determined by the USDA
- A strong, narrow definition of bioengineering for labelling purposes, protecting future innovations from being stigmatized as "GMO"
Since the June 23 compromise brokered between Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the measure has seen encouraging bipartisan support among lawmakers.
"Today marks a significant milestone in the fight for a more transparent food system," Stabenow said. "The advocates that helped raise this issue to a national level should be proud of this accomplishment."
The Michigan Senator hailed the bipartisan measure as "a step in the right direction for our nation's farmers and food producers."
"Throughout this process I worked to ensure that any agreement would recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe, while also making sure consumers have the right to know what is in their food," Stabenow said. "Looking forward, it's important that consumers, farmers, food manufacturers and policy makers come together to address critical issues and pursue our shared goals of improving our food system.
She also praised Sen. Roberts' efforts in forging the compromise and moving the issue forward.
Sen. Roberts called the passage "a victory for farmers, ranchers, sound science and anyone who eats on a budget.
"Getting to an agreement wasn't easy, but today's strong showing in the Senate is a result of the way we get things done in the agriculture committee-with hard work and bipartisanship," Roberts said. "I thank Ranking Member Stabenow for her continued partnership."
Despite the bill's mandatory nature, Farm Bureau leadership agreed the potential negative consequences of the pending Vermont law-and the potential for other states to adopt similar laws-warrants federal legislation providing national labeling uniformity.
The proposal calls for offering consumers three options for learning more about the exact content of purchased food products:
- On-package symbols
- On-package words
- Electronic labels (like a QR code) linking consumers to detailed food-content information online
Animal feed would be exempt from labeling provisions, meaning meat, dairy and egg products would not be required to disclose genetically engineered content.
The bill also includes a binding definition of biotechnology, finally codifying what the term does and doesn't pertain to. It also provides flexibility for small companies to meet its requirements, and exempts cottage food businesses altogether.
Farm Bureau members nationwide are encouraged to urge their Congressmen in the House of Representatives to support the legislation. Read the full labeling agreement here.
Urge House Action on GMO Labeling next week!
Contact your U.S. Representative using Michigan Farm Bureau's Legislative Action Center (no login required), and urge them to support the GMO labeling legislation that passed in the Senate. The site is easy to use, and, with the prewritten letter, it will take just a few short minutes to complete the action request.
|
This Lawsuit Has Put Big Ag On The Defensive In A Major Way
A pending Iowa case could set a new national precedent for water pollution stemming from farms.
CHARLIE NEIBERGALL/AP
Earlier this month, the Iowa Soybean Association had a big announcement to make.
The group, which represents some 11,000 growers of the state’s second-most-lucrative crop, pledged $150,000 in support for three highly agricultural counties — Buena Vista, Calhoun and Sac — named in a controversial lawsuit brought by the Des Moines Water Works.
The lawsuit, which was filed in 2015, claims that nitrogen-rich water flowing off the area’s farms pollutes the Raccoon River, which, along with the Des Moines River, provides drinking water for half a million people. The water authority wants the counties to pick up the dramatically higher treatment costs for the water. The counties, who want the case dismissed, counter that there’s no proof that agriculture is directly responsible for the nitrates.
The case has thus far been upheld, though it won’t be brought to trial until next June. Meanwhile, both sides are digging in for a pivotal Iowa Supreme Court hearing on the matter set for September.
If the water utility wins the suit, it would mark the first time in the U.S. that agribusiness is forced to pay for water pollution, potentially setting a precedent with nationwide ramifications.
The ISA, which previously contributed $65,000 for the counties’ legal expenses, considers the case a “must win.” Meanwhile, it says, the lawsuit is an “unfortunate distraction” from the voluntary approaches to solving the state’s nutrient runoff issues that it has been touting.
ISA CEO Kirk Leeds said the suit is affecting the progress the state has made over the past 15 years in encouraging farmers to implement practices to mitigate runoff, like putting cover crops and conservation tillage in their fields.
“The lawsuit does not identify one tangible tactic or strategy that would actually improve water quality,” Leeds told The Huffington Post in a statement. “Without the lawsuit, labor and financial resources could be focused on deploying more practices across the state to improve soil and water resources.”
The ISA pointed to the over 970,000 acres Iowa farmers have enrolled in the federal conservation reserve program — more than any other state — as further signs the state’s industry is on the right track toward addressing the problem. (The program removes environmentally sensitive lands from agricultural production, which helps improve water quality and wildlife habitat.)
CHARLIE NEIBERGALL/AP
But the ISA’s efforts are “nothing more than greenwash” to Des Moines Water Works CEO Bill Stowe.
“They’re sprinkling money and acting like they have some kind of environmental awareness when, in fact, they’re undermining public health and environmental protections,” Stowe told HuffPost.
The ISA isn’t the only group supporting the defending counties in the lawsuit, but it’s hard to know who’s been paying the rest of the bill. As the Des Moines Register has reported, the donors picking up 90 percent of the counties’ $1.1 million legal tab are anonymous and likely to remain that way, thanks to a state law regulating private foundation contributions to government groups.
Stowe’s utility has been spending a lot of money, too — seven figures’ worth of extra treatment costs to ensure the drinking water he delivers to their customers is safe, he said.
The DMWW is home to what he calls the “world’s largest” nitrate removal facility. The plant is in need of repairs and expansion, he said, thanks to the historically high amount of nitrates they’ve had to remove from the drinking water they provide to their customers.
Excessive nitrate exposure is most dangerous for infants and pregnant women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infants who are exposed can develop what’s called blue baby syndrome, which can be fatal if left untreated. For these reasons, the EPA sets a maximum contaminant level for nitrates of 10 milligrams per liter. Anything higher needs to be removed by water providers.
In 2013, when nitrate levels in the source water reached a record high, the utility’s tab for additional treatment costs and lost revenue totaled $900,000, DMWW said. Last year, it spent $1.5 million on denitrification efforts.
CHARLIE NEIBERGALL/AP
Stowe argues that tile drainage systems used by the upstream farms to reduce crop flooding should be identified as “point sources” of pollution under the federal Clean Water Act, from which they traditionally have been exempt.
The Iowa lawsuit could drastically change how the Clean Water Act can be used to remedy nutrient pollution, which is having a severe impact on communities throughout the U.S.
For this reason, the suit carries national significance. John Rumpler, senior attorney at Environment America, a Boston-based nonprofit, called it a “huge, precedent-setting” matter.
Rumpler authored a report last month linking nutrient runoff from agribusiness to the growth of algal blooms and dead zones that have devastated ecosystems and damaged local economies in places like Lake Erie, the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The EPA has also linked nutrient runoff to acid rain and air pollution.
He sees what is happening in Iowa as one example of runoff issues bubbling up nationwide, like South Florida’s “guacamole-thick” algal blooms that prompted Gov. Rick Scott (R) to declare a state of emergency earlier this summer. Environmentalists have largely blamed agriculture, and particularly the powerful sugar industry, for the pollution.
“The overriding story here is that the corporations that are producing our food in an industrializing fashion are now threatening our water,” Rumpler said. “America should not have to choose between healthy food and safe water.”
