GMO labeling law clears Congress

For the first time, food containing genetically engineered ingredients, commonly known as GMOs, will likely have to be labeled after Congress passed a bill this week that creates national labeling standards.

The bill, which is expected to be signed by President Barack Obama, has split Hawaii’s congressional delegation, however, and it’s yet to be seen how it might affect Hawaii’s papaya industry.

The majority of Hawaii’s papayas have been genetically altered to withstand the ringspot virus, which devastated crops in the latter half of the last century. As the bitter debate over GMOs has escalated in recent years, local papaya farmers have feared that labels might scare consumers away from buying their produce, which federal agencies have long determined to be safe.

U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard blasted the labeling bill on the House floor Thursday, arguing that it merely created an “illusion of transparency, making things more difficult for consumers, not easier.”

“This is exactly what people hate about Washington: that we pretend to solve a problem when actually we are just making things harder and more confusing for the American people,” Gabbard said.

The compromise bill, which gained bipartisan support and backing from the biotech and agricultural industries, has invoked controversy primarily because of the labeling options. Food manufacturers may be allowed to put bar codes on food that then have to be scanned by a smartphone or other electronic device in order to obtain information about the GMO ingredients.

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz also voted against the bill.

“Labeling should be done on the package in plain language, or with an easily recognizable symbol,” said Schatz in a statement explaining his vote against the bill. “The legislation passed by the Senate allows the labeling requirement to be met by putting a QR code on a food package, which will require that consumers use their smartphone to go to a website for further information. This doesn’t meet the commonsense definition of a food label.”

The bill also pre-empts states and counties from passing their own GMO labeling laws. The food industry has argued that having to comply with a patchwork of different regulations throughout the country would be costly, driving up consumer food prices.

Congress rushed to pass the measure in recent weeks in order to pre-empt a more stringent Vermont labeling law from going into effect.

Breaking with her Hawaii colleagues, U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono voted in favor of the bill this week, arguing that it supported consumer interests while also protecting the agricultural industry, including Hawaii papaya farmers.

She stressed that the bill was about people’s right to know what is in the food they eat, rather than any sort of determination about whether GMOs are good or bad.

“This is not a referendum on GMOs,” she told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “I have come out very strongly for mandatory labeling requirements so we don’t have different labeling requirements in 50 states.”

She said the bill also doesn’t stop Hawaii from passing laws that impose penalties on companies that don’t comply with federal regulations. Furthermore, it will be left up to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to promulgate rules for the labeling law, and the agency could determine that the bar codes aren’t a good way to provide consumers with information.

The bill “is really a floor, not a ceiling in terms of what kind of consumer information will be provided to the consumer so they have a choice of what they eat,” said Hirono.

While the measure hasn’t fully satisfied either side of the aisle on the GMO labeling debate, Hirono said that it was a good first step. Stricter bills supported by Gabbard and Schatz were unlikely to pass or get a hearing.

U.S. Rep. Mark Takai, who is battling pancreatic cancer, did not vote on the bill. His office didn’t respond to an inquiry about his position on the measure.

It’s still unclear whether Hawaii’s genetically engineered papayas will have to be labeled. The bill exempts “very small” manufacturers, but that term will need to be defined by the USDA.

Hirono said she would work to make sure the USDA considers the “viewpoints and priorities” of small Hawaii farmers during the rule-making process.

Hawaii Farmers and Ranchers United applauded Hirono’s support of the bill, saying that labeling requirements are inevitable and that the measure was a “fair compromise.”

“I think that this bill in particular allows products to be labeled in a neutral manner and leaves it to consumers to choose,” said Lorie Farrell, project coordinator for the advocacy group.

She said she was hopeful that the local papaya industry wouldn’t suffer any adverse effects from the bill, but noted the details still needed to be hammered out by the USDA.

“The Hawaii papaya has taken such negative hits over the years,” she said. “It is like the poster child of the battle.”

The GMO labels aren’t designed to be consumer warning labels, as there has been broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops that have been approved for the market are safe.

Earlier this year the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded that genetically modified food appears to be safe and doesn’t harm the environment.

The conclusion echoes prior reassurances from federal agencies, including the American Medical Association, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Still, farmers have long worried that the labels will scare away consumers, and biotechnology advocates have argued that labeling is really a tool used by the anti-GMO movement to undermine the industry.

“It’s a means to a ban. They want a ban of this technology. Who are we kidding?” said Joni Kamiya, whose father runs an Oahu papaya farm. “That is the fact of the matter.”