4 reactions to US House passage of food labeling bill

The U.S. House of Representatives on July 23 passed HR 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (SAFLA), by a vote of 275-150.
The bill will now go on to a vote in the Senate. As the bill is currently written, it would prevent states and municipalities from requiring food and feed manufacturers label their products as containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Here are four congressional and agricultural leaders’ reactions to the passage of the bill:
1. Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, co-author of bill: “This legislation will have a significant and lasting impact for Kansas farmers, our agricultural community, and everyone who wants to provide safe and affordable food. … The outcome of states, or even cities and counties, setting their own GMO laws would confuse consumers, stigmatize GMO crops, and raise food costs. It would be devastating for Kansas farmers, rural communities, and Kansas parents that are trying to provide safe and affordable food for their families. Today, the House of Representatives voted to stop this silliness. We now need the Senate to do the same. SAFLA is very simple – it provides a national, uniform labeling standard to allow consumers the right to know what is in their food and permit the government to stay out of the way of these consumer choices. SAFLA is based on facts and science.”
2. K. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee: “Advances in technology have allowed the U.S. to enjoy the safest, highest quality, most abundant, diverse and affordable supply of food and fiber mankind has ever known. With the world’s population expected to reach 10 billion by 2050, biotechnology is an essential tool for our farmers to meet this demand in an environmentally sound, sustainable, and affordable way. Unfortunately, proposed federal and state laws threaten this innovation by generating a patchwork of differing labeling requirements, which will result in inconsistent and confusing information for consumers and interfere with interstate commerce. H.R. 1599 establishes a voluntary nation-wide marketing program that gives consumers access to consistent, reliable information while protecting advancements in food production technology and innovation.”
3. Bob Stallman, president, American Farm Bureau Federation: “Congress stood with farmers and ranchers in supporting innovation that helps the environment and keeps food prices down for everyone. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 would protect consumers from confusing and misleading GMO labels and create a national, voluntary labeling standard based on science and common sense. The American Farm Bureau Federation supports all farmers and ranchers and opposes anyone who stands in the way of safe, affordable food. Consumers benefit from variety in the marketplace and should be free to make choices based on facts. The facts are that many farmers are growing more food with fewer resources, reducing their environmental impact, and keeping costs down—all thanks to advances in biotechnology.”
4. John Linder, chairman, National Corn Growers Association Trade Policy and Biotechnology Action team: “Bipartisan support for this legislation, evident on the floor during [the July 23] House vote, continues to grow. We applaud the House for tackling this critical issue head on, and now urge the Senate to act as soon as possible. We must pass federal legislation this year to avoid realization of the threat of an unworkable patchwork of state GMO labeling mandates which will drive up costs for farmers and consumers alike. With Vermont’s state labeling law is set to take effect next July, the looming impacts of this situation increase the urgency of the need for Congress to act on a national labeling law.”
The bill was introduced by Reps. Mike Pompeo and G.K. Butterfield, D-North Carolina.

House ag committee approves food labeling act

The House Agriculture Committee on July 14 approvedH.R. 1599, theSafe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. First introduced by Reps. Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, and G.K. Butterfield D-North Carolina, the legislation has evolved through bipartisan discussions between the Agriculture Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Rep. Davis, R-Illinios, for H.R. 1599 will provide clarity and stability in the marketplace through national uniformity regarding marketing claims for food and feed products grown using the latest agricultural production technologies, according to K. Michael Conaway, chaiman of the House Agriculture Committee.
“I appreciate the collaborative efforts of the Energy and Commerce Committee in getting this bipartisan legislation completed and approved today. H.R. 1599 is the solution to an urgent and growing problem. The current patchwork system of varied labels interferes with the free flow of goods across the country, posing a real threat to interstate commerce and typically results in inconsistent and confusing information for consumers. Creating a uniform national policy regarding biotechnology labeling is the free market solution that will allow consumers access to meaningful information, create market opportunities for those on the production and processing side, and will facilitate future innovation,” said Conaway.
“Consumers increasingly want to know more about where their food comes from and how it is produced. I think H.R. 1599 satisfies that demand while also recognizing what we know about the safety of the foods that our farmers produce. The bill is a workable solution that will alleviate the potential mess of 50 states with 50 different labeling schemes,” said Collin Peterson, ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.
The committee’s approval of the bill was applauded by theNational Corn Growers Association (NCGA), which is urging the entire House and Senate to also approve the legislation.
“The House and Senate must pass federal legislation this year; the continued threat of an unworkable patchwork of state GMO labeling mandates will drive up costs for farmers and consumers alike,” said NCGA Trade Policy and Biotechnology Action Team chair John Linder. “Next July, Vermont’s state labeling law is set to take effect. The looming impacts of this situation increase the urgency of the need for Congress to act on a national labeling law.”

GMO labeling misleading, costly for consumers

By Richard Felts, Guest Commentary
Activists pushing for mandated labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods are really pushing a disingenuous political agenda that will be both confusing and costly for consumers.
For years, these activists have tried to insinuate there might be something risky about GM foods. However, the scientific consensus — built around countless studies and 7 trillion meals consumed — has remained solid that GM foods are as safe as any other foods.
With the science settled, those pushing for mandatory GM labeling now say they just want consumers to have access to information. In a recent Roll Call op-ed, Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group said the issue of GM labeling “is about more than the right to know what we’re buying and eating. It’s also about consumer confusion.”
That’s a distortion of the issue. This is not about the right to know. The fact is that Faber and the other anti-GM activists support measures that would exempt approximately two thirds of food products on the market from being labeled. How will this provide the consumer with any useful information?
GM critics ignore the fact that existing food labeling policies already provide information about which foods have genetically modified ingredients and which do not. Food labeled USDA Certified Organic does not contain genetically modified ingredients. For consumers who choose to avoid GM food, this label provides them a reliable alternative.
Instead of educating consumers about the simple option that already exists, GM labeling proponents have been pushing states to pass initiatives requiring that food with GM ingredients also be specially labeled. Not only would this be duplicative, these initiatives routinely contain multiple exemptions and loopholes that would muddle — not clarify — consumer choices.
Under a GM labeling law passed in Vermont, vegetable soup would be labeled “genetically modified” while vegetable beef soup would not because meat is exempt under the law. Vermont also exempted dietary supplements despite the fact that many herbal supplements contain GM ingredients.
Activists in California pushed an initiative that would have required GM labels on a packaged pizza purchased in a supermarket, but not on a pizza purchased from a restaurant. Fruit juice would have required a label, but alcohol containing the same GM ingredients would have been exempt.
In Oregon, activists pushed a GM labeling initiative that would have exempted two-thirds of the food and beverages purchased by consumers. This included meat and dairy products that come from animals raised on genetically engineered food, which conflicts with existing labeling standards for “organic” products.
If activists really cared about a consumer’s “right to know,” they would not be drafting, endorsing and advertising in favor of a patchwork of state regulations that would leave consumers in the dark about what they are buying. Studies have also shown these state labeling measures would raise the average consumer’s grocery bill $400 to $500 a year.
Consumers will not be served by individual states taking different approaches to food labeling. The best way to protect the consumer’s right to know is by reaffirming the FDA’s role as our national authority on food safety and labeling.
This is the approach taken by the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, bipartisan legislation introduced in the last Congress by Representatives Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, and G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., which is expected to be reintroduced in the coming session.
The right to know is about ensuring consumers have access to clear and consistent information, not creating a confusing maze of different state-based standards.

Richard Felts is the president of Kansas Farm Bureau

House panel urged to pass Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act

Farm Bureau member Stacey Forshee on December 10 called on Congress to help consumers understand the difference between real food safety concerns and marketing ploys by passing H.R. 4432, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. Forshee testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
“As a hard-working American family who lives off the land and the products it provides, we would never allow a product we grew or raised to enter the food supply unless we knew it was safe,” Forshee said. A farmer and cattle rancher with her husband in north central Kansas, Forshee has seen firsthand the marked benefits of biotechnology crops, including higher yields over fewer tillable acres, reduced pesticide use and improved soil conservation.
The Forshees are not alone in seeing these benefits. Since 1996, more than 17 million farmers have added in excess of 110 million tons of soybeans and 195 million tons of corn to the world’s food supply. Farmers also avoided using 1.2 billion pounds of pesticide by choosing to grow genetically enhanced crops over conventional corn and soybeans.
Forshee praised the Food and Drug Administration’s science-based approach to labeling food products for safety, health and nutrition information. Labeling foods with biotechnology traits “will mislead consumers into believing such food products are materially different, create undue risk and should be avoided – all of which are scientifically false,” she said. Veering from FDA’s safe and proven approach would undermine the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers across the country, while doing nothing to further food safety, Forshee said.

Meat and poultry nutrition benefits underestimated, survey shows

Most consumers don’t fully recognize the unique nutrition benefits that meat and poultry offer, according to a recent survey conducted online by Harris Poll for the American Meat Institute.
Only 12 percent of consumers correctly identified animal products like meat and poultry as the only natural source of Vitamin B₁₂, which keeps the nervous system healthy. Twenty percent said cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli and cauliflower were the natural source of B₁₂ and 13 percent thought the correct answer was citrus fruit. Neither of these foods contain Vitamin B₁₂.
The Harvard Health Blog reports that “Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency is relatively common, especially among older people. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey estimated that 3.2 percent of adults over age 50 have a seriously low B₁₂ level, and up to 20 percent may have a borderline deficiency.”
AMI’s survey also showed consumers don’t know that the body absorbs more iron from meat and poultry than from other foods. Meat and poultry contain “heme” iron, the most absorbable form, but 52 percent of consumers incorrectly thought the body absorbed the most iron from spinach, kale and other leafy greens, which are high in iron, but contain the less absorbable “non-heme” form. Only 17 percent correctly named meat, poultry and fish. Adequate iron intake is important because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies iron deficiency anemia as the most common nutritional deficiency in the United States.
When asked which food groups Americans consume at the recommended levels, one in three (31 percent) consumers said the protein group. According to USDA, this group, which includes meat, poultry, seafood and beans is the only one consumed in the correct amount. Twenty two percent answered grains, 21 percent answered dairy and 20 percent answered fats, oils and sweets.  Half of consumers (48 percent) said they did not know.
These findings are similar to recent research by NPD Group, which found that most consumers agree that protein is necessary in a healthy diet, but three quarters of consumers said they didn’t know the recommended daily amount. In general, men and women need between 46 and 56 grams of protein per day.
The American Meat Institute Foundation has released a dietitian-authored brochure “Meat:  A Key Player on Your Wellness Team,” that details meat and poultry’s nutrition benefits and how it can be part of healthy, balanced diet.

Consumer group supports USDA decision to reject food labeling system

The National Consumers League has expressed its support for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to reject efforts by NuVal LLC to place its rating system on the label of meat products.
NuVal is a nutrition rating system, placed in 1,600 grocery stores in 31 states, which rates the health of products on a scale of 1 to 100 using a proprietary algorithm. The league has raised concerns about the system's use of the algorithm, which it says produces inconsistent and illogical scores, and has instead called on the agency to develop an improved, universal front-of-package labeling scheme that would be more helpful to consumers.
"It's a wild west out there currently," said Sally Greenberg, the National Consumers League's executive director. "There are many competing rating systems, a state of play that can leave consumers feeling even more confused than they were in the first place. It is important that the federal government step up and develop a consistent system of front-of-package labeling.
"We applaud the USDA for taking a leadership role on labeling," said Greenberg. "We would urge the FDA, which has jurisdiction over around 80 percent of food products in this country, to follow the lead of its sister agency. If it's not good enough for the USDA, it shouldn't be good enough for the FDA. Consumers must have access to an objective, government-run front-of-package labeling scheme to get the clear and consistent information they need to make healthy dietary choices for their families."

California genetically engineered food-labeling law unlikely to pass

California's Proposition 37, which would have required manufacturers to label all foods with genetically modified ingredients, looked unlikely to pass on November 7, gaining just 45 percent of the state's votes while 55 percent opposed it, with more than 50 percent of precincts reporting. The measure would have been the first of its kind in the U.S.
In 2011, 88 percent of all corn and 94 percent of all soybeans produced in the U.S. were grown from genetically engineered seeds. Some other commonly genetically engineered crops include alfalfa, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets and zucchini.
Supporters of Prop. 37 cited a lack of evidence that genetically modified food is not harmful to humans as a reason to support the measure. "Whether you buy genetically engineered food or not, you have a right to know what you are buying and not gamble on your family’s health," they said. Detractors said extra costs attached to printing new labels would be passed on to consumers. State enforcement of the proposition would cost tax payers anywhere between a few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million annually, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.
Prop. 37 includes several labeling exceptions, such as foods made entirely from animals, certified organic food and wine. Other exceptions include foods that are:

• unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material.
• made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered ingredients.
• processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients.
• administered for treatment of medical conditions.
• sold for immediate consumption, such as in a restaurant.
• alcoholic beverages.

European Union calls for revised food labeling of poultry, meat products

Environmental Committee draft legislation, voted on at the second reading by the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee, aims to modernize, simplify and clarify food labeling within the EU.

Food labels for poultry and meat should include the “date of first freezing," "country of provenance" and where an animal was born, reared and slaughtered, according to European Union Environment Committee members of Parliament. In addition, meat from slaughter without stunning should be labeled as such and meat consisting of combined meat parts should be labeled "formed meat." 
Committee-amended draft legislation, voted on at the second reading by the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee, aims to modernize, simplify and clarify food labeling within the EU, according to committee members. It would change existing rules on information that is compulsory on all labels, such as name, list of ingredients, “best before” or “use by” dates and specific conditions of use, and would add a requirement to list key nutritional information. 
The committee approved its proposals, giving a strong mandate to achieve a second-reading agreement with Council ahead of Parliament’s plenary vote in July. Once the legislation is adopted, food businesses will have three years to adapt to the rules. They will have two more years after that to apply the rules on the nutritional declaration.

UK food industry pressed to improve origin labeling

UK food businesses, including supermarkets and processors, should do more voluntarily to improve country of origin labeling, said the UK’s Food Minister Jim Paice.
On a visit to the town of Melton Mowbray, home of the Melton Mowbray pork pie, Paice said he wanted to see improved country of origin labeling, particularly for meat and dairy products where confusion can most easily occur.
The origin labeling of meat, meat products such as pies and ready-meals and dairy products tend to be the most confusing for consumers to understand. Improving labeling for consumers to make it clear where their food comes from is a key objective for the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in developing a voluntary agreement with the industry.
A good practice code already exists within the pig meat industry with many major companies committed to minimum standards on origin labeling, product definitions and breed names on labels.
While the Defra has said it would prefer industry to respond voluntarily to consumer demand for better origin labeling, it will also be pressing for the option of compulsion to be kept open.

Brand, labeling impact consumer decisions

Branding and labeling have the most impact on the purchase decision, according to a study conducted in Germany using wine as the model. The results of the study published in Food Quality and Preference, documented the evaluations by 520 wine drinkers in diverse cities in Germany. Label style and brand evaluation were the important elements in motivating purchase followed by blind taste tests.
Although aroma and flavor are regarded as important attributes in determining egg quality, precise measurements of these characteristics have yet to be evaluated using appropriate techniques. Average consumers usually are not in a position to consistently distinguish differences in taste among generic eggs. In contrast, studies have indicated preferences for specialty eggs, which have superior taste attributes attributed to modified nutrition of hens, freshness and handling through the entire chain from production through to point of sale.