Genetically Modified Food Labeling Bill

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, an important consumer right is under attack, under siege today in the United States Senate. It is the right to know what is in your food. A lot of consumers take for granted that they will read the ingredients on a package and they will know what is in their food. The right to know what you are putting in your body is a basic right, especially what your children are putting in their bodies.

I understand that the Agriculture Committee has reported--and the majority leader has indicated that he will bring to the floor--a misguided anti-consumer measure that will not only dilute but decimate an essential aspect of that right to know. It is not the name of the bill its proponents are using, but I agree with Members of the House and this body who have called this bill the DARK Act. Why? Because it denies Americans the right to know. Unfortunately, that is essentially what the bill does. It denies Americans the right to know.

I hold a pretty simple belief that labels on the food we buy should accurately reflect what is in the food. Whether it is the nutritional content, the ingredients--whether something is organic or not-- consumers should know what they are paying for and what they are putting in their bodies. That is how we keep the large corporations that make most of our food from using ingredients that are unhealthful--unhealthful and, essentially, potentially deceptive.

Like the overwhelming majority of people in this country--and by the way, a poll released in December said it was about 90 percent--I support mandatory on-package labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms, GMOs. This support cuts across geographic lines and party lines because it is such a commonsense position. Leave it up to consumers--you and me--to decide when we buy food products and when we consume them. If they want to buy a particular product, let them do so, but make sure they know what they are getting. This issue is of particular importance to my constituents.

I am proud that Connecticut was the first State to enact legislation that would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. And as attorney general of Connecticut, I championed this measure, and it is a consummate example of consumer protection and consumer education.

The DARK Act, by contrast, would strip my State of its ability to protect our own people. It would prevent States, including Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont, which have already done so, from enacting laws requiring the labeling of GMO foods. It would take away from States their right to pass laws to ensure their citizens have access to basic information about their food, and it would preempt longstanding State consumer protection laws in all 50 States. These laws pertain to false advertising, consumer protection, fraud, breach of warranty, or unfair trade practices.

This measure is a sweeping and draconian proposal, and that would be bad enough, but the DARK Act actually goes further. It would also bar States and local communities from enacting any kind of law overseeing genetically modified crops. Several counties in California and Oregon, as well as the States of Washington and Hawaii, have restricted planting of GMO crops, citing the health effects of the seeds and economic effects of megacompanies that produce these seeds on local farmers and the unknown long-term environmental consequences. But this bill would stop all of those efforts, State and local efforts. It would stop them dead in their tracks.

In addition to keeping information from consumers, the DARK Act would affect hard-working farmers who will have no way of knowing if the seed they purchased is genetically engineered, and that is true even if the seeds are altered in any way that prevents crops from reproducing, forcing farmers to buy new seeds every season from the GMO company.

I don't mean to cast aspersions on the biotechnology industry. There is enormous potential in research on this front, and scientists have made many, many contributions to our food supply. There may be scientific efforts under way in this area that have healthful and economically beneficial results, but keeping consumers in the dark is harmful, and the rule ought to be first do no harm.

If there is scientific support for the health or environmental benefits, why not let consumers know? Let consumers make knowledgeable and informed choices. Consumers are capable of those kinds of choices, and I am shocked that this deliberative body is considering a measure that is crafted so purposefully and intentionally to, in effect, deceive the American public and actively deny them the accurate information they deserve.

There is no question that this bill is nothing more than a carve-out for big businesses and mega-GMO seed corporations. My view is that this body ought to facilitate transparency. The Federal legislation should promote information and education, not inhibit or prevent it. That is why I have endorsed a bill that Senator Merkley and others of us are proposing and advocating that in a very commonsense way allows manufacturers to choose from a menu of options to indicate to consumers whether a product includes genetically engineered ingredients.

I want to make clear and emphasize we are not calling for some kind of skull and crossbones logo or black box warning label. In fact, we are not talking about a warning; we are talking about information. The options on the menu that would be offered to food producers are nonjudgmental, clear, concise, and accurate. This information is impartial and objective, allowing consumers to make informed decisions.

Last month, the Secretary of Agriculture convened a series of meetings in an attempt to broker a compromise between industry and labeling advocates, and I want to take a moment to commend the unflagging leadership of a number of groups in my State and one of my constituents, Tara Cook-Littman, who by coincidence was the only woman at these meetings. She is the cofounder of Citizens for GMO Labeling. She led the grassroots effort in Connecticut to pass the first-in-the- Nation GMO labeling law. She is also the mother of three children whom I have met. Like most Americans, she cares deeply about what she and her family are eating.

As part of their innovation cycle, food companies often redesign and relaunch products, adding new attributes to existing products, such as flavors and new ingredients, so they can handle the normal course of relabeling and repackaging.

One of the most important points Tara has raised is that the industry's proposed solution to include QR codes on GMO products is really no solution at all. QR codes, which let customers use a smartphone to scan a product to be linked to a Web page with information, are no substitute for clear, explicit labels that all consumers can see with the transparency and objectivity they deserve and need. Relying on QR codes discriminates against people who are unable to afford a smartphone or a data plan. It threatens privacy by allowing industry to keep track of who is scanning what product-- information that many of us might not want to be in the hands of companies and used to market to us--and, from a very practical standpoint, may not be usable where reception is weak or nonexistent.

As anyone who has ever shopped with a baby or a child knows, shopping is hard enough under some circumstances, and forcing consumers to try to get the right scan of a product when information could simply appear on the label is absurd. What is the reason for the QR code other than to make it more difficult for a consumer to know? What rationale could there be other than creating a hurdle for that consumer to learn that information?

So I urge my colleagues, do not be fooled or tricked by the DARK Act claims that food prices will rise with GMO labeling--not so. Food processors regularly make changes to these labels to meet changing consumer demands or for other marketing or regulatory reasons. In fact, Ben & Jerry's cofounder, Jerry Greenfield, confirmed: ``It's a normal course of business to be going through changes on your labels.'' And other responsible food companies have joined Ben & Jerry's, most prominently Campbell's Soup. I commend their leadership. My constituents and all consumers should be aware that there are companies like Campbell's that have stepped forward and want consumers to be more informed, not less.

We are on the brink of potentially passing legislation as early as tomorrow morning that would ban States such as Connecticut from requiring GMO labeling. That is a violation of the very essence of States' rights to protect their citizens. It may well be that some States would want to be stronger in protecting their citizens than others, and they should have the right to do so. Preempting all State legislation in this area infringes on that fundamental sovereignty and right of States to protect their citizens.

As the American Association for Justice has stated, this legislation will unjustly preempt State consumer protection laws. I know the importance of that preemption doctrine as a former attorney general who has fought consistently to allow States to set standards for consumer protection and enforce those standards, both Federal and State.

I commend those manufacturers that have realized that now is the time to embrace GMO labeling, including Campbell's, Ben & Jerry's, Amy's Kitchen, and Nature's Path. I hope we can work together with food manufacturers to give American consumers, like consumers in 63 countries around the world--63 countries around the world--a more transparent food system by approving a mandatory on-packaging GMO labeling system and rejecting this anti-consumer effort.

Thank you, Mr. President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source