Cloture Motion

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the bill before us, a bill that presents itself as a labeling bill but which is deeply defective, with three major loopholes that mean this labeling bill will not label GMO products, and I am going to lay out those challenges.

First, I want to be clear that this is about American citizens' right to know what is in their food. We have all kinds of consumer laws about rights to know, but maybe there is nothing as personal as what you put in your mouth or what you feed your family. That is why emotions run so deep. Citizens have a right to make up their own mind.

We talk a lot about the vision of our country being a ``we the people'' democracy, and certainly it was Jefferson who said ``the mother principle'' of our Republic is that we can call ourselves a Republic only to the degree that the decisions reflect the will of the people, and that will happen only if the people have an equal voice.

In this case, we have a powerful enterprise--a company named Monsanto--that has come to this Chamber with a goal, which is to take away the right of consumers across this Nation and take away the right of citizens across this Nation to know what is in their food.

I am specifically referring to the Monsanto DARK Act. Why is it called the DARK Act? It is called the DARK Act because it is an acronym: Deny Americans the Right to Know. But it also very much represents the difference between an enlightenment that comes from information and knowledge, and a darkness that comes from suppressing information.

James Madison, our country's fourth President and Father of the Constitution, once wrote:

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

That is what this debate is about--whether citizens can arm themselves with the knowledge, arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. And this act before us, the Monsanto DARK Act, says: No, we are not going to allow citizens to acquire in a simple way the information about whether the product they are considering buying has genetically modified ingredients.

There is something particularly disheartening about that, and that is that this is one of the few issues in the country about which you can ask Republicans, you can ask Democrats, you can ask Independents, and they all have the same answer. Basically, nine out of ten Americans, regardless of party, want a simple indication on the package: Does this container include GMO ingredients? That is all--a simple, consumer- friendly right to know, and this bill is all about taking that away.

Let me turn to the three big loopholes in this bill.

Monsanto loophole No. 1: A definition that exempts the three major GMO products in America. Isn't it ironic to have a bill where the definition of GMO has been crafted in a fashion never seen anywhere else on this planet, is not in use by any of the 64 countries around the world that have a labeling law, and it just happens to be crafted to exclude the three major Monsanto GMO products? What are those products?

The first is GMO corn when it becomes high-fructose corn syrup. Well, it is GMO corn, but under the definition of high-fructose corn syrup from GMO corn, it is suddenly not GMO.

Let's talk about soybeans. When Monsanto GMO soybeans become soybean oil, they magically are no longer GMO under the definition in this bill.

Let's talk about sugar beets. Monsanto GMO sugar beets--when the sugar is produced and goes into products, it is suddenly, magically not GMO sugar.

Isn't it a coincidence that this definition is not found anywhere else in the world? This bill happens to exclude the three biggest products produced by Monsanto. Well, it is no coincidence. They are determined to make sure they are not covered. High-fructose corn syrup, sugar from GMO sugar beets, oil from GMO soybeans--none of those are covered.

This has been an issue of some debate because folks have said: Well, the plain language in the bill might be overruled and modified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture when they do rules. Of course, a rule that contravenes the plain language of the bill would in fact not stand. It wouldn't be authorized. So what does the plain language of the bill say? It says: ``The term `bioengineering,' and any similar term, as determined by the Secretary, with respect to a food, refers to a food . . . that contains genetic material that has been modified.''

That was the magic language not found anywhere in the world-- ``contains genetic material that has been modified''--because when you make high-fructose corn syrup, when you make sugar from sugar beets, when you make soy oil from soybeans, that information is stripped out. That is what magically transformed a GMO ingredient to a non-GMO ingredient.

They have a second loophole, and that loophole says ``for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding.'' Well, the ``could'' factor here certainly raises all kinds of questions. In theory, is it possible to obtain through natural selection what we obtain through genetic engineering? Well, then suddenly it is not genetic engineering. We haven't been able to find out exactly which crop they are trying to protect, wave that magic wand, and convert a GMO crop into a non-GMO crop, but certainly it is there for a specific purpose.

What does this mean? This means that if you look around the world and you examine the labeling laws from the European Union or Brazil or China, corn oil, soybean oil, sugar from sugar beets--all of those, if they come from a GMO form, GMO soybean, or GMO sugar beets, they are all covered. They are all covered everywhere in the world except, magically, in this bill.

We have consulted many experts. The language of the bill is very clear, but many experts have weighed in and they say things like this:

This definition leaves out a large number of foods derived from GMOs such as corn and soy oil, sugar beet sugar. That is because, although these products are derived from or are GMOs, the level of DNA in the products is very low and is generally not sufficient to be detected in DNA-based assays.

That is the basic bottom line. That is loophole No. 1.

Let's turn to Monsanto loophole No. 2. What this loophole is, is this law doesn't actually require a label that says there are GMO ingredients. It provides a couple of options, voluntary. Those options already exist in law so that is not giving anything we don't currently have. Under this law, a manufacturer is allowed to put in a phrase and say this product is partially derived from GMO ingredients or partially made from GMO ingredients. They can do that right now. It also says the USDA will develop a symbol, and that symbol can be put on a package to indicate it has GMO ingredients. Somebody can voluntarily put on a symbol right now. If you don't voluntarily do those things that actually disclose it has GMO ingredients, this is the default.

We see here this barcode. It is also referred to as a quick response code. It says: Scan this for more information. Scan me. Of course, package after package across America already has barcodes. Package after package already has quick response codes, as these are referred to, these square computer codes--scan me for more information. It doesn't say there are GMO ingredients in this package. It doesn't say: Scan here for more information on the GMO ingredients in this food. No, just scan me.

Certainly, this defies the ability of anyone to look at that and say whether there are GMO ingredients. All it does is take you to a Web site. How do you get to that Web site? You have to have a smartphone. You have to have a digital plan you pay for. You have to have wireless coverage at the point that you are there. You have to scan it and go to a Web site to find out--the Web site, by the way, will be written by the company that makes the food so it is not going to be easy to find that information.

The bill says it will be in the first page of the Web site. There could be a lot of information on that Web page and always in a different format. This is not a label. This is an obstacle course. It is an obstacle course that causes you to spend your own money and your digital time.

If I want to compare five different products and see if they have a GMO ingredient and I have five versions of canned carrots, I can pick up that can, and if there is a symbol or a phrase that says ``partially produced with genetically modified ingredients,'' I can pick that up, turn it over, and in 1 second I get the answer. In 1 second, I can get the answer about the number of calories. In 1 second, I can get the answer of whether it contains peanuts. In 1 second, I can get the answer on how much sugar it has. I can compare these five products in 5 seconds, which one--oh, here is the one I want. I want one that does have GMO. I want one that doesn't have GMO. That is a GMO label.

This is an obstacle course. This provides no details unless you go through a convoluted system that takes up a lot of time. If I want to compare those five products, I would have to stand in the aisle of the grocery store for 30 minutes trying to go to different Web sites, hoping there was wireless coverage. Quite frankly, that whole process, no one would do that. That is exactly why Monsanto wants this code because no one will use it. They don't know they should use it for GMO ingredients because it doesn't say it, and they know it will take so much time that no busy person or not-so-busy person would see that as a significant way to obtain the data desired.

Let's say I am going shopping for 20 items. If each of those items required comparing five products, if it was a 1-second label, it would take up to 50 seconds of my time shopping for 20 products--or 100 seconds of my time, excuse me. In this case, if it took half an hour per product, it would be 10 hours standing in the grocery store, on just 20 items, trying to figure out which variety does not contain GMOs. That obstacle course, combined with the definition that excludes Monsanto products, comprises Monsanto loophole No. 1 and Monsanto loophole No. 2.

There is a third loophole in this bill. Wouldn't it be wonderful, Monsanto says, to have a bill with no enforcement in it. When we look at other labeling laws, there is always enforcement. You violate this, there is a $1,000 fine. You violate it again, there is a $1,000 fine or something of that nature. This is the type of provision we had in our COOL Act. What was COOL? C-O-O-L--Country of Origin Labeling, the COOL Act. That was something that required labeling to say that meat-- specifically, pork and beef--whether it had been grown and processed in the United States of America. If I, as a patriotic American, wanted to support American farmers, American ranchers, I could do so because the meat had a label.

What was the consequence of failing to provide that label? There was a fine. This bill does not have a USDA fine. This bill does not have any enforcement. It is very clear. They cannot recall any product. They cannot ban a product going to market. The only consequence in this bill is the Secretary could have the possibility of doing an audit of a company that had been the subject of complaints and could disclose the results of an audit. In a press release, he could say: We have done an audit of this company and they are not following the law. That is the consequence--a public announcement. Well, hardly anything this compelling--it just invites people to ignore this law.

At every level, Monsanto has undermined this being a legitimate labeling law--a definition that excludes the big Monsanto products, an obstacle course instead of a label, and no enforcement. This bill says we oppose the bill because it is actually a nonlabeling bill under the guise of a mandatory labeling bill. That sums it up. It pretends to be a labeling bill, but it is not. This is a letter signed by 76 pro- organic organizations and farmer groups.

I had to do this very quickly. There has been no hearing on this bill. For this unique, never-in-the-world definition that exempts the Monsanto products, there has never been a hearing. What kind of deliberative body is the U.S. Senate when it is afraid to hold a hearing because people might point out that a very powerful special interest, Monsanto, had written a definition that excludes their own products?

Apparently, Senators are quaking in their boots for fear the public might find out they just voted on a bill with a definition that excludes Monsanto products so they didn't want to risk a hearing that would make that clear.

I am so appreciative of these groups. While you can't make out this print, it gives you a sense of what type of groups we are talking about from across the country--the Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch, Biosafety, the Cedar Circle Farm, Central Park West, Food Democracy, Farm Aid, Family Farm Defenders, Good Earth Natural Foods, on and on--because these groups believe citizens have a right to know what is in their food.

Some folks have said: Well, they don't deserve to have that right because this food is not going to do them any harm. Boy, isn't that Big Brother talking once again. The powerful Federal Government is going to make up your mind for you and not going to allow you to have that power that comes from knowledge.

As I noted earlier, James Madison wrote: ``Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''

Big Brother says we don't want the people to have the power of knowledge; we don't let them make their own decision. Why is it so many people feel so powerfully about this issue? First, various groups have determined a major genetic modification that makes crops glyphosate- resistant, weed killer-resistant is a health issue. Why is it a health issue? Because glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

That is something citizens have a right to be concerned about, the possibility of cancer. In areas where glyphosate is sprayed on crops, it has shown up even in samples of rainfall, and it has shown up in the urine of people who live in that area. Do people have the right to be concerned about the fact that a weed killer is being sprayed, and it is ending up in their urine? Yes, I think they do. They have the right to be concerned about that.

Do they have a right to be concerned about the impact when this massive amount of weed killer flows off the farms and into our streams and rivers because that weed killer proceeds to kill organisms in the rivers, in the streams, altering the biology of the stream? Yes, they have a right to be worried about that.

Do they have a right to be concerned when the huge application of glyphosate is producing superweeds; that is, weeds growing near the fields that are exposed so often that mutations that make them naturally resistant proceed to produce weeds that are resistant to glyphosate, meaning you have to put even more weed killer on the crops.

Do they have a right to be concerned when there is a genetic modification called Bt corn that actually causes pesticide to grow inside the cells of the corn plant? What is the impact of that on human health? We don't yet know. Yet that particular genetic modification that causes pesticide to be growing inside the cells of the plant is covering more than 90 percent of the corn grown in America. That is a legitimate concern.

Do the citizens have a right to be concerned when they discover the insects a pesticide is designed to kill are evolving and becoming superpests and are becoming immune to that pesticide; meaning, not only is there pesticide growing in the cell of the plant, but now the farmer has applied pesticide to the field as well, which was the whole goal of ignoring that in the first place--that you wouldn't have to do that.

They have a right to be concerned. They have a right to educate themselves. They have a right to make their own decision. This is a Big Brother bill if there ever was one, saying, for those who supported cloture on this bill: This bill says citizens do not have the right to know. We are going to have a label that actually doesn't label. We are going to have a label that is an obstacle course. We are going to have a definition that excludes a commonly understood definition of what GMO crops are, and we are going to have no enforcement.

This is not good work. This is not a deliberative Senate. Let's send this bill to committee and have a complete hearing on the deficiencies I am talking about. Let's invite Monsanto to come and testify. Let's invite the many scientists who weighed in about the fact that this exempts the primary GMO products in America. Let them come and speak. Let all of us get educated, not have this rammed through the Senate at the very last moment.

There are individuals here who said: Wait. Time is urgent because we can't have 50 different State labeling standards. We only have one State that has a labeling standard, and that is Vermont. There is no real concern that we have two conflicting standards because we only have one standard. Could there be more than one standard down the road? Yes, that is a possibility, but that is down the road. That doesn't require us to act today.

There are folks who say: Well, the Vermont law goes into effect July 1 so we have to act now to prevent the Vermont law from going into effect. The Vermont law has a 6-month grace period. It doesn't go into effect until January 1 of 2017. We have lots of time to hold hearings. We have lots of time to embrace knowledge rather than to convey and enforce ignorance, lots of time. So these arguments that are made about the urgency are phony arguments. They are made to take and enable a powerful special interest to push through a bill that 90 percent of Americans disagree with, to do it essentially in the dark of the night by not having hearings, not on the House side, not on the Senate side, not having a full debate on this floor. No, instead we are using an instrument that is a modification of a House bill that is a modification of a Senate bill because procedurally it makes it easier to ram this bill through without due consideration. That is wrong.

What I am asking for is a simple opportunity to have a series of reasonable amendments voted on, on the floor of this Senate. Let's actually embrace the Senate as a deliberative body. There is an amendment that would fix the definition. That is the amendment by Senator Tester from Montana. That amendment would simply say: The derivatives of GMO crops are GMO ingredients. Soybean oil from GMO soybean is a GMO ingredient.

Many proponents of the bill said they think that is what is going to happen with the regulation down the road. If you believe that is what will happen, then join us. Let's correct the definition right now. Why have law cases? Why go into our July break having passed something with a definition that we don't have a consensus on what it means?

I know what the plain language says. I know what it exempts as GMO crops, but some say: Well, maybe not, maybe there is something that the USDA can do to change that, and they will be covered. The USDA was asked that question, and they wouldn't answer it directly. They sent back this very convoluted legal language that said: Foods that might or might not have GMO or non-GMO ingredients might possibly be covered, of course, based on what other ingredients are in the food.

Would the soybean oil from a GMO soybean be considered a GMO ingredient? That is the question. The USDA needs to answer that yes or no instead of this long, convoluted, lengthy dodging that occurred because they were afraid to answer the question. That is knowledge we could use on the floor of the Senate. Would high-fructose corn syrup from GMO corn be considered a GMO ingredient? The USDA wouldn't answer those questions directly, but lots of other folks did. The FDA, or the Food and Drug Administration, answered the question in technical guidance. They said: Absolutely they wouldn't be covered. All kinds of other experts weighed in and said: Absolutely they wouldn't be covered. Maybe that is the type of information that we should have from a hearing on this bill.

How about voting on a simple amendment that clears up this confusion and clearly uses a definition, not one written by and for exempting three major GMO Monsanto crops. We need a straightforward definition that is used elsewhere and covers all of the products that are ordinarily considered a GMO. That is not too much to ask. Let's have a debate on that amendment. We should vote on whether we are going to have a clear definition in this bill.

Let's vote on changing the QR code. The QR code has a phrase in it that says: ``Scan here for more food information.'' What if this simply said: Scan here for information on GMO ingredients? Now we have a GMO label. Now it would be truthful and authentic to say that this bill is going to require a GMO label simply by saying: ``Scan here for GMO ingredients in this product.'' Let's have an amendment that changes that language. I have such an amendment, and I would like to see us have a vote on it. To the proponents who are saying this is a GMO labeling bill, this would actually make it a GMO labeling bill.

I know the two Senators from Vermont each have an amendment they would like to have considered, one of which would take the Vermont standard and make it the national standard, thereby making one single national standard, and another would grandfather Vermont in and say: Let's not roll over the top of Vermont. Maybe there are a couple of other Senators who have things that will improve this legislation. How about an amendment that would actually put in the same authority to levy fines that we have on the country-of-origin labeling law. I have that amendment. What about a vote on that amendment? These should be things that we can come together on.

If you truly want to have a national labeling standard, you want a definition that has integrity and is consistent with what is commonly understood to be a GMO. You want to have a label that indicates there are GMO ingredients inside because that is authenticity. You want to have the ability to have the U.S. Department of Agriculture levy a fine if people disobey the law so that it actually has some teeth in it and some compelling force. That is what I am asking for. Let's have a vote on several basic amendments rather than blindly embracing ignorance and denying Americans the right to know.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Do I need to make any specific request to reserve the remainder of my 1 hour?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Presiding Officer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source