It would establish a mandatory labeling system that allows food makers to choose to disclose GMO ingredients on the package using text, a symbol, or an Internet link directing consumers to more information.
However, there are still a number of aspects of the deal that make some stakeholders unhappy, Bloomberg says -- possibly including House ag chair Michael Conaway, R-Texas, who says he wants to go to conference with his voluntary-only standard. He says he is still studying the Senate deal language.
The draft Senate bill would next face consideration in the Senate, where a voluntary labeling system failed in March. The Senate will not take up the deal this week, so it is not clear when lawmakers might schedule a vote. The House doesn't return until July 5.
While there is much that is still in flux regarding the deal, it clearly won't be done in time to derail Vermont's labeling law which will take effect next week if not superseded.
The Senate negotiators are claiming progress, however. And, a key feature is that any state law regulating GMO labeling would be prevented.
Still, it is unclear whether the current deal will resolve the basic stand-off, Bloomberg says. One of the food industry's top lobbying organizations, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), backs the deal since it would "ensure consumers across the nation" clear, consistent information about their food and beverage ingredients "and prevents a patchwork of confusing and costly state labeling laws," GMA president and CEO Pamela Bailey said.
Also backing the deal are the American Soybean Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
On the other side of the debate, Just Label It supported the nationwide, mandatory labeling standard requiring explicit, on-packaging labeling and say they are "disappointed that the proposal will require many consumers to rely on smartphones" to learn basic information about their food.
The American Farm Bureau Federation didn't oppose the new language outright, saying that it was reviewing the proposal and still supported a voluntary labeling system. "This deal clearly seeks to prevent a 50-state mismatched quilt of differing labeling standards," the group said. "But the mandatory feature holds significant potential to contribute to confusion and unnecessary alarm."
Advocates note that the proposal "covers tens of thousands of food products exempt from Vermont's law, and protects the integrity of organic food," Stabenow told Bloomberg. And, in a concession to the biotech industry, the bill would tightly define "genetic engineering" in a way that does not include new techniques like gene editing. Still, in a strange move, beef, pork, poultry and eggs would not be subject to labeling when a majority of a product is made with those products, no GMO label would be required. In the case of a pepperoni pizza, for instance, a label would be needed if the flour in the crust originated as GMO wheat, Stabenow said in a statement.
Producers who've secured a "certified organic" designation from USDA would be allowed to clearly display a "non-GMO" label on their products.
The Obama administration praised Roberts and Stabenow for their work but did not officially endorse their language. "It is our hope that their colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives recognize the difficulty of their work, and the importance of creating a path forward," USDA spokeswoman Catherine Cochran said.
So, the fight seems to have progressed beyond the point where anyone is seriously questioning whether consumers really have any use for on-package labels that finger GMOs -- even though many products are exempt. Still, this fight is far from over. Unfortunately, it seems to be drifting even deeper into the weeds in terms of what is labeled and how the labels are focused, defined, and presented. And, it still has the possibility of raising consumer food costs quite considerably. So the debate still carries high stakes for producers and should be watched carefully as it proceeds, Washington Insider believes.