About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

38 Regulation 2 (2015-2016)

handle is hein.journals/rcatorbg38 and id is 1 raw text is: 2 /Regulation /SPRING 2015 Concerns about Federal GMO Food Legislation n their article Mandatory Food Label- ing for GMOs (Winter 2014-2015), Thomas Hemphill and Syagnik Baner- jee mentioned proposed federal legislation intended to circumvent differing state man- dates on the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The bill, H.R. 4432, is better known as the CFSAF bill or the Pompeo bill after its lead sponsor, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas). Pompeo and his co-sponsors have good intentions for the bill, trying to expand the use of genetic engineering. But we have serious concerns about the bill, as we explained in our recent Forbes.com op-ed, A Faustian Bargain on Labeling Geneti- cally Engineered Food (Feb. 25, 2015). Here, we briefly summarize our concerns. The bill is the product of lobbying by the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF), a group that represents food companies and farm organizations. The bill has four goals: * Eliminate confusion and uncer- tainty from the prospects of a 50-state patchwork of safety and labeling laws for genetically engineered food, by affirming that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the definitive national authority. * Require the FDA to conduct a safety review of all new genetically engineered traits before they are introduced into commerce. * Direct the FDA to establish federal standards for companies that want to label their product voluntarily to indi- cate the absence or presence of food ingredients produced with molecular genetic engineering techniques. * Direct the FDA to define the term natural for use on food and beverage products so that food and beverage com- panies and consumers have a consistent legal framework that will guide food labels and inform consumer choice. FDA preemption/ With respect to the first goal, we agree that Congress should explic- itly preempt state and local GMO safety and labeling laws. Such laws are inherently misleading because they wrongly imply that genetically engineered ingredients belong to a category of substances that are less safe or nutritious than natural substances. The use of genetic engineer- ing does not make the resulting food any less (or more) healthy or safe-unless the GMO was engineered to be so. As federal regulators have said repeatedly, labeling to identify food derived from plants modi- fied with the newest techniques of genetic engineering would erroneously imply a meaningful difference where none exists. In an ideal world, Congress could pass legislation to affirm that the FDA is the sole authority to require mandatory label- ing and that, as the FDA announced in a 1992 policy statement, labeling is appro- priate when it conveys material informa- tion that bears on safety or usage. As the FDA stated at the time, risk-related factors in the context ofnovel foods could include the presence of a completely new substance in the food supply, an increase in the level of a natural food toxin, significant changes in the level of a macronutrient, or the pres- ence of a potent allergen where a consumer would not expect to encounter it. GMO review/ We disagree strongly with the creation of a new requirement that the FDA conduct a safety review of all new GMOs before they are introduced into commerce. Laboratory research on plants has been robust since the inven- tion of molecular genetic engineering techniques in the early 1970s, but the commercialization of GMO products has been slowed by unscientific, excessive government regulation that discriminates against modern, molecular genetic engi- neering techniques. For a quarter-century, generically engineered crops have been the most scrutinized products in human his- tory, yet there is no scientific justification for such a burden. GMOs are far more precisely and predictably crafted than their natural predecessors, and none has caused documented harm to a person or disruption to an ecosystem. Hundreds of risk-assessment experi- ments as well as innumerable observations of real-world use have confirmed the safety of genetic modification technology. In spite of this vast amount of evidence, there has been no reduction or rationaliza- tion of the regulatory burden placed on plants made by the newer techniques of genetic engineering. In many cases, regu- latory stringency and burdens are actually increasing, sometimes in the naive hope that this will reassure skeptics. This provision of the legislation would represent yet another escalation of regu- lation without any justification for it- except perhaps as a bargaining chip for the creation of explicit prohibitions against state and local regulation. That is not a sufficient justification. At present, the FDA operates a volun- tary consultation program for genetically engineered foods whereby the developer provides the agency various information about the product. Published reports indi- cate that developers have, without excep- tion, submitted to this voluntary con- sultation and it appears to be more than adequate to protect American consumers. There is a broad consensus that there is no scientific reason to regard food made with modern molecular techniques as dif- ferent from other food. Corn modified to be pest-, disease-, or herbicide- resistant is still corn regardless of the breeding method used to introduce or enhance the trait. Therefore, even the voluntary con- sultation-which no food producer would dare to flout-is gratuitous and excessive. Virtually identical foods made with older, less precise, and less predictable techniques are not routinely subject to review, volun- tary or otherwise. Another concern is that a required FDA review and approval of new genetically engi-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most