Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016--Conference Report

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Vermont and the work his State has done to take on this very important issue. I wish to amplify somewhat or add to the remarks he has made.

This debate is about one simple concept; that is, a simple, mandatory label that is consumer-friendly to inform consumers whether a product has been produced with GMO ingredients. That is it. It is the consumer's right to know and nothing else.

It has been quite an interesting journey we have been on to this point. We have had the DARK Act--the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act--about the GMO status of the foods they consume, and now we have the DARK Act 2.0 coming to this floor in a deceptive strategy to persuade Americans that we are doing something important in order to justify the preemption of our State legislators from taking on this issue State by State. Unfortunately, the bill before us is an echo of what we have seen before.

So let's ask the simple question: Does it meet the 1-second test for consumers knowing what is in their foods? That is, by the way, information 89 percent of Americans want to know. This is an issue where if you poll Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, they essentially all say the same thing. Nine out of ten Americans say: We want this information on the package. It is relevant to us. We think consumers should have the right to know.

It is unusual to have an issue 9 out of 10 Democrats and 9 out of 10 Independents and 9 out of 10 Republicans all agree on, but here we are at this moment, with this Senate about to consider a bill written by and for the most powerful agricultural groups in America to deny Americans the right to know.

Let us take a closer look at what is wrong with the bill that is coming before us--the Roberts bill. First of all, it does not require that simple consumer-friendly label. Instead, it says: Well, that can be an option. A company could do that, if they would like to. Well, you know what. They can do that right now, without the permission of our Federal Government.

Then it says it could be an option for a company to put a symbol on a package. Well, that option is there for a group right now. They can put a symbol on a package, if they want to.

So we have granted nothing. Then it says: In lieu of putting actual information on the package, they can put a computer code on the package. A computer code is a square, like this, or it could be a barcode, but when you put that on the package, people say: Well, those are on the packages already. Why is it there?

This bill does have a little information in it. It says: If you put this quick response code or computer code on the package, you have to say it is for additional ingredient information--no reference to biotechnology, no reference to GMO ingredients. It could be what version of peanuts is in the product, what version of corn, where was it raised. These are all questions a consumer might possibly want to know. All it says is, for more information on the ingredients.

So if you look to the ingredients, and the ingredients say: tomato puree, high-fructose corn syrup and wheat flour and water, you get a little more information about those ingredients. That is what it is suggesting, even with the language in this bill that says ``for more information on ingredients,'' and nothing about the fact that this product was or wasn't produced with bioengineering, nothing about the fact that this product does or doesn't contain genetically modified ingredients.

So this is a sham because it doesn't give that consumer-friendly information, and it is easy to give that consumer-friendly information. For example, let's take a look at what is happening right now on M&Ms. Here it is. The Mars corporation has said: We want to have integrity with our consumers so we are just going to tell them: partially produced with genetic engineering. It is a simple phrase. It meets the 1-second test. You can grab that candy bar or that bag of M&Ms, you can turn it over, and, boom, there it is, right there.

That is what States have wanted to do in response to their 9 out of 10 citizens who desire simple information on the package. But let's turn back. What does this bill do? This bill says companies can put on a barcode with no reference, no reference to the fact there are GMO ingredients. This is a completely different thing.

The bill also says it can put on an 800 number. We have been through this territory before too. You can put an 800 number on it. OK. That certainly is not consumer-friendly. You have to call up, wait for 20 minutes to go through a phone tree and talk to somebody on the phone. Maybe you are talking to somebody in the Philippines. Maybe they know the answer or maybe they do not. Are you kidding me? A shopper is going to go down the aisle of the grocery store, wanting to know the status of these different options before them, and they are going to make a call for each of them, standing there for 30 minutes, when it could have been answered in 1 second? No, of course not. The authors of this bill know this is a sham.

This is disturbing that we are seeing DARK Act 2.0 coming back again. If you ever do get to that person on the phone line or you ever do get to that computer Web site, there is a provision in this bill that says the information on the Web site has to be on the first page, it has to be presented clearly, but it is being done by the company itself. So how big is that first page going to be, and how is it going to incorporate other information about the ingredients?

This is not something being produced in a standard fashion, easy to use. Let's realize this. In order to use the 800 number, you have to have a phone in your pocket. In order to use the barcode, you have to have a smartphone in your pocket. You have to use up your monthly digital plan. You have to expand your money to find out this information. Furthermore, some of your information is captured by the Web site when you go there. You have to give up your privacy.

Again, we are seeing the sham and the scam brought forward in a new version, and that is not all. This bill has a definition that excludes the food derived from major GMO crops. I have the bill in front of me, and right up front it says what is covered. It says food that contains genetic material--that contains genetic material. Why is that important? Well, when you process crops into the ingredients that go into our food, you basically strip out, in many cases, the genetic material. Therefore, the things that are commonly thought of as GMO ingredients wouldn't be GMO ingredients under this bill.

I have a commentary from the Food and Drug Administration, and here is what it says. It says the phrase ``that contains genetic material'' means that many foods from GE sources will not be subject to this bill, and it gives the example of genetically engineered soy--oil made from that. It goes into all kinds of products that everyone thinks of as a GMO ingredient that wouldn't be covered.

What about high-fructose corn syrup? What about oil derived from corn? Corn oil. What about sugar derived from GMO beets--the sugar that has the genetic material stripped from it. So in the very start of this bill, it excludes the three major crops or major components of the three major crops that are GMO in America--soybeans and corn and sugar. That is disturbing, but if that isn't disturbing enough, another loophole has been put into this bill. Let's turn back to what the bill actually says. It says not only must it contain genetic material, thereby bypassing the soy oil and the corn oil and the sugar from the three major GMO crops, you also have to prove the ingredient ``could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.'' So all a person has to do is to assert it is possible, it could be, and then you have another massive loophole.

To what point? We know it is a GMO ingredient. It is in the food. But they could say: Yes, but you could have possibly developed the same thing from a non-GMO process, and they assert that so they don't put it on their can, they don't put it on their label.

There are two major loopholes undermining this bill, showing there is no serious intent to do a consumer-friendly label that justifies State preemption. I would like to say that is all, but then, as was pointed to by the Senator from Vermont, there is no enforcement in this bill. There is no authority for the USDA--U.S. Department of Agriculture--to do a recall of products improperly labeled. There is no enforcement power to exercise a fine on companies that fail to use some option under this bill.

We can see the basic facts. This does not give a consumer-friendly label and instead sends people off through a maze, through a rat hole of telephone calls and Web sites, not in any way practical to a shopper in a store. Second, it has a definition that excludes major products from the major sources of GMO crops in America. Third, it has a huge loophole expressing the theory that if you can assert something could have been derived from a conventional breeding program, you don't have to label. Then, fourth, no enforcement.

This is completely different than the power that Vermont has under their existing bill. They have a simple 1-second test label, they have a definition that does not exclude the major crops, they do not have a loophole about some theory you could possibly have reached the same thing through conventional breeding, and they have enforcement. So this represents not even a shadow of what Vermont is doing.

I have supported the idea that you could have a strong case to have a single Federal standard. It makes sense in the production of food in the country not to have different label standards in different States-- the food runs through warehouses. It is spread out through different locations. Fair enough, but if you are going to take away a consumer- friendly label--the power to do that from a State--if you are going to preempt that, then we need to replace it with a credible, mandatory, consumer-friendly label at the Federal level.

This bill fails the test in every major way, and that is why we should not strip States of their power. That is why we should reject this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do so. A consumer's right to know about the food they put in their bodies is a powerful right, and we are taking it away if we pass this bill. Let us not do that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source