National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if a student is failing in school, many people will rally around that student and ask: What is missing? Is the student working hard enough? Is the teacher connecting with the student? But we are concerned.
Then, when we take a closer look at the situation, sometimes we find the student has a problem, a challenge, a learning disability. One of those is attention deficit disorder: The student can't focus, can't really put his mind on a specific issue and stick with it until the task is completed, the mind wanders, the student loses focus, and unfortunately the net result is the lack of a positive learning experience.
There are many critics of Congress today and of the Senate for our failure to address some of the major issues that are challenging us in America. It turns out that when it comes to one issue, the problem in the Senate is attention deficit disorder. Let me be specific.
A few weeks ago, we had the worst mass shooting in the modern history of the United States of America. A crazed person went into the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL, killing 49 people and injuring dozens more. It was a shocking experience, and we heard about it early on Sunday morning. The entire Nation responded. The President spoke to the issue, even going down to Orlando with the Vice President to meet with some of the families and some of those who survived this terrible mass shooting.
Then we came back to Washington, and the obvious question was: What will the Senate do in response? The Senate had a plan, and the plan from the Republican leadership was to have a moment of silence. Well, that is entirely appropriate. I am glad we did, and we should, but it is not sufficient. It is not enough. So a number of us came to the floor--under the leadership of Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Senator Booker of New Jersey-- and initiated a filibuster on the floor of the Senate, demanding that we at least consider legislation that would reduce the likelihood of more mass murders and reduce the likelihood of more violent crimes and gun deaths in America.
The proposal we suggested was straightforward. It said we should close the loophole in the background check system. It turns out that if you go to a licensed gun dealer in America, you will go through a background check through a computer. They will see if there is any evidence that you are a convicted felon or have a history of mental instability or other prohibitor. If that is the case, you are disqualified. You can't buy a firearm. But those who are paying close attention know there are alternatives to a licensed gun dealer. If you went instead to a gun show--which happens in Illinois and many other States on a regular basis--many of them have no background check for firearm sales. That is the case in northern Indiana where the laws are very flexible and light when it comes to background checks. The bill we supported from Senator Murphy, similar to an earlier bill by Senators Manchin and Toomey, would have closed the so-called gun show loophole so you would have a background check before a firearm is sold, keeping the firearm out of the hands of a convicted felon or person who is clearly mentally unstable.
The second proposal we had reflects the times we live in. We now have no-fly rules. If you are suspected of being a terrorist or having terrorist connections, our government can stop you from boarding an airplane. The theory behind it is obvious. We want to keep the passengers on the airplane safe, and we would rather run the risk of a suspected terrorist being denied a flight than run the risk of a suspected terrorist coming onto an airplane and endangering innocent lives.
The proposal Senator Feinstein brought to the floor of the Senate said that if you are on the no-fly list or the selectee list, which means you go through a special search, or are reasonably suspected of terrorist involvement, you would be disqualified from buying a firearm. It seems to stand to reason, does it not, that if we are worried about a terrorist in our midst hurting innocent people, we certainly don't want that terrorist to legally buy an assault weapon in the United States of America. That seems obvious.
These assault weapons, semiautomatic and automatic, are dangers to not just a few but to dozens of people. There was a Snapchat that was taken by one of the victims in Orlando during the last 9 seconds of her life. The shooter at the Orlando nightclub fired off 17 rounds in 9 seconds. You can see the devastating impact of these weapons when they get in the wrong hands. The Feinstein amendment attempted to close that loophole.
Over 90 percent of the American people think the issues I just described--closing background check loopholes, closing the gun show loophole, keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists--are reasonable steps toward gun safety. We have to do more to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business owning them and might misuse them.
In light of that, you would have thought that this proposal would have passed, that there wouldn't have been much controversy, particularly after the mass murder in Orlando. At the end of filibuster, we had votes. Both measures were defeated on the floor of the Senate. Then Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, decided to try her best to come up with a bipartisan compromise. I salute her. She worked long and hard. It wasn't easy, and it certainly wasn't popular in some corners of the Senate. She brought her measure to the floor--a no-fly, no-buy measure, a variation on the Feinstein amendment--and there was an attempt to table it, to stop the amendment in its tracks, but Senator Collins managed to get eight Republicans, including herself, to vote with the Democrats, and the measure was not tabled, but the measure now sits as part of an appropriations bill and has not been addressed again.
While we have gone through this in the last several weeks, the House had a different approach. There was a sit-in that lasted over 24 hours to call attention to the need for debate and votes on gun safety. We have been told the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, has promised them a vote this week. It is unlikely that anything is going to pass in the House of Representatives.
What is next? The American people ask us: Is that it? Are you finished with gun safety? You play to a draw on the amendments in the Senate, you take up a measure in the House, which has a dim likelihood of passing, and that is all you are going do? And then we leave. Next week will be the last week in session before September. We will be gone for 7 weeks, the longest period of recess in 50 or 60 years in the U.S. Senate, while we recess for the conventions and for the August period when we spend time with our families. My concern, of course, is one that is shared by many. It would be miraculous if we didn't have another mass shooting in that 7-week period of time. I hope we do not. I pray we do not. History tells us that it is highly likely it will happen. Then we will return and have a moment of silence, and then we will do nothing.
You see, it is attention deficit disorder in the Senate when it comes to issues involving gun safety, but for many Americans all around this country, this is an issue they think about regularly. I can certainly tell you that in my home State of Illinois, the city of Chicago I am honored to represent, it is an issue that is on the front page of every newspaper every day.
Over the holiday weekend, the Fourth of July holiday weekend, at least 66 people were shot in the city of Chicago. At least five of them died. The victims of the gun violence include children. A 5-year-old girl and her 8-year-old cousin were shot and wounded while playing with sparklers on the Fourth of July. An 11-year-old boy was hit in the arm. A 15-year-old boy was shot in the chest while he was coming out of a store. These shootings took place, despite a surge in police presence and thousands of additional officers over the weekend.
Sadly, it is not rare to see a weekend like this in Chicago marked by dozens of shootings. The weekend before this, at least 58 people were shot in Chicago, 7 of them fatally; Memorial Day weekend, 69 people were shot in Chicago, 7 of them fatally.
Last week I visited the 11th District police station on the West Side of Chicago. The 11th is the Harrison District. It is one of the most violent in the city. More than 270 people have been shot in the Harrison Police District this year. I met with the commander, Chicago Police Deputy Chief James Jones, as well as other officers in the district. We had a long talk about the violence and drug sales taking place on the streets in that district. We talked about so many different challenges--the lack of economic opportunity in that area, gang activity. They showed me a map, which looked like a map of Europe with all of the different countries--in this case, all of the different gangs that controlled a few blocks here or a larger section there.
We talked about the lack of trust and cooperation between citizens and law enforcement. We talked about the overwhelming number of children and young adults who have either been the victims of violent trauma or who have directly witnessed it. Solving any of these challenges is difficult, but we need to do all we can to reduce the devastating level of gun violence and to save lives. We can't wait for the next mass murder.
The most immediate problem in the Harrison District in the city of Chicago is that it is far too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on guns. So many of the shootings that kill and injure people in Chicago are preventable. They never would have happened if our laws did a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives division of the Federal Government told me last year that they had looked at the crime guns that were confiscated in the deadliest sections of Chicago and that up to forty percent of those guns were coming from gun shows in Northern Indiana where there are no background checks. The traffickers and gang leaders literally opened the trunks of their cars and filled them with firearms in Northern Indiana and then took a one- half hour trip back to the city and sold them at night in the neighborhood and alleys.
That is the reality--no background checks. We can close that loophole. Will it end gun violence? Of course not. Will it make it more difficult for those who have no business to own guns to get them? Yes. Why shouldn't we do it?
We cannot allow this to continue. We need to stand up to the gun lobby and their allies in Congress who block commonsense gun reforms that are supported by 90 percent of the American people.
Let's be honest. Reforms like requiring universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists are no-brainers. The only reason these reforms get tied up and dropped in Congress is that the politicians in Washington are afraid to death of the gun lobby. The truth is, the gun lobby is not about the Second Amendment. The gun lobby is about selling guns. If you reduce their volume of sales, you reduce their profits, and they will fight you. Many of the colleagues I joined in this Chamber are scared to death of what they might do to them in the next election.
The gun lobby may care about selling guns, but I care more about saving lives. I have been fighting their agenda for many years in the Senate. I am going to keep at it. I am proud to join my colleagues in the House and Senate in saying ``enough'' to this bloodshed in our streets.
Several weeks ago when I joined Senators Murphy, Booker, and Blumenthal, we decided to move for votes on commonsense gun reform. Our friends in the House of Representatives had a similar effort. I was also proud to support the Democratic Members of Congress, Robin Kelly, Jan Schakowsky, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Mike Quigley, and Steny Hoyer, who joined with local leaders and community members last Thursday in Federal Plaza in Chicago to protest Congress's failure to act on gun violence.
The American Medical Association a few weeks ago declared that gun violence is ``a public health crisis.'' It is. Each year more than 32,000 Americans are killed by guns, and 80,000 are injured. On average, 297 Americans are shot every day--every day--and 91 die. The daily toll of gun homicides, suicides, assaults, and accidental shootings is devastating. Our Nation suffers from mass shootings on a daily basis.
Since 49 people were murdered in Orlando, FL, and 53 injured in the worst mass shooting in modern American history, there have been at least 47 more mass shootings in America. These are shooting incidents where at least four people were hit gun by gunfire. That is a staggering total.
No city has suffered more from the epidemic of gun violence than my city of Chicago. So far this year, 2,026 people have been shot in that city, and 329 have been murdered. And 7 of the 47 mass shootings that have occurred since Orlando have taken place in Chicago. No city in America has experienced the number of shootings and gun deaths that we have in Chicago. These shootings are the result of a flood of illegal guns brought into the city by gun traffickers and straw purchasers. They take advantage of clear loopholes in our Federal gun laws, and they put guns into the hands of gangbangers and dangerous people. It has to stop.
There are so many victims of gun violence in Chicago it is overwhelming. Let me mention a few recent ones. On Father's Day, a 3- year-old boy named Devon Quinn was sitting in a car seat next to his father in the Woodlawn neighborhood when their car was riddled with bullets by a drive-by shooter. The gunman tried to target nearby gang members. He was a terrible shot. Innocent people were hurt. The boy's father dove in front of his son to try to shield him, but a bullet struck 3-year-old Devon, who almost died. This 3-year-old is currently alive but paralyzed, unable to breathe on his own.
On June 30, Chanda Foreman was killed on her 37th birthday in a mass shooting in the Washington Heights neighborhood that also injured 4 other people. She was described by her family as a great person and responsible worker. She had a 6-year-old daughter who will now grow up without a mother. She was sitting in her car when apparently two rival gangs started shooting at one another, and she was killed in the crossfire.
On July 2, a father named Dionus Neely, his 10-year-old daughter, Elle, and his 3-year-old daughter Endia were shot and killed in their home in Hazel Crest. Investigators said this appeared to be a targeted attack. They described it as pure evil. Erin Neely, the wife of Dionus and mother of Elle and Endia, said:
Endia was the light of this world, always smiling and hugging and laughing. And Elle was a dancer. She was the life of the party. And my husband, he was a stay-at-home dad. He was a good father.
She said:
They did not deserve this.
I am going to keep these shooting victims and families in my thoughts and prayers, but thoughts and prayers and moments of silence are not enough. Lawmakers have a responsibility to do everything in their power to protect innocent Americans from being shot and killed in their homes, their cars, and in their neighborhoods. We can't allow this to continue.
I am going to join my allies in Congress to try to stop it with real gun reform. I am going to focus my attention on the problem that will not go away. My colleagues who think if they just wait long enough we will forget this issue are just plain wrong. I am not going to quit. We need the American people to stand with us. If they will help us in speaking out for commonsense reform, we can finally beat the gun lobby and stop putting guns in the hands of people who have no business owning them and save lives across America.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue just raised by the Senator from Massachusetts and responded to by the Senator from Texas.
The Senator from Massachusetts carefully avoided mentioning the obvious. This is the same Republican majority that will not fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. For the first moment in the history of the United States--in the history of the United States--we have a Presidential nominee sent to fill the vacancy of the late Justice Scalia, and the Republicans in the Senate refuse to give him a hearing or a vote. That has never--underline the word ``never''--happened in the history of the United States of America. When we say do your job, it starts at the highest Court and goes straight down to every Federal court in America.
I sit on the Judiciary Committee, and what I think is particularly galling, troubling, and worrisome is that each one of these nominees has been carefully vetted by the Department of Justice, by the FBI, by Republican staffers--everyone imaginable--culling through every aspect of their life to see if they are truly worthy of being a lifetime appointee to the Federal bench, and they all passed the test. They were all voted out of committee, and they all languish on the floor of the Senate for the very reason the Senator mentioned.
The Senator from Texas and many others are lying awake at night praying for the moment when President Donald Trump can pick Federal judges in America. Unless Judge Judy is coming out of retirement, I have no idea where he is going to turn to find judicial talent, but I will tell you, we have judicial talent, approved by Democrats and Republicans, languishing on this calendar at great personal expense.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for raising this issue. Zika Virus Funding
Mr. President, I would like to also comment on the Zika virus and the threat to the United States. You bet it is serious. We have seen the photographs that have been displayed here of the children who are born with serious birth defects because of the Zika virus.
It is so serious the President of the United States notified this Senate in February--February of this year--to act immediately on providing $1.9 billion--$1.9 billion--to protect as many people as possible from the spread of this virus and the terrible effects it has. The President asked for $1.9 billion not only to deal with the mosquitoes and the infection but also to develop a vaccine so we can liberate America from the concern of this virus showing up next year and the year after.
So there was a $1.9 billion request in February. To date--to date-- the Republican leadership in the House and Senate have failed to produce the $1.9 billion that was suggested by the President.
We had a compromise number of $1.1 billion that was approved by the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote almost a month ago. I think there were 87 Senators who voted for it because we all understand it is a public health emergency. Well, in our bicameral system, the bill then went over to the House of Representatives. What happened next tells the story of what is wrong with the Republican-controlled Senate today. They took our bipartisan bill for $1.1 billion to fight the Zika virus, they put it in a conference committee, they held a meeting but didn't invite any Democrats, and they then came up with a bill that provided $1.1 billion, but listen to how they did it.
They took money away from fighting the Ebola virus in Africa, which we feared several years ago would spread to the United States and still is a threat to Africa and to many other people. They took the public health money to fight the Ebola virus and said: We will transfer it over, and you can fight the Zika virus.
Apparently, the Republicans believe we can only fight one public health challenge at a time. We don't have time for Ebola. We are going to move to Zika. The Centers for Disease Control--the preeminent agency in the world when it comes to fighting public health disasters--has warned us don't do this. We are still worried about the spread of Ebola and the danger of it.
But they didn't stop with that. They didn't stop with taking the Ebola money and putting it into the Zika virus. They then turned around and larded the bill up with every political ornament they could think of that would captivate the hearts of the rightwing. Listen to what they included in the bill. They included a provision that cut $500 million from the Veterans' Administration to process veterans' claims.
Have you heard of that issue? I sure have back in Illinois. Our veterans wait way too long to get the disability payments they deserve for having served our country. The Republicans cut $500 million from that effort, but they weren't finished. They then turned around and said: We want to make an exemption in the Clean Water Act so certain chemicals can be sprayed around water supplies. What has that got to do with this and why do we need to do it at this moment? It is one thing they have been longing for. The third thing they turned around and did, after they cut the money from the VA and after they made this provision to change what the EPA can regulate and, as I mentioned earlier, took the money out of Ebola--they then moved on to say: We know that women across America will be concerned about family planning because of the threat of the Zika virus so they put language in the bill prohibiting Planned Parenthood from providing family planning to those who are concerned about the spread of the Zika virus. They just can't stay away from Planned Parenthood, and they included it.
And while you might think that was enough to make this the most controversial political bill to move from the House, they had one more trick up their sleeve--a provision to allow the display of Confederate flags in our veterans cemeteries--Confederate flags. Why?
Why would you take an important bill dealing with a public health crisis and lard it up with all of these miserable provisions that just excite the hearts of some political rightwingers? They did it because they were hoping we would stop the funding for the Zika virus. It is stopped now waiting for a clean bill. They know the President will never sign this bill as written.
If we would go back to the original bipartisan bill passed in the Senate, we would certainly get approval for it. That is why, I answer the Senator from Texas, we wait for the day when we can get back to bipartisanship on this important public health threat.
I see there are others seeking the floor. The last point I will make is that we are going to vote in a short period of time on this GMO legislation. This is an August 20, 2015, article from the New England Journal of Medicine entitled ``GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health.'' It makes the point very directly that there has been no credible scientific evidence that GMO foods pose any danger to consumers who consume them. But there is a credible concern about the use of chemicals in the production of these GMO products and how they are being larded on these fields, creating real concern about the ultimate impact on public health by these agricultural chemicals and the runoff.
Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.)
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not high on most physicians' worry lists. If we think at all about biotechnology, most of us probably focus on direct threats to human health, such as prospects for converting pathogens to biologic weapons or the implications of new technologies for editing the human germline. But while those debates simmer, the application of biotechnology to agriculture has been rapid and aggressive. The vast majority of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are now genetically engineered. Foods produced from GM crops have become ubiquitous. And unlike regulatory bodies in 64 other countries, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require labeling of GM foods.
Two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO landscape. First, there have been sharp increases in the amounts and numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops, and still further increases--the largest in a generation--are scheduled to occur in the next few years. Second, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide most widely used on GM crops, as a ``probable human carcinogen'' and classified a second herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), as a ``possible human carcinogen.''
The application of genetic engineering to agriculture builds on the ancient practice of selective breeding. But unlike traditional selective breeding, genetic engineering vastly expands the range of traits that can be moved into plants and enables breeders to import DNA from virtually anywhere in the biosphere. Depending on the traits selected, genetically engineered crops can increase yields, thrive when irrigated with salty water, or produce fruits and vegetables resistant to mold and rot.
The National Academy of Sciences has twice reviewed the safety of GM crops--in 2000 and 2004. Those reviews, which focused almost entirely on the genetic aspects of biotechnology, concluded that GM crops pose no unique hazards to human health. They noted that genetic transformation has the potential to produce unanticipated allergens or toxins and might alter the nutritional quality of food. Both reports recommended development of new risk-assessment tools and postmarketing surveillance. Those recommendations have largely gone unheeded.
Herbicide resistance is the main characteristic that the biotechnology industry has chosen to introduce into plants. Corn and soybeans with genetically engineered tolerance to glyphosate (Roundup) were first introduced in the mid-1990s. These ``Roundup-Read ``crops now account for more than 90% of the corn and soybeans planted in the United States. Their advantage, especially in the first years after introduction, is that they greatly simplify weed management. Farmers can spray herbicide both before and during the growing season, leaving their crops unharmed.
But widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant crops has led to overreliance on herbicides and, in particular, on glyphosate. In the United States, glyphosate use has increased by a factor of more than 250--from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113 million kg in 2014. Global use has increased by a factor of more than 10. Not surprisingly, glyphosate- resistant weeds have emerged and are found today on nearly 100 million acres in 36 states. Fields must now be treated with multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D, a component of the Agent Orange defoliant used in the Vietnam War.
The first of the two developments that raise fresh concerns about the safety of GM crops is a 2014 decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve Enlist Duo, a new combination herbicide comprising glyphosate plus 2,4-D. Enlist Duo was formulated to combat herbicide resistance. It will be marketed in tandem with newly approved seeds genetically engineered to resist glyphosate, 2,4-D, and multiple other herbicides. The EPA anticipates that a 3-to-7- fold increase in 2,4-D use will result.
In our view, the science and the risk assessment supporting the Enlist Duo decision are flawed. The science consisted solely of toxicologic studies commissioned by the herbicide manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s and never published, not an uncommon practice in U.S. pesticide regulation. These studies predated current knowledge of low-dose, endocrine- mediated, and epigenetic effects and were not designed to detect them. The risk assessment gave little consideration to potential health effects in infants and children, thus contravening federal pesticide law. It failed to consider ecologic impact, such as effects on the monarch butterfly and other pollinators. It considered only pure glyphosate, despite studies showing that formulated glyphosate that contains surfactants and adjuvants is more toxic than the pure compound.
The second new development is the determination by the IARC in 2015 that glyphosate is a ``probable human carcinogen'' and 2,4-D a ``possible human carcinogen.'' These classifications were based on comprehensive assessments of the toxicologic and epidemiologic literature that linked both herbicides to dose-related increases in malignant tumors at multiple anatomical sites in animals and linked glyphosate to an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in humans.
These developments suggest that GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments. We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology. The National Academy of Sciences has convened a new committee to reassess the social, economic, environmental, and human health effects of GM crops. This development is welcome, but the committee's report is not expected until at least 2016.
In the meantime, we offer two recommendations. First, we believe the EPA should delay implementation of its decision to permit use of Enlist Duo. This decision was made in haste. It was based on poorly designed and outdated studies and on an incomplete assessment of human exposure and environmental effects. It would have benefited from deeper consideration of independently funded studies published in the peer-reviewed literature. And it preceded the recent IARC determinations on glyphosate and 2,4-D. Second, the National Toxicology Program should urgently assess the toxicology of pure glyphosate, formulated glyphosate, and mixtures of glyphosate and other herbicides.
Finally, we believe the time has come to revisit the United States' reluctance to label GM foods. Labeling will deliver multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops. It would respect the wishes of a growing number of consumers who insist they have a right to know what foods they are buying and how they were produced. And the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer. We hope, in light of this new information, that the FDA will reconsider labeling of GM foods and couple it with adequately funded, long-term postmarketing surveillance.
7, 2016--Campbell Soup Company (NYSE: CPB) today announced its support for the enactment of federal legislation to establish a single mandatory labeling standard for foods derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full release here: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ 20160107006458/en/.
Campbell believes it is necessary for the federal government to provide a national standard for labeling requirements to better inform consumers about this issue. The company will advocate for federal legislation that would require all foods and beverages regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to be clearly and simply labeled for GMOs. Campbell is also supportive of a national standard for non- GMO claims made on food packaging.
As a result of its decision to support mandatory national GMO labeling, Campbell will withdraw from all efforts led by coalitions and groups opposing such measures.
The company continues to oppose a patchwork of state-by- state labeling laws, which it believes are incomplete, impractical and create unnecessary confusion for consumers.
Campbell is optimistic a federal solution can be established in a reasonable amount of time if all the interested stakeholders cooperate. However, if that is not the case, Campbell is prepared to label all of its U.S. products for the presence of ingredients that were derived from GMOs, not just those required by pending legislation in Vermont. The company would seek guidance from the FDA and approval by USDA.
Campbell continues to recognize that GMOs are safe, as the science indicates that foods derived from crops grown using genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different from other foods. The company also believes technology will play a crucial role in feeding the world.
Campbell has been engaged in the conversation about GMO labeling for several years and has taken action to provide consumers with more information about how its products are made, including the presence of GMOs, through efforts like its website www.whatsinmyfood.com. With 92 percent of Americans supporting the labeling of GMO foods, Campbell believes now is the time for the federal government to act quickly to implement a federal solution.
More information about the rationale behind Campbell's decision can be found on Campbell's newsroom. ____
Campbell's--Why We Support Mandatory National GMO Labeling (By Campbell Team)
Today the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/ 08/business/a-new-fact-on-the-foodlabel.html) wrote about Campbell's decision to support mandatory national labeling of products that may contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Campbell's President and CEO Denise Morrison shared the message below with our employees about the reasons behind our decision. Taking a Major Step Forward as We Live Our Purpose
At Campbell, we are unleashing the power of our Purpose, Real food that matters for life's moments. Our Purpose calls for us to acknowledge that consumers appreciate what goes into our food, and why--so they can feel good about the choices they make, for themselves and their loved ones.
Today, consistent with our Purpose, we announced our support for mandatory national labeling of products that may contain genetically modified organisms (GMO) and proposed that the federal government provide a national standard for non-GMO claims made on food packaging.
We are operating with a ``Consumer First'' mindset. We put the consumer at the center of everything we do. That's how we've built trust for nearly 150 years. We have always believed that consumers have the right to know what's in their food. GMO has evolved to be a top consumer food issue reaching a critical mass of 92% of consumers in favor of putting it on the label.
In addition, we have declared our intention to set the standard for transparency in the food industry. We have been openly discussing our ingredients, including those derived from GMO crops, through our WhatsinmyFood.com website. We are supporting digital disclosure through the Grocery Manufacturers Association's (GMA) SmartLabelTM program. We have announced the removal of artificial colors and flavors from our products. However, our support of mandatory federal GMO labeling sets a new bar for transparency.
There is currently no federal regulation requiring labeling that informs consumers about the presence of GMOs in their food. In the absence of federal action, many states--from California to Maine--have attempted to address this issue. Campbell has opposed this state-by-state patchwork approach, and has worked with GMA to defeat several state ballot initiatives. Put simply, although we believe that consumers have the right to know what's in their food, we also believe that a state-by-state piecemeal approach is incomplete, impractical and costly to implement for food makers. More importantly, it's confusing to consumers.
Most recently, Vermont passed legislation that will require food companies including Campbell to label products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that may contain ingredients made from GMO crops. However, this legislation does not include products with meat or poultry, because they are regulated by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under Vermont law, SpaghettiO's original variety, guided by the FDA, will be labeled for the presence of GMOs, but SpaghettiO's meatballs, guided by the USDA, will not. Yet these two varieties sit next to each other on a store shelf, which is bound to create consumer confusion.
Campbell has been actively involved in trying to resolve this issue since 2011. We've worked with GMA, legislators and regulators to forge a national voluntary solution. We've engaged a variety of stakeholders, from lawmakers to activists. I've personally made multiple trips to Capitol Hill to meet with elected officials. Despite these efforts, Congress has not been able to resolve this issue. We now believe that proposing a mandatory national solution is necessary. Printing a clear and simple statement on the label is the best solution for consumers and for Campbell.
I want to stress that we're in no way disputing the science behind GMOs or their safety. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence indicates that GMOs are safe and that foods derived from crops using genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different from other foods. In America, many farmers who grow canola, corn, soybean and sugar beets choose to use genetically modified seeds and have done so for nearly twenty years. More than 90% of these four crops in America are currently grown using GMO seeds. It takes an average of thirteen years to get a GMO seed approved by the government for safety. Ingredients derived from these crops are in many of our products. We also believe that GMOs and other technologies will play a crucial role in feeding the world.
We will continue to be a member of GMA and will participate in food industry initiatives that align with our Purpose and business goals. However, as a result of the change in our position on GMO labeling, Campbell is withdrawing from all efforts led by groups opposing mandatory GMO labeling legislation, including those led by GMA.
The New York Times reported on our decision, and we issued a press release. I encourage you to read both. We recognize that this announcement may spark discussion. It's difficult to predict the exact nature of the ensuing commentary, but I suspect it will be a mixed bag. What I do know is that our decision was guided by our Purpose; rooted in our consumer- first mindset; and driven by our commitment to transparency-- to be open and honest about our food. I truly believe it is the right thing to do for consumers and for our business. Best, Denise Morrison, President and CEO.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Campbell Soup Company has decided they are going to face this issue squarely, honestly, and waste no time. It is a company that I trust. I can't imagine how many cans of Campbell's soup we have consumed in my household throughout my life.
They said: It is time to be honest with consumers. We will tell them. We will tell them pointblank on the label so they can read whether or not there are GMO products contained in the soup. Then they can make the decision as to whether they want to buy it.
I wish that were the outcome of this entire debate, but it is not.
The third point I want to make is it is mindless for us to allow individual States like Vermont to decide the labeling standards for national companies. It makes no sense. We cannot allow it to occur.
The last point I will make is this: One of the provisions in this bill I think is embarrassing, and it is a provision which I cannot support. We give three options to food companies when it comes to labeling for GMOs. First, declare right on the label, just as Campbell Soup Company does, if GMO products are included. Second, use a symbol created by the Department of Agriculture which we can educate the public on that can really signal as to whether this product has GMO products. The third is the one that troubles me--something called a YRL or URL. I may have that designation wrong, but it is that kind of scrambled screen you see that you can't read but some computers can read. What these food companies want to do is not tell you as a consumer whether the food has GMOs or not. As you go through the grocery store, they want you to hold your cell phone up to that box of macaroni and cheese to see if it has GMO in it or not by reading all that is written on your cell phone. That is a bad joke.
I just went shopping with my two 4\1/2\-year-old grandkids. I cannot imagine walking through that store, trying to keep them from raiding different displays, and using my cell phone on box after box of macaroni and cheese. That, to me, is the ``secret decoder ring'' approach to this, and I think it is an embarrassment to consumers to ask them to go through that. So I will be voting in opposition to the GMO bill when it comes before us later in the day.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, eventually this evening, we will be voting on GMO labeling. As I mentioned earlier, this is the most politically contentious and divisive issue I can ever remember. I have been in Congress for a few years. Whenever this comes up in our caucus, it is going to be a heated argument. It evokes so many emotions, not just among the members of our caucus but certainly with the American people. It gets down to some basic questions.
If you are dealing with a food product that has bioengineered contents or genetically modified content, there are several questions we need to ask. The first question is, Should the consumer know this? Well, 92 percent of Americans believe, yes, they have a right to know if there is GMO content in the food they eat. That is what the polls show--92 percent. That is an overwhelming number when you have lived with polls as long as most of us have.
Then you ask a question, delving into it: Is that because GMO modified food is dangerous to a consumer?
I think the answer is very clear that the scientific analyses of GMO food have not reached that conclusion. They believe--the National Academy of Sciences and others--that GMO food by itself is not dangerous to consumers. That is the scientific evidence. Nevertheless, there is this strong public opinion that people want to know whether GMOs are part of the food that they are consuming.
I have done some research on this, and I am sure every Member has tried to look at this very carefully. The one article that has stuck with me through the entire debate was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in August of 2015 last year. It was about a year ago when two doctors, Dr. Philip Landrigan and Dr. Charles Benbrook, published this article in what I think is highly regarded as a nonpolitical professional medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine.
They go through an analysis of GMO in foods. They acknowledge at the outset what I have already said--that there is no scientific evidence of danger if there is GMO content in your food. Then they take it to a different level--an important level, as far as I am concerned. Is there any difference in the way GMO products or plants are grown? The answer is yes, and it was designed to be different. This was inspired initially by Monsanto, a company that has a major presence in my State. It was designed to create a seed corn that they made and sold that was resistant to an herbicide--that is a weedkiller--Roundup or glyphosate. They were selling the seed corn, which obviously is a source of profit for them and then encouraging the farmers who bought it to use this weedkiller or herbicide in their fields, saying this herbicide would not hurt the corn crop, just the weeds.
These two doctors of the New England Journal of Medicine then proceeded to analyze what happened next. What happened was that over time, there were weeds that were becoming more and more resistant to Roundup--stronger, thicker, bigger weeds. To put it a different way, Mother Nature was not cooperating with Monsanto. Weeds were appearing that they didn't anticipate. So they decided to apply even more of this herbicide, this weedkiller called Roundup, to see if that controlled the problem, and it didn't. They had to add another weedkiller--another herbicide--2,4-D, which has a long history in the United States, and then they started combining the two, hoping to stop the weeds with this new combination.
The net result, which these two doctors published in this article of the New England Journal of Medicine, was a dramatic increase in this glyphosate--this Roundup, that was being applied across the world. Roundup-ready crops now account for more than 90 percent of corn and soybeans planted in the United States. They go on to say:
But widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant crops has led to overreliance on herbicides and, in particular, on glyphosate.
In the United States, glyphosate use has increased by a factor of more than 250--from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113 million kg in 2014. Global use has increased by a factor of more than 10. Not surprisingly, glyphosate-resistant weeds have emerged and are found today on nearly 100 million acres in 36 states. Fields must now be treated with multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D, a component of the Agent Orange defoliant used in the Vietnam War.
The EPA anticipates that a 3-to-7-fold increase in 2,4-D use will be the result of these Roundup resistant weeds. Is that important? I think it is very important. It is important because we know that if you apply large quantities of chemicals to our agricultural fields, you may produce and harvest a big crop, but there is an environmental risk. How much of a risk depends on the chemicals being provided, being used by the farmers.
If GMO foods on your table are not a concern to your family because of scientific analysis, there is another question. Is the method that is being used to grow these Roundup-resistant crops, these GMO crops, an environmental danger to anyone? These two doctors came to a conclusion that it is--a determination in 2015 that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and 2,4-D is a possible human carcinogen.
Because of the link between these chemicals and cancer, these two doctors have concluded that labeling is important so consumers know that they are consuming products that on the table are no danger but that may have called for the use of more chemicals leading to more environmental danger. They conclude that there should be labeling. It is a different approach, but it is one that I think is valid, and it comes from a totally nonpolitical source--the New England Journal of Medicine.
The question then comes, if we are going to have labeling, what kind of labeling? I mentioned earlier today--and I want to repeat it--that my hat is off to the Campbell Soup Company. They have been around a long time. They put out information in a press release in January of this year announcing that they supported the enactment of Federal legislation to establish a single mandatory labeling standard for foods derived from genetically modified organisms.
They went on to say that Campbell's believes it is necessary for the Federal Government to provide a national standard for labeling requirements to better inform consumers. I agree.
They go on to say that the notion of every State setting a labeling standard is madness. It would be impossible for major food manufacturers to keep up with the variety of different labeling requirements, and it isn't practical in a nation like ours for us to really accommodate that kind of labeling requirement.
Campbell's has stepped forward and said we don't believe that GMOs in our product are any danger to consumers, and we are prepared to declare on our product, in clear words, whether or not they contain genetically modified organisms. I think this is a responsible corporate answer to a vexing problem we faced for years.
I salute Campbell's for trusting consumers and trusting their ability to convince consumers the food they are selling is wholesome. I wish the food industry had followed the Campbell's motto, but the bill we have before us does not. It provides three different opportunities to disclose on food products--mandatory--whether or not they contain genetically modified organisms. One is a simple declaration: GMO, non- GMO. The second is using something that will be developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and that consumers will come to learn--a signal or some sort of a sign or symbol as to whether GMO is included.
It is the third approach that troubles me the most. I have said this over and over to the people in the food industry across America who support this approach. I call this the secret decoder ring approach. What it means is, if you are a consumer walking into a store buying groceries for your family, you will be facing what is known as a QR. I am learning as it goes on what this means. It is one of those little boxes with squiggles in it, which makes no sense to you as you look at it, but it can be read by a computer. That reading would then signal whether or not you receive additional information. I think that is deceptive. I think it is unnecessary, and I think Campbell's has the right approach.
The QR codes would literally have consumers who want to know--and 92 percent do want to know--about the GMOs in their food either use their cell phones on the products they are about to buy in the grocery store or turn to some reader in the grocery store that will give them a page or two of information about the contents. I really believe that is an attempt to obfuscate the situation. I think most consumers will rightly assume that if there is not a clear declaration on the product which shows that it is non-GMO, that it contains GMOs.
I think the food industry is taking an approach which can't be defended with a straight face. Can you really expect a busy consumer--a mother with children in her shopping cart to pull out her cell phone and stop at every can of soup to try to get a reading and then read her cell phone to see if there is a page or two of information about that product? That isn't fair to consumers, and that is why major consumer organizations oppose this bill. It is one of the major reasons I oppose the bill as well.
If there were a declaration, such as a symbol, or straight acknowledgement of wording as to whether the product contains GMOs or is non-GMO, which every seasoned consumer would come to understand, I think that is an honest approach. I don't think it is reasonable or honest to expect a consumer to have to scan a QR code and then have to read their cell phone to determine what is in the product.
Let me conclude by saying I salute those who have taken up this battle. Many have taken this up for many different reasons. It has been a vexing and contentious issue for a long period of time. I do not support State labeling. We have to avoid that. I do support honest disclosures on food products so American consumers who rightly believe they have a right to know have a way of finding that information in a way that is reasonable.
I also want to add that it is my understanding that there is a 2-year delay in terms of imposing this requirement. I don't know why 2 years would be necessary. It would seem to me that if Campbell's can move on this more quickly, the rest of the food industry should be able to do so as well.
I thank the Senator from Oregon, who has been working hard on this issue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source