National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in very strong opposition to the Roberts-Stabenow bill concerning the labeling of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, and to discuss an amendment of mine that I hope will get to the floor as soon as possible.
The simple truth is, people have the right to know what is in the food they eat, and when parents go to the store and purchase food, they have the right to know what is in the food their kids are going to be eating. That is why 64 countries all over the world, including the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and China, require labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms, GMOs. That is why my own State of Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, and Alaska have adopted laws to label foods containing GMOs. That is why the major environmental groups in this country, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Working Group, Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch, and others have all come out in opposition to the Roberts- Stabenow bill.
It is no secret my own State of Vermont has led the way in requiring companies to label their products. Last Friday, Vermont became the first State in the Nation to require GMO labeling, and several other States have undertaken similar efforts. Passage of Vermont's law was a triumph for consumers, for ordinary Americans, over the powerful interests of companies like Monsanto and other multinational food industry corporations.
Unfortunately, the victory in Vermont appears to be a hollow victory. The major agribusiness and biotech companies disagree with the right of consumers to know what is in their food, and not only do they disagree, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and in campaign contributions to overturn the GMO right-to-know legislation that States have already passed and that other States are on the verge of passing. They have also spent many millions more to pass Federal legislation like what we are considering today, which would deny States the right to go forward in this area.
Let's be clear. This is just another shameful example of how big- money interests are using their influence to enact policies that are contrary to what the vast majority of the American people want and what they support. These companies are spending millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to make certain that their interests prevail against what ordinary Americans feel very strongly about.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which sued and lost in trying to stop Vermont's law, has 34 lobbyists working on this issue alone. They spent $8.5 million lobbying in 2015. In 2016, the Grocery Manufacturers Association has already spent $1.5 million in total lobbying. Monsanto has spent $2 million in 2016 lobbying Congress. The Environmental Working Group has calculated that food and biotech companies and trade associations have spent nearly $200 million to oppose State GMO labeling initiatives like Vermont's legislation. When combined with Washington lobbying expenditures that note GMO labeling as a purpose, the total amount spent by labeling opponents is close to $400 million--$400 million in order to prevent the people of our country knowing what is in the food they eat.
This particular piece of corporate-backed legislation we are considering right now will create a confusing, misleading, and unenforceable national standard for labeling GMOs. This bill will preempt my State's law--the law in the State of Vermont--roll back the progress we have made, and is a huge setback to consumers' right to know what is in their food.
I would say to my Republican colleagues who so often tell us about the need to get the Federal Government out of the lives of the people, who talk about States' rights, what this legislation does is preempt a law passed in the State of Vermont, which thousands of our people were involved in passing, which the State legislature held numerous hearings on, where the State law was sued and yet was sustained by a court.
We have gone through all of that in the State of Vermont. We have Maine passing similar legislation, Connecticut passing legislation, Alaska passing legislation. Yet many of my friends who are great States' righters, who know how important the role of States is, are prepared to overturn all of the work done in these four States.
What is specifically bad above and beyond the preemption aspects of this legislation? Instead of a uniform labeling standard like Vermont's law, the language in this bill allows text symbols or an electronic QR code to be used. This is intentionally confusing to consumers, and the information may be entirely inaccessible if the consumer does not have access to the Internet. The QR code is not required to have text next to it to make it clear that the code provides additional information about GMOs. It can merely say ``Scan here for more food information.'' That makes no sense. People may not even know to scan it to learn more about GMOs specifically.
You can imagine how ridiculous this will be in the real world. A mom goes to a store with two kids who are running around, and she is supposed to take out her cell phone and scan a label in a store that may or may not have a good Internet connection. This is not an effort to provide information; this is an effort to deny information to consumers.
Reading information right on the label takes a matter of seconds. Why would we require families and shoppers to take considerable time when under Vermont's law they only need a moment to look at a label? Right now we have labels that tell us the amount of calories and give us other information on what is in a product. We look at it and we make a judgment as to whether this is a product we wish to purchase, and that is clearly what should be the case with products that contain GMOs.
There is also an argument to be made that this bill is discriminatory in its impact. Putting the onus on the consumer, making it necessary for that consumer to have a smartphone and Internet access, prohibits those without that access. Not everybody in America owns a cell phone. Many low-income people and working people do not own a cell phone.
Yesterday's New York Times noted in an editorial that ``the biggest problem with the Senate bill is that--instead of requiring a simple label, as the Vermont law does--it would allow food companies to put the information in electronic codes that consumers would have to scan with smartphones or at scanners installed by grocery stores.'' According to the New York Times, ``The only reason to do this would be to make the information less accessible to the public.''
Less accessible to the public. The New York Times has it exactly right.
Further, this bill allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to rule on what percentage of GMO material is present in a particular food before it gets labeled, in contrast to Vermont's and the European Union's standards, both of which require products with more than nine- tenths of 1 percent GMO to be labeled.
The Roberts-Stabenow bill also contains a huge loophole in the labeling requirement, stating that there is no labeling requirement for GMO foods that could have occurred ``through conventional breeding or found in nature.'' Essentially, if the genetic engineering done by a company could have occurred in nature, there is no requirement to label it, which would prevent GMO corn, beet sugar, and soy oils from being labeled. The FDA has confirmed this loophole, stating that as the language is currently written, ``many of the foods from [genetically engineered] sources will not be subject'' to labeling requirements.
Under this bill, consumers will be left in the dark for at least another 2 years, maybe longer. Once USDA has published its regulations, there is no mandatory timeline for companies to comply. In other words, we are pushing this issue further and further into the future.
Perhaps the real giveaway as to why this is not a serious piece of legislation is that, most shockingly, this bill imposes no Federal penalties whatsoever for violating the so-called labeling requirement, making the law essentially meaningless. In other words, you have a confusing law that will not be utilized by most people, but then on top of all of that, if a company does not obey the law, there is no penalty whatsoever. So that will give a great incentive for companies to continue to do nothing.
In other words, this bill is weak, it is full of loopholes, and it has no requirement to comply.
In addition to the bill's many flaws, the bill most significantly is not necessary. In fact, many large companies, such as Campbell's, Frito-Lay, Kellogg's, and ConAgra, have begun to label their products nationally in anticipation of Vermont's law. For example, here is a label that appears on M&Ms. Everybody knows M&Ms. They are manufactured by Mars, one of the major candy companies in the world. Here it is, five words: ``partially produced with genetic engineering.'' That is it. It is right here on the label. This is what you will see if you pick up a package of M&Ms today. It is out there. It is on the label. People can make their determination as to whether they want to buy the product. Other major companies are already doing that. Campbell's is doing it, Frito-Lay is doing it, Kellogg's is doing it, and ConAgra is doing it. In other words, many of the major companies are already complying with the law. We do not need to go beyond that. Guess what. These companies that began to label these products did it and the sky didn't fall. I guess people are still buying M&Ms, other candies, and the other products manufactured by these companies.
In addition to a consumer's right to know, it is important to note that when we talk about GMOs, it is not just the question of the manipulation of genetic material, it is about the chemicals necessary to make these crops productive.
The Environmental Working Group has exposed that GMOs have not decreased pesticide and herbicide use as promised. In fact, the use of toxic chemicals to grow food has only increased. Herbicide use has increased exponentially and glyphosate use specifically has increased by 3,000 percent since the 1990s.
In the State of Vermont, Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta promised our farmers that GMO corn would allow them to reduce the amount of chemicals needed for their crop production. Instead, herbicide and chemical fertilizer use on Vermont dairy farms has almost doubled from 2002 to 2012 just to keep up with the need for more pesticides and herbicides to get enough corn to feed the dairy cows.
This is troubling not only because it is extremely expensive for farmers to keep up with the seed and pesticide needs, it is also very dangerous because eight of the active ingredients in use have been linked to birth defects, developmental defects, and contaminated drinking water.
In addition to these concerns, I also want to appeal to my colleagues who have come to the Senate floor to speak in support of States' rights. As I said earlier, make no mistake about it--this is significantly a States' rights issue, and this bill is an assault on States' rights. This bill would preempt Vermont's laws, Connecticut's laws, and Maine's laws.
According to the Center for Food Safety, this bill would preempt more than 100 State and municipal food and seed laws. The center notes specifically that Virginia's seed law allows farmers to have the critical information they need to make informed choices about which seed is the most appropriate for them to purchase and plant.
I will name just a few of the other State laws that would be preempted. It would override Alaska's labeling law, which requires that genetically engineered fish be labeled. The Roberts-Stabenow bill would also preempt a Florida statute that requires a permit for the release of exotic organisms and includes genetically modified organisms. The Roberts-Stabenow bill would preempt a Michigan statute that created an invasive species advisory council. It would preempt a Missouri statute that authorizes the State entomologist to determine whether something is not only a plant pest but also whether the pest is of such a harmful nature that its introduction to or dissemination within the State should be prevented. It would also preempt a South Carolina regulation that defines plant pests.
In other words, I find it interesting that this legislation has the support of the vast majority of Republicans who day after day tell us how they want to get the Federal Government out of people's lives, but this legislation preempts dozens of State laws all over this country that were passed by State legislatures and signed by the Governors of those States. These are just a few of the laws; there are dozens more that would be nullified under the Roberts-Stabenow bill.
The amendment I intend to offer, which I hope my colleagues will all support, would make Vermont's law the national standard. For those who have argued that companies would be unable to comply with a 50-State patchwork of GMO regulation, my amendment would alleviate that concern.
Specifically, Vermont's law--unlike the bill before the Senate-- enjoyed a full hearing and amendment process. It was much discussed in the Vermont State Legislature. Vermont's law was years in the making, and legislators heard hours of testimony from dozens of stakeholders, including organic farmers and environmental organizations. The Roberts- Stabenow language has had none of this scrutiny and was brought to the floor by a procedural means without one hearing or one committee markup.
Unlike the Roberts-Stabenow bill, Vermont's law requires clear, on- package labeling instead of allowing a confusing QR code. Under Vermont's law and this amendment, consumers can glance quickly at a product and be able to determine the GMO contents with no need of a smartphone or Internet connection.
Once again, and very importantly, many major food companies are already complying with Vermont's law. Pick up a package of M&Ms, and there it is right now on the label, five words: ``partially produced with genetic engineering.'' Mars, which manufactures M&Ms, has done it, and it is not a problem. Other companies are already doing the same thing.
What makes sense is to build on what Vermont has done, not come up with an unenforceable, confusing, weak piece of legislation paid for by the large food corporations in this country.
This amendment making Vermont the national standard will also prevent the gaping loopholes in the Roberts-Stabenow language that will prevent labeling of the most common GMO foods. Unlike the Roberts-Stabenow language, this amendment defines ``food'' and ``genetic engineering'' in a way that would require labeling of foods derived from GMOs, such as starches, oils made from GMOs, sugar derived from GMO sugar beets, or high-fructose corn syrup. None of these types of products will require labeling under the Roberts-Stabenow language.
Also, my amendment sets a specific percentage of GMOs in food to trigger the labeling requirement--nine-tenths of 1 percent, which is consistent with Vermont's law and European Union standards. Under the Roberts-Stabenow language, this determination will be left up to the USDA, which could require 10 percent before labeling or 51 percent. We just don't know at this point.
My amendment also contains a legitimate enforcement provision consistent with Vermont's law. My amendment sets consistent penalties for improper labeling and provides for consumers to be able to sue to ensure enforcement.
The issue of labeling of our food is not controversial. It is something the American people want. It is something that common sense dictates. The overwhelming majority of Americans favor GMO labeling, nearly 9 out of 10.
People have a right to know what is in the food they eat. Instead, the needs of consumers, the needs of the American people have been completely disregarded in this legislation at the behest of major corporate interests and campaign donors. Congress must stand up to the demands of Monsanto and other multinational food industry corporations and reject the Roberts-Stabenow piece of legislation.
My amendment would provide a meaningful alternative to the confusing and ineffective measure we are considering, and I ask that colleagues support my amendment.
With that, I reserve----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. My colleague from Vermont is absolutely correct. In Vermont, there was a lot of discussion, and there were a number of hearings, but not here in the U.S. Senate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. My colleague from Vermont makes a very, very important point. In Vermont, this issue was seriously discussed. Over 50 hearings were held, with different points of view and objections being raised.
I would ask my colleague, just to confirm with me: How many hearings on this important and controversial bill were held here in the Senate?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. So here is what we have. I thank my friend from Vermont for raising this issue. On the one hand, we have a State--the State of Vermont--which addressed this issue in a serious way, listening to all points of view, having the legislature go over this in a thorough manner. Then, here we have the Senate, after many, many millions of dollars in lobbying efforts and campaign contributions, overriding the work of the State of Vermont and not having one hearing--not one hearing with consumers, environmental groups, farm organizations--and rushing it through in the last week or two before we adjourn for summer break.
I thank the Senator from Vermont for raising that enormously important issue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source