    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW AND LABELING OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN
                                      FOOD

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 18, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-58

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    97-704                         WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                     Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                             Subcommittee on Health

                         JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
                                     Chairman
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              GENE GREEN, Texas
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               LOIS CAPPS, California
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina         Massachusetts
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TONY CARDENAS, California
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana             FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York                  officio)
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, prepared statement......................................     4
    Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of North Carolina, opening statement.....................     4
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     8

                                   Witnesses

    Rick Blasgen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council of
      Supply Chain Management Professionals..........................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   125
    Todd W. Daloz, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Vermont
      Attorney General...............................................    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   129
    John Reifsteck, Chairman of the Board and President, Growmark,
      Inc............................................................    47
        Prepared statement...........................................    49
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   135
    Gregory Jaffe, Biotechnology Project Director, Center for Science
      in the Public Interest.........................................    60
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   139
    L. Val Giddings, Senior Fellow, Information Technology &
      Innovation Foundation..........................................    69
        Prepared statement...........................................    71
        Answers to submitted questions \1\...........................   141

                               Submitted Material

    Statement of support from Members of the Agriculture Committee,
      submitted by Mr. Pompeo........................................   110
    Statement of support from the Coalition for Safe and Affordable
      Food, submitted by Mr. Butterfield.............................   115
    Statement of support from the biotechnology industry, submitted
      by Mr. Butterfield.............................................   121
    Statement of support from the National Association of
      Manufacturers, submitted by Mr. Pitts..........................   123

    ----------
    \1\ Mr. Giddings did not respond to submitted questions for the
      record by the time of printing.

     A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW AND LABELING OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN
                                      FOOD

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Health,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Pitts, Guthrie, Whitfield,
    Shimkus, Murphy, Burgess, Blackburn, Lance, Griffith,
    Bilirakis, Ellmers, Bucshon, Brooks, Collins, Upton (ex
    officio), Green, Capps, Schakowsky, Butterfield, Castor,
    Sarbanes, Schrader, Kennedy, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Also Present: Representatives Pompeo and Welch.
        Staff Present: Clay Alspach, Chief Counsel, Health, Sean
    Bonyun, Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press
    Assistant; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Noelle Clemente,
    Press Secretary; Carly McWilliams, Professional Staff Member,
    Health; Tim Pataki, Professional Staff Member; Graham Pittman,
    Legislative Clerk; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator,
    Environment & Economy; John Stone, Counsel, Health; Dylan
    Vorbach, Staff Assistant; Greg Watson, Staff Assistant;
    Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll,
    Minority Staff Director; Eric Flamm, Minority FDA Detailee;
    Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief
    Health Advisor; Samantha Satchell, Minority Policy Analyst; and
    Kimberlee Trzeciak, Minority Health Policy Advisor.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
             CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Pitts. Good morning. I ask that all of our guests today
    please take their seats. The subcommittee will come to order.
    The chair will recognize himself for an opening statement.
        Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is a term that
    refers to ingredients sourced from crops that have been
    genetically engineered to express certain traits or
    characteristics.
        There are real sensitivities around these issues and all
    issues regarding the food we eat and feed our children and
    grandchildren. It is our job, as policymakers, particularly as
    it relates to the public health, to establish a factually and
    scientifically sound foundation prior to taking any action that
    would impact consumers and our economy.
        This hearing provides a great opportunity to put rhetoric
    aside and do just that. Genetic engineering in agriculture has
    occurred for centuries. Ingredients from genetically engineered
    plants have been a part of the U.S. Food supply for decades.
        In fact, as much as 90 percent of our corn, sugar beet, and
    soybean crops are now genetically engineered and more than 70
    percent of processed foods contain ingredients derived from
    such crops.
        The Food and Drug Administration oversees the safety of all
    food products from plant sources, including those from
    genetically engineered crops. These products must meet the same
    safety requirements as foods from traditionally-bred crops. The
    FDA currently has a consultation in place which developers of
    the underlying technologies address any outstanding safety or
    other regulatory issues with the agency prior to marketing
    their products.
        FDA has completed approximately 100 of such consultations.
    No products have gone to market until FDA's safety-related
    questions have been resolved. FDA officials have repeatedly
    stated that the agency has no basis for concluding that
    bioengineered foods are different from other foods in any
    meaningful way, and the World Health Organization has confirmed
    that ``No effects on human health have been shown as a result
    of consumption of such foods.'' In fact, they can grow faster,
    resist diseases and drought, cost less, and prove more
    nutritious. Nonetheless, there have recently been a number of
    State initiatives calling for the mandatory labeling of food
    products that contain GMOs.
        We will hear today from a number of witnesses who can speak
    to such actions and the impact they would have. I am concerned
    that a patchwork of State labeling schemes would be impractical
    and unworkable. Such a system would create confusion among
    consumers and result in higher prices and fewer options.
        Finally, I want to commend Representative Mike Pompeo and
    Representative Butterfield for their leadership on these issues
    and look forward to learning more about their continued efforts
    to work in a bipartisan manner on H.R. 1599, the Safe and
    Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. All these efforts will
    continue as the legislative process moves forward. I am
    encouraged that the revised language circulated in advance of
    this hearing has been informed by conversations between the
    sponsors, the committees of jurisdiction, the implementing
    agencies, and the impact of stakeholders.
        I would like to welcome all of our witnesses for being here
    today. I look forward to your testimony. And I yield the
    balance of my time to distinguished vice chairman of the full
    committee, Representative Blackburn of Tennessee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Joseph R. Pitts

        The Subcommittee will come to order.
        The Chairman will recognize himself for an opening
    statement.
        Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is a term that
    refers to ingredients sourced from crops that have been
    genetically engineered to express certain traits or
    characteristics.
        There are real sensitivities around these issues, and all
    issues regarding the food we eat and feed our children and
    grandchildren. It is our job as policymakers, particularly as
    it relates to the public health, to establish a factually and
    scientifically sound foundation prior to taking any action that
    would impact consumers and our economy. This hearing provides a
    great opportunity to put rhetoric aside and do just that.
        Genetic engineering in agriculture has occurred for
    centuries. Ingredients from genetically engineered plants have
    been a part of the U.S. food supply for decades. In fact, as
    much as 90 percent of our corn, sugar beet, and soybean crops
    are now genetically engineered and more than 70 percent of
    processed foods contain ingredients derived from such crops.
        The Food and Drug Administration oversees the safety of all
    food products from plant sources, including those from
    genetically engineered crops. These products must meet the same
    safety requirements as foods from traditionally bred crops. The
    FDA currently has a consultation process in place in which
    developers of the underlying technologies address any
    outstanding safety or other regulatory issues with the agency
    prior to marketing their products. FDA has completed
    approximately 100 of such consultations. No products have gone
    to market until FDA's safety-related questions have been
    resolved.
        FDA officials have repeatedly stated that the agency has no
    basis for concluding that bioengineered foods are different
    from other foods in any meaningful way, and the World Health
    Organization has confirmed that ``no effects on human health
    have been shown as a result of consumption of such foods.'' In
    fact, they can grow faster, resist diseases and drought, cost
    less, and prove more nutritious.
        Nonetheless, there have recently been a number of state
    initiatives calling for the mandatory labeling of food products
    that contain GMOs. We will hear today from a number of
    witnesses who can speak to such actions and the impact they
    would have.
        I'm concerned that a patchwork of state labeling schemes
    would be impractical and unworkable. Such a system would create
    confusion among consumers and result in higher prices and fewer
    options.
        Finally, I want to commend Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Rep.
    G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) for their leadership on these issues,
    and I look forward to learning more about their continued
    efforts to work in a bipartisan manner on H.R. 1599, the Safe
    and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. While these efforts
    will continue as the legislative process moves forward, I am
    encouraged that the revised language circulated in advance of
    this hearing has been informed by conversations between the
    sponsors, the committees of jurisdiction, the implementing
    agencies, and impacted stakeholders.
        I would like to welcome all of our witnesses for being here
    today. I look forward to your testimony. I yield to ----------
    ------------------.

        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome to all. And the chairman mentioned the food that we
    eat and that we feed our children and grandchildren. I want to
    add one category to that, what we feed our pets. And we are
    concerned about that aspect also.
        I do appreciate Mr. Pompeo and the assistance they have
    given us as we look at pet food labeling. And the chairman also
    mentioned that we have had these products in the marketplace
    for decades. I would say we are talking about over 100 years.
    Go back and look at what farmers did. And they would breed
    cattle to get the best traits. Look at the work that George
    Washington Carver did in his 40 years of teaching and research
    at Tuskegee, looking for ways to improve the soil, looking at
    different varietals of peanut and sweet potatoes and improving
    the health of individuals in the south.
        Genetically modified foods are components that are indeed
    with us, and it is because of them that we have greater yields
    per acre; we have more varieties, and that our farmers markets
    that I visit every single weekend are full of beautiful
    products that encourage people to access these fresh foods and
    bring them into their homes and kitchens.
        With that, I thank all for their work. I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
        Now I recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
    Green for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I was glad our vice chair of the
    subcommittee worried about our pets. My problem is I had a dog
    one time that ate pillows and curtains and everything else. I
    think he ate everything he could get his mouth on.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a statement I would like to put into
    the record, but I would like to yield my time to Congressman
    Butterfield.
        Mr. Pitts. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Gene Green

        Good morning and thank you all for being here today.
        Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO's, first hit the
    market around 20 years ago and in the years since, have only
    expanded in prevalence. Nowadays, most corn, sugar beets,
    canola and cotton crops grown in the U.S. are genetically
    modified.
        Today, as we debate whether there is a need for a national
    framework for the labeling of GMO ingredients, I feel it is
    important to first talk about the safety and science of
    genetically modified organisms.
        The FDA has conducted evaluation after evaluation on GMOs
    through their voluntary consultation process, and consistently
    found no material difference between the GMO and their non-
    modified counterparts. Moreover, there have not been any cases
    where FDA found that a genetically modified organism was unsafe
    for consumption.
        Genetically Modified food is not only safe for consumption,
    but has a positive environmental impact. A comprehensive study
    by the National Academy of Sciences found that GMO's have
    significantly increased crop yields while decreasing pesticide
    use and soil erosion.
        The benefits of GMOs are not limited to environmental
    stewardship. Norman Borlaug, the father of the ``Green
    Revolution'' and recipient of the Noble Peace Prize is credited
    with saving a billion lives through his creation of Dwarf
    Wheat, a genetically modified plant that doubled the crop yield
    in Pakistan and India, dramatically improving food security in
    those countries.
        Even today, Golden Rice, a crop containing biosynthesized
    beta-carotene is essential in combatting Vitamin A deficiency
    in Asia. This GMO crop is credited with saving the lives of
    670,000 children under the age of 5 every year. At this point,
    it has clearly been demonstrated that GMO technology is not
    only safe, but of immense benefit to society.
        Most analysts estimate that 80% of packed foods in the u.s.
    contain genetically modified ingredients or plants. When it
    comes to mandatory labeling, food labels should impart useful,
    scientifically-sound information to consumers. With that said,
    consumers who want to know the origin and process of their food
    should have access to that information through a voluntary and
    certified GMO-Free label that they can be confident in. I feel
    that H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act moves
    us towards that goal.
        At the same time, any proposed legislation that preempts
    existing State Law must be considered with careful scrutiny.
    Congress must have a compelling reason to create a national
    standard. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on
    the proposed legislation, science of genetically modified food,
    and perspectives on the current state-by-state patchwork.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Green and Mr.
    Pitts. Before beginning, Mr. Chairman, I just want to publicly
    extend my condolences to the families of the nine victims in
    Charleston, South Carolina who were horrifically murdered last
    night while attending a prayer meeting. So thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for allowing me to digress for just a moment to offer
    my sympathies to those families.
        Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1599. I am the bill's lead
    democratic co-sponsor. This bill is bipartisan. It proposes a
    national labeling standard for foods produced with genetically
    modified ingredients. The alternative is a complex and
    unworkable patchwork of differing state laws that can only
    cause confusion and do little to provide greater transparency.
    Several states have moved forward with proposals that would
    require foods containing ingredients to be labeled. This is in
    response to unsubstantiated claims that foods containing
    genetically modified ingredients are, in some way, dangerous in
    human consumption. I take exception to these unfair and
    downright dishonest claims.
        Foods containing genetically modified ingredients are safe.
    The FDA, USDA, National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the WHO,
    every major scientific and governmental organization agrees
    with that statement. Even opponents of genetically modified
    foods admit genetically modified foods have failed to produce
    any untoward health effects. But the demonization of
    genetically modified foods continues despite objective science
    proving to the contrary.
        Those opposed to genetically modified foods simply reject
    science, and that is tremendously disappointing. And though I
    stand with science and my belief that these foods are safe, I
    understand the concerns expressed by the opponents and want to
    be responsive. That is why I have worked with my friend, Mr.
    Pompeo, and others in advocating for a Federal framework for
    labeling and crop commercialization that puts the FDA and USDA,
    our Nation's foremost food safety authorities, putting them in
    the driver's seat. 1599 is a balanced approach that reduces
    confusion by providing consumers with labeling uniformity
    across state lines that addresses the concerns of those who are
    opposed to genetically modified foods while not neglecting the
    fact that our Nation's farmers and manufacturers grow and
    produce foods that are so far and wide and not just within a
    state's borders. Without a Federal standard, Mr. Chairman,
    those farmers and manufacturers will be forced to comply with
    uneven costly and potentially misleading and onerous state-by-
    state mandates. Compliance will require new costly supply chain
    infrastructure that would disrupt the Nation's food supply,
    cause confusion and uncertainty. 1599 is reasonable. And most
    importantly, it is workable.
        I want to thank the more than 60 bipartisan co-sponsors for
    joining me and Mr. Pompeo in agreeing that our bill is the best
    way forward.
        I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Welch of Vermont.
        Mr. Welch. I thank the gentleman. The issue here is not so
    much whether GMOs are safe. The issue is whether individual
    purchasers, consumers, who purchase food have a right to know
    that GMOs are part of the food they are buying. It is a
    consumer right-to-know issue. I agree with my colleagues that a
    national standard would be good, but there is no national
    standard in this bill. It is a voluntarily labeling, which
    means there will be no labeling whatsoever.
        Many states are reflecting the desires of their consumers
    to basically know what is in the product they are buying, and
    the consumer has the right to do that. They just do. And this
    legislation is ironic in this sense: If GMOs are so safe, and I
    am not here to challenge that assertion, but if they are so
    safe, why not label so that folks who are getting what the
    manufacturers assert is so safe know that their product will be
    labeled and consumers can then make their own decision. My
    question really is, if they are so safe, why would anyone be
    afraid of labeling those products so that consumers would have
    a right to know?
        Now, in Vermont we have our assistant attorney general
    here, Todd Daloz, who is going to talk about what we have done
    in Vermont. Three States have passed labeling laws. Several
    others are considering them. There have been referendums that
    almost passed in California and it is reflecting this
    groundswell of desire that consumers have to know what is in
    the products that they are buying.
        Now, I am going to play a little unfair here, Mr. Chairman,
    because I am here today to give Mr. Pompeo----
        Mr. Pompeo. Finally.
        Mr. Welch [continuing]. And Mr. Butterfield a GMO free
    labeled pint of the most nutritious product on planet earth,
    and that is Ben and Jerry's ice cream. And this is labeled, and
    it sells. People love this.
        I will yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the chair of the full committee, Mr.
    Upton, 5 minutes for opening statement.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Good morning. We continue our examination of the
    role biotechnology plays in our Nation's farms and in our food
    supply. Our food, as we know, is literally our lifeline. It is
    important for the public to be engaged. It is the job of this
    subcommittee to establish a record based on the facts and the
    science so we ultimately pass legislation that is in the best
    interest of our constituents and our economy.
        At the hearing that we held in December of last year and in
    other venues since then, the FDA has been clear that the
    premarket consultation process currently in place to review
    food produced from genetically engineered crops is rigorous and
    the agency has no basis for questioning its safety. The WHO and
    every other legitimate health and scientific body that has
    examined this evidence has echoed the FDA's findings.
    Nonetheless, there are a number of state-specific labeling
    requirements in various stages of consideration that are
    inconsistent, potentially confusing to consumers, would
    increase food costs that cast out over the safety of
    biotechnology.
        Mr. Pompeo and Butterfield have been working tirelessly on
    a bipartisan basis in putting together a clear, understandable
    national framework that maintains FDA'S current review process,
    codifies Federal labeling standards and related requirements,
    establishes a certification process that the Department of
    Agriculture, consistent with current organic program, for the
    labeling of products as being produced or developed without the
    use of genetic engineering.
        The draft amendment to H.R. 1599 circulated before this
    hearing is another step in the right direction, and I commend
    the Ag Committee for working with us to get the bill through
    the House to ensure consumers will have a clear, concise, and
    consistent system to assist in their food choices. I yield the
    balance of my time to Mr. Pompeo.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        Good Morning. Thank you Chairman Pitts for holding this
    important hearing to further examine the role biotechnology
    plays on our nation's farms and in our food supply. I
    understand that this is a sensitive issue and one that folks
    are passionate about. It is the job of this subcommittee to
    establish a record based on the facts and the science and, as
    we have done so many times this Congress, pass legislation that
    is in the best interests of our constituents and our economy.
        At the hearing we held on these issues in December and in
    other venues since, FDA has been very clear that the premarket
    consultation process they currently have in place to review
    food produced from genetically engineered crops is rigorous and
    the agency has no basis for questioning their safety. This
    position is shared by the World Health Organization and every
    other legitimate health and scientific body that has examined
    the evidence.
        Nonetheless, there are a number of state-specific labeling
    requirements in various stages of consideration that are
    inconsistent and would cast doubt over the safety of
    biotechnology, confuse consumers, and increase food costs.
    Fortunately, Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and G. K.
    Butterfield (D-NC) have been working tirelessly on putting
    together a national framework that maintains FDA's current
    review process, codifies federal labeling standards and related
    requirements, and establishes a certification process at the
    Department of Agriculture-consistent with the current organic
    program-for the labeling of products as having been produced or
    developed without the use of genetic engineering.
        The draft amendment to H.R. 1599 circulated before this
    hearing is another step in the right direction and I commend
    the Agriculture Committee for working with us to get this bill
    to the House floor as soon as possible. With that, I yield the
    balance of my time to Mr. Pompeo.

        Mr. Pompeo. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
        I want to thank Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Green for
    holding this hearing. I appreciate it. I very much want to
    thank Mr. Butterfield, too. We have been working on this for
    quite some time, and I think we are making fantastic progress.
    I also thank Mr. Welch for the ice cream as well. I hope it was
    Chunky Monkey. I couldn't see exactly what it was.
        And I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today
    as well so that we can get the facts about both the technology
    and this legislation.
        The fact is scientific consensus on the safety of
    genetically engineered products is overwhelming. Precisely zero
    pieces of credible evidence have been presented to show that
    food produced with biotechnology poses any risk to health and
    safety of consumers.
        Before the idea that the government at any level should
    step in and mandate that they be labeled borders on the absurd.
    Expanding government at any level to enshrine preferences into
    a costly legal requirement is bad policy.
        What policymakers need to realize is that this bad policy
    has real effects on families we represent in our districts.
    Those who support mandatory genetically engineered product
    leveling must stand up and admit they are willing to increase
    the cost for foods for families in places like Wichita, and
    Houston, and Grand Rapids, and New York in order to satisfy the
    unscientific demands of anti-biotechnology activists. Our goal
    here must be to ensure that families in America have access to
    safe, nutritious, affordable food for their kids and families.
    Having hundreds of different governments, state and local,
    regulating food labeling, increases costs to families across
    America and for no benefit.
        We should also consider the effects of biotechnology on the
    ability to feed the world. Providing affordable food around the
    planet is something that Americans and Kansans are going to
    need to be an important part of, and allowing biotechnology to
    flourish will be an important part of getting this policy
    right.
        The potential amendment we are considering on H.R. 59 and
    the one that we are reviewing today is the result of much
    conversation between the Energy and Commerce Committee and Ag
    Committee, and I appreciate their work alongside us. Like the
    current language this amendment ensures that every new
    genetically engineered plant destined to enter our Nation's
    food supply goes through an FDA safety review.
        Additionally, this amendment improves our bill by aligning
    USDA and FDA responsibilities to ensure that a thorough and
    complete review of these products is done. I have a letter from
    over two dozen members of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Pitts,
    that I would like to enter into the record dated June 18th.
        Mr. Pitts. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Pompeo. Thank you.
        The reality is that biotechnology, time and time again, has
    been proven safe. This is simply not a debatable point. Our
    policy ought to reflect that, and we shouldn't raise the price
    for consumers based on a desire of a particular set of
    activists.
        Thank you, again, Mr. Pitts, and I look forward to the
    hearing.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        Now I recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
    Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today we will hear a range of views on why there should or
    should not be mandatory labeling of foods from genetically
    engineered or GE plants, and on why States should and should
    not be allowed to impose such labeling requirements.
        I have been long been a proponent of strong food labeling
    requirements. I was an original co-sponsor of the Nutrition
    Labeling and Education Act of 1990. I was a strong advocate for
    the ACA provision requiring nutrition labeling on menus and
    sponsored legislation last year, which I will be reintroducing
    to update and strengthen current FDA nutrition labeling
    requirements. And I have strongly opposed any attempts to
    weaken existing labeling requirements, such as the Commonsense
    Nutrition Labeling bill, which I believe would impede consumer
    access to nutritional information on menus and restaurants,
    pizza parlors, grocery stores, and convenience stores.
        So I am inclined to be skeptical of legislation aimed at
    limiting, rather than enhancing, information on a food label.
    At the same time, I recognize that the differences between
    nutrition labeling and GE labeling may warrant different
    regulatory approaches. Nutrition labeling provides information
    and enables consumers to make health-related choices on how
    they eat. There is no question in my mind the Federal
    government should food companies to put that information on
    food labels.
        GE labeling is about the breeding techniques used to make
    agricultural crops. Food from such crops do not share any
    particular nutritional or health-related properties. A GE label
    provides no information on the consumption of the food or
    whether--on the composition of the food on whether it is good
    for bad for you, on whether it tastes good or bad, or on
    whether it is safe or unsafe. There is no scientific evidence
    that GE foods pose safety issues any different from non-GE
    foods.
        I have to admit, when I hear critics argue that GE foods
    are dangerous, I feel the same way I do when I hear people deny
    climate change, argue against vaccinating children, or say they
    aren't scientists when asked if they believe in evolution. So
    from a science or health perspective, there doesn't seem to be
    a compelling government interest in forcing a food company to
    label a food that is made with or without genetic engineering.
        That being said, if the State of Vermont wants to require
    food companies to put such information on their food labels, is
    there a compelling Federal Government interest in prohibiting
    them from doing so? Perhaps not. But I do think there is a
    compelling Federal interest in preventing any labeling that is
    false or misleading consistent with current law.
        If mandatory GE labeling were inherently misleading, for
    example, because it implied that GE food was somehow inferior
    to normal food, that would seem to be a compelling reason to
    prohibit it. I am so far not convinced that the requirement
    imposed by Vermont would be inherently misleading. I would be
    interested in hearing from our panelists today on that
    question.
        Now, there may be a compelling Federal interest from
    preventing companies from having to face 50 different food
    labeling regimes. In fact, it was a fear of such unworkable set
    of State food labeling requirements that led food companies and
    restaurants ultimately to support Federal requirements for
    nutrition labeling. To avoid a 50-state problem, there are two
    obvious solutions: We can band right-to-know labeling
    requirements outright, or we can replace them with a uniform
    Federal mandatory GE labeling requirement, but I personally
    think a voluntary labeling approach is more appropriate for GE
    labeling. I also don't believe in preempting State law without
    good reason.
        So I think this is an important hearing, Mr. Chairman.
    There are a number of competing issues to weigh before moving
    forward on legislation, and I hope we will take our time in
    considering them. I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        That concludes the opening statements of the members. As
    usual, all written opening statements of the members will be
    made a part of the record.
        We have one panel today. I will introduce them in order of
    their presentations. First, Mr. Rick Blasgen, president and
    chief executive officer of the Council of Supply Chain
    Management Professionals; secondly, Mr. Todd Daloz, assistant
    attorney general, Office of Vermont Attorney General; thirdly,
    Mr. John Reifsteck, chairman of the board and president of
    GROWMARK, Inc.; then Greg Jaffe, Biotechnology Project
    director, Center for Science in the Public Interest; and,
    finally, Mr. Val Giddings, senior fellow, Information
    Technology & Innovation Foundation.
        Thank you, all, for coming. Your written testimony will be
    made part of the record. You will each be recognized for 5
    minutes to summarize your testimony.
        You have a series of lights on the table; green, yellow
    will go on with one minute left, red, we will ask that you
    please wrap up. And if you want to take less than 5 minutes,
    that is OK. We are going to have to run a tight gavel this
    morning.
        So, Mr. Blasgen, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    summary.

       STATEMENTS OF RICK BLASGEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
    OFFICER, COUNCIL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS; TODD
      W. DALOZ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE VERMONT
      ATTORNEY GENERAL; JOHN REIFSTECK, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND
    PRESIDENT, GROWMARK, INC.; GREGORY JAFFE, BIOTECHNOLOGY PROJECT
    DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST; AND L. VAL
     GIDDINGS, SENIOR FELLOW, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION
                               FOUNDATION

                       STATEMENT OF RICK BLASGEN

        Mr. Blasgen. Thank you very much, and good morning,
    Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Green, and members of the
    subcommittee. My name is Rick Blasgen. I am president and chief
    executive officer of the Council of Supply Chain Management
    Professionals representing well over 8,500 members globally.
    Prior to joining CSCMP I was senior vice president for
    Integrated Logistics and ConAgra Foods, and in similar
    positions at Kraft Foods as well as Nabisco. I have been
    president and CEO of CSCMP since 2005. In this capacity, I
    serve as the primary issue expert relating to logistics and
    supply chain management.
        I want to thank you very much for inviting me to explain
    the importance of national labeling frameworks. I will focus my
    remarks on the costs associated with Vermont's labeling
    mandate, a law that goes into effect on July 1, 2016, and
    imposes incalculable burdens on our Nation's largest
    manufacturing sector.
        Grocery manufacturing is a high-volume, low-margin
    business, and any increase in cost, even by a matter of cents,
    can substantially affect a manufacturer and its supply chain.
    The primary cost centers in the supply chain are the cost of
    source materials, capital, operations, labor, storage,
    distribution centers, transportation, maintenance, and, of
    course, fuel. The supply chain for a processed food begins with
    the raw commodity. The supplier sells the raw food to a
    manufacturer, and the manufacturer stores the food at the plant
    until it is processed into its ingredient form. That ingredient
    may be the final product, such as in cooking oils, or it may be
    used in products containing multiple ingredients.
        Finished goods are sent to a manufacturer's distribution
    center where they are stored until ready for transport into the
    customer's distribution center. The customer may be a national
    or regional chain or a regional distributor that sells to other
    retail outlets. The customer stores the finished goods at its
    center and distributes them to its retail outlets where they
    are sold finally to consumers. A manufacturer typically plans
    each stage of the supply chain to ensure it is handled as
    efficiently as possible. The core unit in a grocery
    manufacturer supply chain is the stock keeping unit, or SKU.
    This SKU is simply a unique identifying number that applies to
    each distinctly packaged and marketed product.
        A single national SKU facilitates efficient storage,
    distribution, and inventory tracking. Manufacturers do not
    create different SKUs for different states. Vermont's legal
    time clock is ticking, and manufacturers will have to determine
    which products contain ingredients likely derived from GE
    crops. Companies will navigate Vermont's exemptions, such as
    foods bearing USDA-approved labels. Restaurant food is also
    exempted, and this could impact segregation and transportation
    costs. Each exemption provides more complexity to the supply
    chain, less clarity for consumers, and more red tape for
    manufacturers.
        Manufacturers will have to make new labels with state-
    approved text and design. Labeling materials are one of the
    largest expenses affecting a manufacturer's bottom line. And
    the inventory left over when a manufacturer implements a
    labeling change must be discarded, which is a waste not only of
    materials, but the money the manufacturer may have spent in
    anticipation of using that stock. Waste and recycling charges
    will also apply.
        At the processing facility, let's assume it takes 5 minutes
    to stop and start to accommodate the new package. This reduces
    production time as the companies pay for the lost time and
    labor, energy, and capital costs of depreciation.
        Now assume a single plant with 10 lines running
    simultaneously, each with one Vermont run per payday, over 300
    days in the year. That makes 500 lost hours per year, or about
    3 weeks of idle time. These assumptions are meant for
    illustration with respect to only one single plant. Large
    manufacturers may have dozens of plants, and each plant may
    have dozens of production lines. The Vermont products would
    then need to be segregated from the other products and be
    placed on their own pallets. Pallets take up space wherever
    they go. They will take up space in warehouses, on trucks, and
    at customer distribution centers. These Vermont pallets must
    have sufficient space to reduce the risk of product being
    shipped to the wrong state; namely, product not intended for
    Vermont ending up on shelves there.
        Manufacturers would have to renovate or purchase new
    storage space or real estate. Additional pallets means
    additional trucks will be needed to transport products to
    customers. The trucks are capital investments with ongoing
    maintenance needs and associated labor costs. And this is just
    on the manufacturing end of the supply chain. The products
    intended for Vermont must then go through distributors and/or
    retailer supply chain systems who purchase the product and
    thus, then, own it exponentially increasing the costs to
    service Vermont and also increasing the chance for error.
        Despite best efforts, mistakes will be made. One
    manufacturer calculates that 7 to 10 percent of non-Vermont
    product could be shipped to Vermont in error. That manufacturer
    will face penlites of $1,000 per day per product. For a large
    company that has 2,500 SKUs, could translate to 175,000, or
    $250,000 in daily fines. Multiplied by thousands of products
    among multiple companies, these fines quickly reach tens of
    millions of dollars. Products would long shelf lines greater
    than 18 months that are currently in distribution or already on
    the shelves will be subject to fines.
        Mr. Chairman, from a supply chain logistical perspective,
    this law really is a nightmare. U.S. Consumers benefit from the
    safest and most efficient food supply in the world. I urge
    Congress to protect our national food system from an
    unnecessary patchwork of state-labeling schemes that will hurt
    American employers and do nothing to protect consumers.
        I thank you very much for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Blasgen follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        I recognize Mr. Daloz for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.

                        STATEMENT OF TODD DALOZ

        Mr. Daloz. Thank you. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Green,
    Congressman Welch, and members of the subcommittee, thank you
    for the opportunity to testify today. As you are well aware,
    the State of Vermont has been deeply involved in the labeling
    of food produced with genetic engineering, passing a law
    requiring such labeling, which will take effect a little over a
    year from now. Vermont's Attorney General, Bill Sorrell, is
    tasked with the enforcement of this law and has adopted
    regulations implementing the law. My name is Todd Daloz, I am
    an assistant attorney general, and I am testifying today on
    behalf of Attorney General Sorrell about the draft legislation
    and the discussion draft of the H.R. 1599 and to discuss and
    answer questions about Vermont's experience in labeling foods
    produced with genetic engineering.
        In my oral testimony, I want to highlight two main points
    as we begin. The first is the role of states within our
    democracy and the importance of the state and the Federal
    Government in sharing responsibility for protecting consumers.
        What is most troubling about the proposed legislation, both
    the draft in front of you and the discussion draft, is that it
    would cut short and prematurely end state efforts to label
    foods before Vermont's law even takes effect. It also offers no
    substantive replacement for the regulations Vermont has in
    place.
        Vermont does not oppose all of the Federal regulation in
    this area, nor even all elements of the bill. What is important
    to Vermonters is the ability to have accurate factual
    information in front of them in order to make informed
    decisions about their food purchasers.
        And this is a historical design of our democracy. States,
    in the famous words of Justice Brandeis, have long been the
    laboratory of democracy, experimenting with social and economic
    policy in manners that allow them to test how policy works and
    determine the best course. And there is a robust history of
    states leading the way towards ultimate Federal regulation.
        Two simple examples that come to mind, the first is fair
    credit reporting. Vermont and other states were among the first
    to require credit reporting to consumers. And as we all know,
    Congress ultimately moved forward with that, making it national
    law.
        Another example that was referenced by Mr. Blasgen is menu
    labeling--I believe it was Rick--menu labeling, which New York
    began requiring the labeling of certain nutrition facts at
    chain restaurants. Vermont and other states followed suit, and
    recently the FDA has implemented the same informational
    labeling requirement nationwide.
        Vermont's Act 120 is no different than that. It is the
    state taking a lead role in requiring a factual disclosure, a
    simple, four-word factual disclosure on the back of the
    package, stating nearly, produced with genetic engineering. It
    is not a warning. It is a notification. And it is a
    notification that is there to provide consumers with accurate
    information so, as the Vermont legislature found, they can make
    intelligent choices about their consumption.
        And that is the second point I want to talk about. Trusting
    people to make their own decisions is a fundamental American
    principle. And what Act 120 does is trust consumers to make
    their own decisions. It trusts consumers to be intelligent and
    make intelligent choices.
        There was tremendously strong demand in Vermont for this
    labeling bill. There is, in fact, strong demand across the
    country for such labeling. The legislature found that giving
    consumers this information enables them to make a choice
    similarly to calorie counts, to cartoon figures on the front of
    the package, to flavor. This is another piece of information
    that consumers want in order to make a decision about whether
    and how they will purchase their food.
        And it is important that there is no state oversight of
    what information is disclosed. It is nearly the presence of
    materials that have been produced with genetic engineering.
    This is not the state determining what is right for consumers
    to know. This is the state simply providing information for
    consumers to make decisions on.
        Lastly, I want to briefly touch upon the fact that
    Vermont's law also has flexibility in it. It doesn't mandate
    exactly where the disclosure has to be placed. It doesn't
    mandate the size of the font. It provides a floor for where the
    font is and where the disclosure should go, and that kind of
    flexibility, I think, is important as manufacturers and
    retailers begin to comply with Vermont's law.
        So I want to thank the committee and Chairman Pitts and
    also Representative Pallone for inviting me here today, and I
    am happy to answer questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Daloz follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
        Mr. Reifsteck, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    summary.

                      STATEMENT OF JOHN REIFSTECK

        Mr. Reifsteck. Thank you. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member
    Green, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding
    today's hearing. I am John Reifsteck, a grain farmer from
    Campaign County, Illinois, and chairman of the board of
    GROWMARK, a regional agricultural cooperative base in
    Bloomington, Illinois. Our co-op is owned by local member
    cooperatives and provides input such as seed, fuel, plant
    nutrients, crop protection products, and grain marketing
    services.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on
    behalf of GROWMARK, the National Council of Farmer
    Cooperatives, and the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food. I
    live in the farmhouse my grandfather built 101 years ago. The
    farm has sustained three generations of my family. My father
    and grandfather were good farmers, but the tools and the
    practices they used in our farm back then would not be good
    enough to meet the needs of our country and our world today.
    Instead, each generation of my family has used new technology
    to build on successes of the past.
        Global Positioning System, automatic steering, and
    biotechnologies are examples of new tools available today that
    future generations will use to build a better agriculture
    tomorrow.
        I know firsthand the value biotech crops provide for my
    operation. My farming experiences illustrate this. In the past,
    I have abandoned parts and fields that were riddled with insect
    damage or overcome by weeds. Harvesting those fields are not
    just an economic loss, but it presents a real risk of fiscal
    harm to my farm employees as did myself.
        These are memories I won't forget. They represent past
    challenges that biotechnology has helped me overcome. I am very
    proud to say that GROWMARK has been a key part of the solution
    to these problems. Our affiliated companies and farmer owners
    have been directly involved with use of biotechnology crops for
    a number of years. GROWMARK was at the forefront of providing
    this technology to producers when it first introduced in the
    1990s. I have successfully used biotech feeds in my farm since
    it became available. I believe the rapid adoption of these
    products reflects an understanding of their value and real-
    world benefits.
        Farmers also realize that crops they grow today benefiting
    from biotechnology are just as safe and healthy as the crops
    grown by their parents and their grandparents. This is
    important to farmers and is providing our customers with safe
    quality products as our number-one priority.
        Biotechnology provides substantial benefits to producers,
    to the environment, and to consumers. To reverse course now
    would wreak havoc amongst America's agricultural industry. Make
    no mistake, that is what a patchwork of biotech labeling laws
    would represent, an unworkable step backward. A growing concern
    among farmers and co-op managers is this patchwork would not
    stop at the State level, but perhaps could extend down to the
    individual cities, counties and even townships. Food and
    agricultural companies, including cooperatives like GROWMARK,
    would have no choice but to comply with hundreds, perhaps even
    thousands, of varying, if not directly conflicting, labeling
    laws. A near impossible task for us.
        The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act introduced to this
    Congress by Representatives Mike Pompeo and G.K. Butterfield
    would ensure that the labeling of biotech ingredients of food
    products is based on consistent standards using sound science.
    It would allow those who wish to label their products as GMO
    free to do so by utilizing a verified process offered through
    the USDA, very similar to that of the Department's successful
    certified organic program.
        I encourage members of this committee and Congress to
    support the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. This bill
    would ensure the consumers are provided with accurate and
    consistent information about the food they purchase while
    preserving the choices available to grocery shoppers and to our
    Nation's farmers.
        In conclusion, I strongly urge the subcommittee to support
    a voluntary, uniform, and national standard for labeling food
    products derived from biotech ingredients. The impact of not
    taking action would have a devastating effect on food and
    agricultural companies across the country, as well as farmers
    whose livelihoods depend on the freedom to conduct their
    business using the best methods available to them.
        Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify before
    this committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Reifsteck follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        Now I recognize Mr. Jaffe, 5 minutes for your summary.

                       STATEMENT OF GREGORY JAFFE

        Mr. Jaffe. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Green, I want to
    thank the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
    Subcommittee on Health for having today's hearing and inviting
    me as a witness on behalf of the Center for Science in the
    Public Interest.
        The issues surrounding the proper role of the Federal
    Government in the oversight of genetically engineered crops and
    the labeling of foods made with or without ingredients from
    those crops are issues of obvious public concern that Congress
    needs to address. It is critical that the Federal Government
    ensures that all GE crops are safe and that whatever
    information is provided to consumers about foods and
    ingredients made from those crops be truthful, neutral, and
    nonmisleading. I am here today as the director of CSPI's
    biotechnology project. CSPI is a nonprofit consumer
    organization established 44 years ago. CSPI works primarily on
    food safety and nutrition and publishes our nutrition action
    newsletter to educate consumers on issues surrounding diet and
    health. CSPI receives no funding from industry or the Federal
    Government.
        CSPI has long advised consumers, journalists, and
    policymakers that foods and ingredients from currently grown GE
    crops are safe to eat. The current crops have also provided
    tremendous benefits to farmers and the environment in both the
    United States and around the world. CSPI has advocated for
    improvements in current Federal oversight to ensure safety to
    humans, animals, the environment, and agriculture.
        I will limit my testimony today to the Federal Government's
    oversight of food and feed safety issues, which are the
    primarily responsibility of the FDA and directly related to
    this hearing. FDA ensures the safety of food under the Food,
    Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under that law, FDA has established a
    voluntary consultation process whereby developers of GE seeds
    can provide FDA with safety data and their analysis of those
    data to show FDA that the crop is substantially equivalent to
    its conventional counterpart.
        When FDA consultation is completed, FDA responds that the
    seed developer by stating in a letter that FDA has ``No further
    questions about the developer's determination that the GE crop
    is substantially equivalent to its conventional counterpart.''
        CSPI believes that FDA should determine the safety of all
    GE food crops before foods from those crops enter our food
    supply. FDA should review the safety data submitted by the
    developer, conduct its own analysis of that data, and provide
    the developer and the public with its opinion on whether foods
    from GE crops are safe to eat by humans and animals. That would
    be consistent with how most other countries ensure the safety
    of GE crops.
        H.R. 1599 goes only a small step towards what we believe is
    the proper role of FDA to ensure the safety of GE crops and the
    foods made from them. H.R. 1599 would codify the current FDA
    voluntary consultation process. It does not require, however,
    FDA to provide its opinion on each particular GE crop safety.
    In addition, it does not put the burden of proof on the
    notifier to satisfy FDA that the GE food crops or foods and
    ingredients made from the crops are safe before marketing the
    GE crop.
        The recently announced amendments to H.R. 1599 does not
    correct those major deficiencies and does not grant FDA any new
    legal authority to ensure that GE food crops are safe. Instead,
    it amends the Plant Protection Act to state that a GE crop that
    has been granted nonregulated status under USDA regulations
    cannot be marketed in interstate commerce until the USDA has
    received from the developer the ``no further questions'' letter
    it receives from FDA. FDA would still not need to make its own
    independent determination that the GE food crops meet the
    safety standard, and the amendment does not provide FDA with
    the needed authority to prevent foods or ingredients from GE
    crops from entering the food supply until the notifier
    satisfies FDA of their safety.
        H.R. 1599 and the amendment provides USDA's agricultural
    marketing service with unique legal authority to establish a
    certification and labeling system for food manufacturers who
    wish to label foods that either contain or do not contain
    ingredients from GE crops. CSPI supports the Federal
    Government's oversight of GE and non-GE labels to ensure they
    are truthful, neutral, and nonmisleading. There is no standard
    definition of what it means to be a non-GMO, no standard way to
    describe that claim in a neutral manner, and no way for the
    consumers to know if that claim is accurate.
        While CSPI believes that there is no benefit to consumers
    from avoiding foods that contain ingredients from GE crops,
    CSPI understands that some consumers do want to buy such foods.
    The system that would be implemented at USDA if Congress passed
    H.R. 1599 would go a long way towards uniform labels with
    verifiable, nonmisleading claims.
        Therefore, CSPI endorses that portion of this legislation.
    I thank the committee for allowing me to testify, and I am
    happy to answer questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jaffe follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman. Right on time.
        The members are voting on the floor. We still have 12
    minutes. So we are going to continue the witnesses' testimony
    and some questions before we recess to go to the floor to vote,
    and then we will come back.
        Mr. Giddings, you are recognized 5 minutes for your opening
    statement.

                      STATEMENT OF L. VAL GIDDINGS

        Mr. Giddings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green. I very
    much appreciate the invitation to testify before you this
    morning on behalf of the Information Technology & Innovation
    Foundation on the safety and appropriate labeling for crops and
    foods improved for biotechnology. ITIF is a nonpartisan
    research and educational think tank whose mission is to
    formulate and promote public policies to advance technological
    innovation and productivity. We focus on innovation issues. We
    have long been involved in the conversations about agricultural
    biotechnology and how best to ensure its widely shared benefits
    to humans and the environment are not burdened by ill-
    considered policies, especially those based on fear and
    misunderstanding.
        I very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
    issues here today and thank, in particular, Mr. Pompeo for
    proposing this legislation, which I think is approaching
    perfection as a solution to some of the problems we face in
    this area on public policy.
        The introduction of crops improved through biotechnology,
    often called GMOs, has been one of the greatest booms to
    humanity in the last 10,000 years of our history. No other
    innovation in agriculture has been taken up more widely or more
    quickly, and none other has delivered greater benefits to
    humans, our livestock, and companion animals and the
    environment. These crops have been grown over the two decades
    on over 4 billion acres worldwide. Last year alone, they were
    grown on 448 million acres by 18 million farmers in 28
    countries legally, including a lot more where they were grown
    by farmers without government sanction where the farmers could
    get access to the seeds.
        The farm gate value added has totaled more than $120
    billion. And the environmental impacts of agriculture have been
    reduced, on average, by 18 percent. This has entailed a 37
    percent reduction in the use of pesticides, a 22 percent
    increase in yields, and a 68 percent increase in farmer income.
        The single most important element in the equation of credit
    for this avalanche of global benefits is the science-based
    regulatory process adopted by the United States in 1986 for
    which you and your colleagues and your predecessors bear an
    enormous amount of credit.
        The bipartisan endorsement supporting the science-based
    approach to regulation that has been in place in the United
    States for the past four decades has been absolutely essential
    and made it possible for this technology to be developed,
    adapted, and disseminated. The intention of H.R. 1599 to extend
    this legacy of bipartisan support for science-based regulation
    is important as special interests seek to undermined its
    credibility and authority with false claims and ill-considered
    policy proposals at every level, particularly at the State
    level. Congress clearly has authority to address these issues
    and should formally preempt state level actions as the
    Constitution directs in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the
    interstate commerce clause.
        I am less enthusiastic and, indeed, would advise against
    one provision before you in this legislation, which would
    change the nature of the FDA safety review process for
    bioengineered foods by making it mandatory. It widely
    acknowledged that the biotech-derived foods on the market today
    are safe, that they have all gone through this review process,
    the review process has worked and is working well, does not
    need any fixing; there are no safety issues outstanding, which
    it fails to address.
        I know that there are those who favor making this process
    mandatory, but if Congress were to take that step, it would,
    for the first time, step away from the science-based regulation
    that has served us so well for decades. I say this because the
    term ``GMO'' is an artificial construct, and it does not
    represent a meaningful class of items deserving of special,
    much less discriminatory, regulatory status or scrutiny. That
    category further bears no meaningful relation to hazard or
    risk. GM is a process. It is not a product. Provisions with FDA
    regulations on labeling already in place mandate consumer
    information about the contents of the foods that they buy and
    consume.
        So I would enter a plea that as you consider these issues,
    please think carefully about what will help accomplish your
    objectives and what will not. Making it clear to the States
    that labeling is a Federal responsibility, that is something
    that would be helpful. Actions that some will construe and
    represent to be an acknowledgement that there are safety issues
    or concerns where, in fact, there are none, would not be
    helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this
    morning, and I am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Giddings follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair advise
    the members, there is still 7 minutes left to vote, but some
    382 members have not yet voted.
        So I will begin questioning and recognize myself 5 minutes
    for that purpose.
        My first question is for each of you. Today's hearing is
    not the first hearing this subcommittee has held on this topic.
    Previously, the FDA has stated that their current consultation
    process has provided appropriate oversight of new foods derived
    from genetically engineered plants. FDA testified before this
    subcommittee last December that the consultation process is
    working well and provides for rigorous food safety evaluation
    of such foods. I would like to ask each of our witnesses, do
    you agree with the agency's assessment? Yes or no?
        Mr. Blasgen?
        Mr. Blasgen. Yes.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Daloz?
        Mr. Daloz. I don't believe I have a basis for agreeing or
    disagreeing, but I trust the agency.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Reifsteck?
        Mr. Reifsteck. Yes.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Jaffe?
        Mr. Jaffe. No.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Giddings.
        Mr. Giddings. Absolutely yes.
        Mr. Pitts. All right, thank you.
        FDA also testified in December that there have not been any
    material differences identified between genetically engineered
    ingredients and those derived from traditionally-bred crops.
    Again, would each of you please answer, yes or no. Do you have
    any evidence to the contrary?
        Mr. Blasgen?
        Mr. Blasgen. No.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Daloz?
        Mr. Daloz. No.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Reifsteck?
        Mr. Reifsteck. No.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Jaffe?
        Mr. Jaffe. No.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Giddings.
        Mr. Giddings. There are some examples where there are
    material differences as with cooking oils that have been
    modified to be more heart healthy. But where those have
    occurred, they have still been reviewed by FDA; they have
    passed the safety reviews, and the differences are indicated on
    the labels.
        Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
        Finally, FDA testified that there is scientific consensus
    about the validity of the research and science behind the
    safety of foods derived from genetically engineered plant
    varieties. Do any of you disagree with that?
        Do you disagree, Mr. Blasgen?
        Mr. Blasgen. No.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Daloz?
        Mr. Daloz. No.
        Mr. Pitts. I am sorry. I couldn't hear what you said.
        Mr. Daloz. No.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Reifsteck?
        Mr. Reifsteck. No.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Jaffe?
        Mr. Jaffe. For the current crops that have been grown and
    are being grown, I would answer no. But for each future crop,
    we need to look at those on a case-by-case basis.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Giddings?
        Mr. Giddings. I am not aware of any area in science where
    the consensus on safety is stronger than in this field.
        Mr. Pitts. All right. Mr. Giddings, can you explain what
    additional testing the Department of Agriculture conducts on
    new plant varieties used in food before they are
    commercialized?
        Mr. Giddings. Well, the USDA does not necessarily do
    testing for food safety per se. That is the province of FDA.
    USDA does extensive analyses of a vast and broad amount of data
    relevant to safety and potential impacts for U.S. Agriculture
    and the environment. These are--the data that is submitted by
    applicants comes in response to their filling out APHIS' Form
    2000, which lists a series of questions relevant to the safety
    of these crops on which the USDA wants data. The amounts of
    data provided are voluminous. They go far beyond, in fact, what
    regulators need to know to assess the safety of these crops.
    These crops have been examined in more depth, in more detail,
    in advance for safety than any others in human history, and
    their record of safety is unblemished.
        Mr. Pitts. All right.
        Mr. Giddings, or any of you, I have heard from a number of
    constituents who insist, despite this evidence to the contrary,
    that GMOs are dangerous to their health and are harming the
    environment. Why has this sentiment recently proliferated? Who
    would like to speak to that? Mr. Giddings?
        Mr. Giddings. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are very few issues
    in our lives to which we are more emotionally attached than
    food. And the idea of somebody messing around with our food
    supply is inherently one of concern. And folks who have issues
    with food, their concerns are heightened. And there is a very
    well-funded campaign of special interests who have adopted
    raising unwarranted fears in this way as their marketing tactic
    through which they seek to expand their market share. This
    campaign has been funded massively and executed across the
    United States and around the world for years, and they have
    succeeded dramatically in shaping the public view on these
    issues to create an appearance of safety issues where, in fact,
    they are absent.
        Recent surveys have shown that the difference in opinion
    between the public and between the scientific community on
    these issues is wider than on any other major public policy
    issues before us today, and this is the result of an ongoing
    propaganda campaign designed to raise fears and mislead
    consumers, and this mandatory labeling push is an integral part
    to that.
        Mr. Pitts. My time has expired.
        We still have a minute and a half to vote. But 288 members
    haven't voted yet, so the chair recognizes Ranking Member Green
    for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank our witnesses testifying today on GMOs.
        Dr. Giddings, one of my concerns, are you aware of any
    instance where a GMO crop caused an adverse impact on human or
    animal health? And, frankly, why don't we start with you and we
    can go down the list.
        Mr. Giddings. There are none, sir.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Jaffe?
        Mr. Jaffe. I am not aware of any, but when you genetically
    engineer a crop, what you are doing is adding some DNA that
    might produce a protein. And we do know that some proteins can
    be allergens to humans. So I do think we need to check those to
    make sure for example that does not occur for a new genetically
    engineered crop.
        Mr. Green. Would the bill that we are discussing today
    correct that with the authority given?
        Mr. Jaffe. So FDA looks at data from the companies on a
    voluntary basis concurrently, and H.R. 1599 would make that
    process mandatory. What I think is missing is FDA giving its
    opinion on the safety of that food.
        Mr. Green. OK. Mr. Reifsteck?
        Mr. Reifsteck. In my farming operation, actually, GMOs have
    increased the safety of my farming operation, because they have
    allowed us to substitute GMO technology for other products that
    are more dangerous for me to use on my farm.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Daloz, anything to offer from the Attorney
    General's Office?
        Mr. Daloz. I am unaware of any such studies.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Blasgen?
        Mr. Blasgen. No.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Giddings, are you aware of a situation where
    an unknown consumption of GMO in grain has caused adverse
    health reaction? Again, to all five of our witnesses.
        Mr. Giddings. There are none on the record. And on the
    issue of allergenicity, that is one of particular concern to me
    because my son has a life-threatening peanut allergy. And I can
    tell you, Congressman, that the only foods that are reviewed
    before they are introduced to the market for allergenicity, the
    only food so reviewed are biotech derived.
        Mr. Jaffe. I am not aware of any harm.
        Mr. Blasgen. I am not aware of any.
        Mr. Daloz. I am not aware of any harms, but I am aware that
    consumers have deep concerns about that issue.
        Mr. Green. And I know the concerns, and I think the
    legislation would probably would move it forward to help with
    some certainty including FDA oversight.
        One of my other questions, Mr. Reifsteck, and can you
    explain how the state-by-state patchwork would affect farmers
    and co-ops, and also Mr. Blasgen, then I will start with Mr.
    Reifsteck first.
        Mr. Reifsteck. Well, certainly, having to fulfill all the
    requirements of every state is a difficult, time-consuming, and
    expensive proposition. As you think about how we grow crops in
    the United States, we grow corn; we grow soybeans. If we have
    to identity preserve those crops to make sure they fit into a
    marketplace, for example, non-GMOs, that adds a tremendous
    amount of time and expense to the production of those crops
    because we have to shepherd those all the way from the seed to
    my farm, to the end user, and that will add cost and expense.
        Mr. Blasgen. I will add also manufacturers typically
    produce products for the Nation through a series of
    distribution networks. That product is shipped, then, into the
    retail network and then finally to the consumer shelf where its
    purchased. So the right to know, the choice is very important,
    that is why clear national standard is so critical to the
    manufacturing community.
        Mr. Green. It would seem to be the same thing on the
    labeling, because I don't think we will ever have 50 different
    labeling requirements, but if two or three states do it, then,
    really that shows we need a national standard.
        Mr. Blasgen. Right. The level of complexity with that type
    of labeling would be an incalculable burden on manufacturing.
        Mr. Green. OK. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. Appreciate it.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        Time has expired on the floor vote, so we will come back as
    soon as we vote. There are two votes.
        And the committee stands in recess for the floor vote.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Pitts. The time of the recess having expired, we will
    continue with the questions.
        And, at this point, the chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank all of the witnesses for joining us
    today on this very important subject. As a matter of fact, I
    walked out of this hearing to go back to my office before I
    went to the floor for a vote, and there were a group of seven
    people in there who wanted to talk about this bill. So somebody
    is really organized today, Mr. Shimkus. But it is an important
    issue.
        And, Mr. Jaffe, I would like to just ask for your comments.
    FDA has made it very clear that their current consultation
    process is rigorous, involves a number of experts well versed
    in these methods, and is entirely, to use their words, entirely
    sufficient for purposes of reviewing the safety of these
    products.
        And so, if the FDA is perfectly comfortable in the process,
    feels that it adequately protects the public and food safety,
    why are you arguing for new legal authority that FDA does not
    believe it even needs?
        Mr. Jaffe. So thank you very much for the question.
        I agree with you that FDA is clearly the agency in the
    government with the expertise on food safety. And if there is
    any agency that should be deciding the safety of GM crops or
    anything that goes in our food supply, it should be the FDA,
    and I believe that they do have that expertise. So I agree with
    you that they have the expertise and they are using that in
    this consultation process.
        But I think this consultation process works only because of
    the good nature of the companies that are coming forward with
    these genetically engineered seeds, with that data. They are
    not required by law to do that. And while there are lots of
    incentives for companies that are based in the United States to
    do that, that may not be the case for imported foods that come
    in from other countries.
        So I can give you an example of China, which is now
    spending $300 million a year doing research on genetically
    engineered crops. And so they may be soon growing a genetically
    engineered rice variety, and that rice variety may get turned
    into different food products that get imported into the United
    States. And those companies may not think of the voluntary
    process as mandatory. And FDA may not know about those because
    they weren't homegrown products that started with research
    trials in a company or at a university here in the United
    States. So USDA may not be aware of those.
        And so FDA needs those tools to deal with those imports
    that come into this country. They need that authority to make
    sure that something is overseeing that those foods are safe.
        Mr. Whitfield. So your primary concern is on imports?
        Mr. Jaffe. That is one thing, and also on the exports. I do
    a lot of work in developing countries and around the world, and
    we do a lot of exports of our genetically engineered crops. And
    those countries can't look to the FDA decision. There is no
    opinion from FDA that these are safe.
        And so those countries--many of our exporters from the U.S.
    would like to say to those countries, ``Please defer to FDA
    here. They have shown that this is safe.'' And many countries
    in the world do that with lots of other foods or drugs that the
    U.S. does approve. But, in this case, because there is no
    approval, they can't do that, and so they have to have their
    own process.
        So it hurts both our exports as well as our imports.
        Mr. Whitfield. And, Mr. Giddings, I get the sense that you
    have an opinion about this, as well. So tell me what you think
    about it.
        Mr. Giddings. Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Jaffe and I have been
    friends for three decades, and it gives me a great deal of pain
    to have to disagree with him, but I think virtually everything
    he said here is mistaken.
        There are a couple things that we need to remember. Number
    one is that FDA has absolute authority to require that all food
    placed on the market in the United States be safe. That is all
    the authority they need. It doesn't matter what process is
    used; if it is food on the market, FDA has the authority to
    ensure that it is safe.
        The other thing to remember is that this category of GMOs
    or GM foods or whatever you want to call it is based upon a
    definition that is fundamentally at odds with the facts as we
    find them in the real world. This category is an artificial
    category. There is no meaningful basis to distinguish
    genetically modified organisms from others that are not,
    because everything on Earth is genetically modified.
        There is no correlation between those products of the most
    modern plant-breeding technologies and any hazard or food
    safety risk. These things have an unblemished safety record. We
    know what causes safety problems in the consumption of food,
    and it is primarily the presence of pathogens. The only impact
    that biotech-derived foods are likely to have is to reduce the
    potential for pathogenic infestations.
        So this whole idea that this is somehow a category that is
    meaningful in a sense that is relevant to risk assessment or
    safety is just contradicted by the facts, data, and vast
    experience.
        So the FDA is correct; there are no data, there is no
    experience which suggests that they need additional authorities
    or that there is a problem here in need of fixing.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Reifsteck, do you have a comment you
    would like to make on this?
        Mr. Reifsteck. Well, I am obviously not qualified to talk
    about the regulatory process, but I will say that the American
    farmers do trust our regulatory process. They believe that
    these products are safe. And they do need a regulatory process
    that delivers products to farmers in a timely manner to deal
    with the issues we have to deal with in the future.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes.
        To the attorney general of Vermont, I am certainly not an
    expert in food safety. I buy a lot of food, though. But anytime
    you go to a store and you see on a label ``this contains such
    and such'' or ``this may contain such and such,'' it almost
    seems like it is a warning label.
        And just, without giving a lot of thought to this--and that
    is why we enjoy these hearings--without giving a lot of thought
    to it, I mean, I think that is one of the primary concerns I
    would have about the Vermont law. It almost looks like it is a
    warning label. And I'm not aware of any scientific evidence
    that there is any safety issue involved, truthfully.
        Would you want to make a comment on that?
        Mr. Daloz. Certainly, Congressman. And thank you for the
    question because I think it is an important distinction to make
    with regards to Act 120 and the disclosure that Vermont's law
    requires.
        Fundamentally, the placement of that disclosure and the
    size and the font and things like that--in looking at the issue
    of how consumers are interested in this information and how
    they can best access the information, the attorney general's
    office intentionally chose to make the disclosure either--there
    are choices for industry. It can be the same size as the
    serving size disclosure on the nutrition facts panel on the
    back that the FDA already requires or the ingredients listing
    there, the goal being to say it has to be easily read and it
    has to be easily found. Those are the standards.
        It is not a clear and conspicuous warning. It is a simple
    statement of fact on the back of the package, that if a
    consumer is interested in finding the information, they can
    look for it, they can read it, and they can make a choice
    accordingly.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
    Pallone, 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As I said in my opening statement, I don't think
    genetically engineered foods pose special safety or
    environmental risks or are otherwise different from non-GEO
    foods. Therefore, it doesn't seem to make sense to require them
    to be labeled.
        At the same time, unless there is some harm created by
    allowing Vermont to impose mandatory GE labeling, I don't think
    we in Congress should be telling Vermonters what to do. And I
    am hoping the panelists can help me figure this out.
        Let me ask a question. One issue I have heard is that
    requiring GE foods to have a special label would be inherently
    misleading because it would indicate that there was something
    different about those foods.
        So let me ask Mr. Jaffe: I know CSPI is a staunch supporter
    of strong food labeling. What are CSPI's views on that
    question?
        Mr. Jaffe. So, thank you for that question.
        CSPI has been a strong proponent of labeling as something
    very informative to consumers and important, but that labeling
    has to be truthful, neutral, and nonmisleading. I think that is
    critical.
        We have also been a strong believer that only the most
    important information should be mandated by the government. So
    if we are talking about safety information, whether something
    is an allergen, for example, would be something that, if people
    don't know about that, they could end up in the hospital about
    that; or nutritional information, how much salt or how much
    calories are in it, because that has a direct relationship to
    their diet.
        As you said, genetically engineered foods are--the current
    ones that are on the crop are safe. And so there is no safety
    or nutritional reason to label those.
        So, while we support the idea that there should be
    transparency and consumers who want to find that information
    about where their food comes from should be allowed to do that,
    I guess our view is that, in terms of when the government
    mandates labeling, those should be left for the most critical
    pieces of information. If we mandate everything on a label, the
    consumers don't know what is the most critical information.
        So, for us, the things that are most critical are either
    safety information or nutritional information. This doesn't
    qualify there. So, while we think and we understand the
    consumers want information about this, we think that there
    should be ways to figure that out less than mandatory,
    government-imposed labels.
        Mr. Pallone. All right.
        So let me ask Mr. Daloz why you don't think GE labeling is
    inherently misleading.
        I think one of my colleagues on the Republican side said,
    you know, if you see the label, you are just going to say,
    well, obviously, this is different or maybe this is bad, even
    though it doesn't say that.
        So why don't you think that the GE labeling is inherently
    misleading?
        Mr. Daloz. Thank you for the question, Congressman. There
    are two answers to that, and I will start with one that came
    along very recently.
        It is important to remember that H.R. 5099 is not the only
    challenge that Act 120 faces. The Grocery Manufacturers
    Association and a number of other trade groups have of course
    sued the State of Vermont to enjoin the law from ever taking
    effect. And it is important for this body to remember that
    there is a bound on what Vermont can do in terms of misleading
    labels or anything like that----
        Mr. Pallone. I know that I am interrupting, because I want
    to ask another thing.
        Mr. Daloz. OK.
        Mr. Pallone. I just want to know why it is not misleading.
    You have to tell me that.
        Mr. Daloz. Well, I will say----
        Mr. Pallone. I haven't decided what to do here, OK?
        Mr. Daloz. To cut myself shorter, the Federal court just
    ruled that it wasn't misleading, that it was, in fact, a
    straightforward factual disclosure. ``Ruled'' is a strong word,
    but agreed with Vermont's position and indicated that that was
    how the court was looking at it.
        And, again, that is the fundamental piece of Act 120, that
    is it is a factual disclosure about a process involved in
    making the product.
        Mr. Pallone. All right.
        Let me see if I can get--I only have a minute. My other
    main question about the labeling is whether it imposes undue
    burdens on industry.
        So, Mr. Blasgen or Mr. Reifsteck--we don't have much time--
    I understand that neither of you support mandatory labeling.
    However, why would putting a statement such as ``produced with
    GE ingredients,'' just that, ``produced with GE ingredients,''
    on a label require a need to create new supply chain lines or
    new distribution lines?
        What problems do you foresee with the inclusion of just a
    small statement like that that doesn't say it is good or bad or
    anything, just ``produced with GE ingredients''?
        Mr. Blasgen. I think if it is--thanks for the question.
        I think if it is a clear national standard, manufacturers
    can deal with it. If we had multiple States requiring different
    labeling requirements for all of these products, it would be an
    enormous burden on them to make sure that they got it right.
        Manufacturers secure their supply chains. They are very
    concerned about securing the ingredients and their finished
    goods right up and to the point of consumption. In particular,
    this issue is that the manufacturers find themselves liable for
    product that is outside of their control. So that is one aspect
    of it.
        But they are----
        Mr. Pallone. It sounds like you are saying you wouldn't
    have a problem with that label.
        Mr. Blasgen. Well, there clearly is a problem for multiple
    labeling directions coming from many different entities.
        Mr. Pallone. So what if it was one national standard,
    ``produced with GE ingredients''?
        Mr. Blasgen. I think if there is a clear national standard,
    that minimizes the risk in that. I think that they would have
    an easier time dealing with that type of law versus many, many
    different types of States imposing laws upon them.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Reifsteck, do you want to respond?
        Mr. Reifsteck. Please.
        I think American farmers have demonstrated they can produce
    very safe and abundant and inexpensive food. We have a history
    of doing that. And I think if there is a demand for non-GMO
    foods, American farmers will respond, and they will produce
    those non-GMO foods.
        Our challenge is we don't want consumers, maybe low-income
    consumers, to have to pay burdensome costs for a supply chain
    management program if they are not interested in purchasing
    non-GMO.
        So what this act does, it gives us a pathway. As a farmer,
    I can decide if I want to grow GMO crops or non-GMO crops.
    There is a standard that it can enter into the marketplace to
    give consumers not only the right to know but a right to choose
    products. And I think that is what is powerful about this
    legislation.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, 5 minutes
    for questions.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And to my friend, Ranking Member Pallone, my question is
    going to follow up on yours in two points.
        So one is, that the country feeds the world. United States,
    we feed the world. And I would argue, being from Illinois--and
    I am glad John is here--Illinois and the Midwest is a
    predominant producer of base commodity products that go around
    the world.
        So, John, these two questions are for you. First of all,
    the last couple years, we had a pretty big drought. Had we had
    that drought a decade ago or two decades ago, what would have
    been the result? And what made our ability to withstand the
    drought survivable?
        Mr. Reifsteck. Well, droughts for farmers are years that
    burn themselves into your memory. 1993--I can go through the
    list of these droughts. And I tell people the drought of 2012
    was different. Because even though we didn't have a good
    rainfall and because we had very high temperatures, we still
    had reasonable yields across much of the corn belt.
        And it makes sense, if you can protect a plant from damage
    to the root system, if you can protect the plant from damage to
    the stems, if you can protect it from weeds, then it can
    maximize the use of the water that is available.
        Mr. Shimkus. And how do you do that?
        Mr. Reifsteck. And you do that with biotechnology.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
        Mr. Reifsteck. Biotechnology is the best solution for those
    problems I just talked about by far. The safest, most efficient
    way for me to get those kinds of results is by using
    biotechnology.
        Mr. Shimkus. And not just in the United States, but as we
    assist other countries around the world to feed themselves, it
    is through the great aspect of science that has allowed us to
    do this. And, unfortunately, it is an untold story in this
    debate, because without it and the population growth and the
    climate changes, we could be in a disastrous position.
        Let me go to the next question, because it really talks
    about an individual producer. So the producer sometimes gets
    lost in this debate. OK, so we have now this bifurcated system
    of labeling and not labeling and a supply chain. Tell me how a
    corn or a bean farmer in central Illinois who is planting 750
    to 1,000 acres, what would you have to do?
        Mr. Reifsteck. What would I have to do to----
        Mr. Shimkus. To produce two sets of corn going for the same
    product, one GMO, one non-GMO.
        Mr. Reifsteck. Well, basically, it would start with the
    selection of the seed. We would have to buy different kinds of
    seeds. We would have to make sure that we keep the integrity of
    that seed, that it only is planted in the field. We would have
    to do----
        Mr. Shimkus. You would have to stop the winds maybe?
        Mr. Reifsteck. You would have to stop and clean planters
    out. You would have to make sure that the right products get
    incorporated into the field.
        Mr. Shimkus. You would have to have different silos?
        Mr. Reifsteck. You would absolutely have to have different
    silos.
        Mr. Shimkus. Different trucks?
        Mr. Reifsteck. You would have to have--the trucks and the
    harvesting equipment all would have to be cleaned.
        Mr. Shimkus. So when it went to the food processing
    facility, would they have to have different silos?
        Mr. Reifsteck. Absolutely. Absolutely. You would go----
        Mr. Shimkus. Two different whole chains?
        Mr. Reifsteck. You would go to--special elevators where we
    deliver grain would have special handling equipment that was
    designed to handle that equipment and keep it segregated. So,
    yes----
        Mr. Shimkus. So I know that corn now is sold around the
    world. And I was kind of surprised that sometimes they are in
    containers and container----
        Mr. Reifsteck. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. I always think they would be in a big hull,
    you know, and you just pour all the corn in.
        So what if it pulls up to a port and they do a sample and,
    of the billions of kernels, they find one that is either/or?
    Then what happens?
        Mr. Reifsteck. Then that country or company that finds that
    kernel will decide whether they want that shipment of corn or
    not. If it is in their favor, they could decide to take it. Or
    they could decide to reject it.
        Mr. Shimkus. So this is really a big debate that we are
    having, and I think we need to tread very careful.
        I want to thank my colleague for taking the leadership on
    this, Mr. Pompeo. I mean, he has the wheat story to tell, I am
    sure, which is very similar to a corn or a bean story. And we
    haven't even talked about segueing it into the livestock issue
    and the feed issue and multiple, multiple other derivations
    that this--so that is why I am a cosponsor and look forward to
    working with him as he moves it forward.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing.
        And I thank each of our witnesses for your testimony.
        I firmly believe that consumers have the right to make
    informed decisions about the food they eat. I hope this is a
    point on which we all can agree.
        And I think there is general agreement that a good Federal
    standard for genetically engineered, or GE, labeling is
    preferable to a confusing patchwork of State labeling rules.
    But there is disagreement about exactly what that standard
    should be. And I am not convinced that H.R. 1599 will assure
    consumers that they have the reliable and clear information
    that they are looking for.
        Dr. Jaffe, do you think this bill meets consumer demands
    for clear, consistent labeling of GE products?
        Mr. Jaffe. So I think we don't have a good idea of what
    consumer demands really are. So there are a number of polls,
    and if you ask the question, do you want GE labeling, most
    consumers say yes. If you ask them do they want pesticides
    labeled, they say yes; if you want antibiotics labeled, they
    say yes. And as a consumer myself, if somebody offered me more
    information, why would I say no to that?
        But there is a Rutgers poll where they asked open-ended,
    what new information would you want on the label, and I believe
    it was 7 percent who said GM labeling. And, again, when they
    asked people what do they want for all of those different
    things I just mentioned, everybody said 70 percent for each of
    those.
        So I guess I am not convinced that there is an overwhelming
    number of consumers. And I think most of those polls show--the
    Rutgers poll, which I think is a good, independent poll--and I
    am happy to submit that to the committee.
        Ms. Capps. That would be great.
        Mr. Jaffe. That two-thirds of consumers haven't even had a
    discussion about this in the last 3 years and don't know about
    it.
        So providing information without knowledge about what that
    information means can inherently be misleading.
        Mrs. Capps. Well, could you provide for us, within your
    purview, the difference between organic, non-GMO, and natural
    food products? How do these types of products differ from one
    another? Just to set the record straight here.
        Mr. Jaffe. So an organic product, there is an actual
    definition. So USDA has a definition of what is organic.
        Mrs. Capps. OK.
        Mr. Jaffe. And if you follow that definition, then you can
    call your food organic in the United States. And those have
    certain procedures that have to be followed, certain rules that
    have to be followed. It is not based on science. It is based on
    did you follow the rule.
        Mrs. Capps. Right. OK. That is clear then.
        Non-GMO, is that----
        Mr. Jaffe. So, currently now, there is no uniform
    definition of what non-GMO is.
        Mrs. Capps. Oh.
        Mr. Jaffe. So there are private certifiers, such as the
    Non-GMO Project, which have their own definition of it. There
    are other companies that have come up with their own. And there
    are countries that call non-GMO--sometimes they use a 1-percent
    threshold, sometimes they use a 0.9-percent threshold----
        Mrs. Capps. OK.
        Mr. Jaffe [continuing]. A host of different things. So that
    is not uniform.
        Mrs. Capps. I understand.
        Consumers, however, we all agree, should not be confused
    about something as basic and fundamental as the food they eat.
    And consumers should be able to trust that the labeling on the
    food is accurate and truthful.
        And FDA currently has a policy of self-regulation.
    Producers have the option to voluntarily label their GE foods.
    However, over 15 years after the implementation of this policy,
    very few products on the market have been labeled as being
    genetically engineered. Yet we all know there is a great number
    of GE foods on the market.
        The fact is consumers want to know if their food is GE, and
    they are calling on policymakers to help make this information
    more accessible. And I think that is why we are looking
    carefully at Vermont's new law, because it is a reflection of
    this consumer demand.
        Mr. Daloz, can you explain how the Vermont law
    differentiates between foods that are labeled as ``produced
    with genetic engineering,'' and foods that are labeled as
    ``partially produced with genetic engineering''? What is the
    difference there?
        Mr. Daloz. Certainly, Congresswoman. And this is part of
    the flexibility that Vermont's law has built into it.
        If a product contains less than 70 percent GE material by
    weight, then a producer can choose to use the statement
    ``partially produced.'' Otherwise, the standard statement is
    ``produced with genetic engineering''----
        Mrs. Capps. I see.
        Mr. Daloz [continuing]. And that has to occur on any
    product.
        Mrs. Capps. Well, I submit that we need to make sure that
    labels are clear and informative for consumers, and H.R. 1599
    falls short of this standard. But I hope we can work together
    to find the right balance that works for both consumers, as
    Vermont has done, or is doing, and industry as well.
        And, with that, I yield back the balance. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon, 5 minutes
    for questions.
        Dr. Bucshon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I just want to say I support the consumer's right to know
    what is in their food products, but I also think it should be
    based on science. And I support Congressman Pompeo's
    legislation.
        I know it has been said, but I want to reiterate for the
    record some quotes from organizations around the world, really,
    talking about GMO.
        American Medical Association: ``Our AMA recognizes that
    there is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the
    use of GE techniques or in the movement of genes between
    unrelated organisms. Bioengineering foods have been consumed
    for close to 20 years, and, during that time, no overt
    consequences on human health have been reported or
    substantiated in peer-reviewed literature.''
        Natural Academies of Science: ``Genetic engineering is one
    of the newer technologies available to produce desired traits
    in plants and animals used for food, but it poses no health
    risks that cannot also arise from conventional breeding and
    other methods used to create new foods.'' They go on to say,
    ``An analysis of the U.S. experience with genetically
    engineered crops shows that they offer substantial net
    environmental and economic benefits compared to conventional
    crops. Generally, GE crops have fewer adverse effects on the
    environment than on non-GE crops produced conventionally.''
        And, finally, the World Health Organization: ``GM foods
    currently available on the international market have passed
    risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human
    health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown
    as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general
    population in the countries where they have been approved.''
        So, that said, as a medical doctor, I was charged with
    advising patients on therapy that works, therapy that doesn't
    work. And, of course, based on the Internet and other sources,
    there are all kinds of proposed therapies for cancer and heart
    disease out there that have been unsubstantiated that patients
    frequently ask me about.
        And so I guess my question to everyone on the panel is,
    should people like elected officials or other people who are in
    charge of informing the public, should we buy into what I see
    is a movement without really substantiated reason to be there
    in the first place? Or, for example, me, buy into a treatment
    that is not proven to be effective? Or should I lead and should
    I say to my patients or should I say to the general public what
    the facts are and not buy into unsubstantiated claims?
        And what I see honestly is really, for the most part, a
    political and economic movement--political because of
    misinformation and economic because of companies that want
    their product to be labeled non-GMO so that they can compete
    with everybody else.
        So I will start at the end, and just comment on what your
    thoughts are. Should we buy in, or should we inform the public
    and stand up to what is clearly misinformation?
        Mr. Blasgen. Right. As a consumer, I believe we should
    inform the public, as you say. And I think that everyone here
    believes there is a right to know and that choice is very much
    of importance here. We care about consumer choice as consumers,
    but we also want to understand the implications as an industry
    person on what demands we are going to place on industry and
    whether it is going to be effective, as well. And, in this
    case, we don't think so.
        Mr. Daloz. I think there is a challenge here, and that is
    that to disable consumers from accessing information that they
    are interested in having suggests that the government has a
    role in controlling information people want----
        Dr. Bucshon. I am going to interrupt just briefly. As a
    medical doctor, should I promote a therapy that I know not to
    be effective because the Internet says that it is?
        Mr. Daloz. I respect the example. What I would say is that
    there is no promotion going on in Vermont's law. All there is--
    --
        Dr. Bucshon. Well, there will be because people have a
    misperception that GMO in some way is inferior to non-GMO
    products. I am just taking the devil's advocate approach here.
        Mr. Daloz. Absolutely understood. And I think what
    consumers do with that information and why consumers want the
    information is not necessarily the role that Vermont's
    legislature chose to take.
        What Vermont's legislature chose to do, after hearing a lot
    of testimony and really looking at a lot of different sides of
    the issue, was to say we are going to provide this information
    to consumers. It is accurate, it is complete, and we are going
    to let them do what they want.
        Dr. Bucshon. Fair enough.
        I want to get the other three in in my last 25 seconds
    here.
        Mr. Reifsteck. I believe Congress' responsibility is to
    ensure that American consumers have an accurate, fair, and non-
    misleading system for labeling foods.
        Mr. Jaffe. I think it is Congress' role, I think it is
    CSPI's role and everybody else to provide the facts to
    consumers out there. I think the current crops that are
    engineered are safe, and I think generally this is a safe
    technology, but you have to look at each application on a case-
    by-case basis.
        Mr. Giddings. Congressman, it is important to recognize
    that Vermont Act 120 and other similar legislation is a direct
    consequence of attempts to mislead consumers as to the safety
    of foods that are derived from crops and foods that are by
    technology.
        I have read every iteration of that law multiple times, and
    the legislative record is very clear. The findings of fact
    associated with it put forward a whole host of verifiably false
    claims about the safety of these foods. And while the State of
    Vermont, I am completely confident, does not intend to mislead
    consumers, the folks who pushed them into adopting this
    legislation and who are leading the campaigns have very
    different motives.
        And, you know, let me give an example of a couple of quotes
    from them.
        Dr. Bucshon. My time has expired. Can you submit the rest
    of your response to that for the record?
        Mr. Giddings. It is in my written remarks, and----
        Dr. Bucshon. OK. Great.
        Mr. Giddings [continuing]. To summarize very briefly, the
    intention of the folks pushing these mandates for information
    on labeling is directly to mislead consumers as to their safety
    as a means of growing their market share.
        Dr. Bucshon. I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Butterfield, 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, before getting started, I would ask unanimous
    consent to have two letters inserted into the record, the first
    one addressed to Members of the House and dated April 28. It is
    signed by nearly 400 stakeholders, including the National
    Federation of Farm Bureaus, as well as the State farm bureaus
    from Alaska to Florida. It is worth noting that the Vermont
    Farm Bureau is one of the signers. The letter expresses the
    support of the 400 signers for H.R. 1599.
        I offer this letter.
        Mr. Pitts. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Butterfield. Additionally, the second one, Mr.
    Chairman, addressed to Mr. Pompeo and me and dated April 16,
    2015, is from 29 biotechnology industry stakeholders and state
    biotech associations, including the North Carolina Bioscience
    Organization and the Bio New Jersey Association. The letter
    expresses, again, support for 1599.
        I offer this letter.
        Mr. Pitts. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Blasgen, I apologize for being in and out, but we are
    multitasking today, and I think you understand that. But thank
    you so much for being here today, and thank you for lending
    this committee your expertise in supply chain management.
        I have come to understand our Nation's food supply chain is
    a vast and interconnected web that starts with seed development
    and ends on the consumer's plate. The complex process of
    feeding America is staggering. It is easy to appreciate why
    upending manufacturing processes would cause significant
    disruptions to the supply chain, ultimately will result in
    consumers actually paying more for the same food that they buy
    today.
        Number one, considering that you have spent the last 15
    years as a supply chain logistics expert, do you believe a
    Federal labeling standard is in the best interest of both
    American consumers and our Nation's food producers?
        Mr. Blasgen. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Butterfield. That is unambiguous. All right. Thank you.
        I understand that there are concerns that the cost to
    comply with the Vermont law could exceed food company sales
    revenue for products that are actually sold in Vermont.
        If companies decide to no longer sell products in Vermont
    or any other state, as that goes, that has state mandates
    because it is too costly for them to comply, it is the
    consumer, not the company, that loses. That is my logic. Would
    you agree?
        Mr. Blasgen. I do. And as I mentioned in my statement, the
    grocery manufacturers are very high-volume, low-margin, and
    they do everything they can to keep very efficient and
    effective manufacturing operations, as well as distribution
    operations, right up until the time the consumer consumes the
    product. Securing that supply chain is very important to them,
    and they do everything that they can to make it the most
    efficient possible so that we can pass on those savings to
    consumers.
        Mr. Butterfield. What are the practical impacts of
    different state-by-state mandates on consumers? And why is a
    national standard in the best interest of consumers, in your
    own words?
        Mr. Blasgen. Right. It would literally mean manufacturing
    lines all across the country would have to stop and start and
    stop and start over and over again to change labeling, change
    packaging, create separate inventories of the same product
    essentially, ensure that they are segregated so they can end up
    in the right state. That would complicate things not only in
    the manufacturing sector but also in the inventory management
    sector because we would have to ensure those inventories are
    segregated and tracked as best as possible to ensure they are
    ending up in the right states. It is very difficult to do that
    throughout the entire supply chain.
        In particular, I will reiterate the fact that the
    manufacturers have control of only so much of that supply
    chain, and they turn it over to the retailers and wholesalers,
    who redistribute that product to stores. And then it is their
    job to make sure that product ends up where it is intended.
        Mr. Butterfield. OK.
        And now to the other end of the table, Dr. Giddings, and
    thank you, sir, for coming.
        At the December 2014 hearing, one witness said that some
    food companies label their food as ``natural'' even though it
    contains genetically engineered ingredients. He said that some
    consumers thought that was intentionally misleading because
    they believed exactly the opposite, that genetic engineering is
    not natural.
        While ``natural'' is not currently defined, the original
    version of 1599 would have required FDA to do so. The amendment
    in the nature of a substitute before us today, though, does
    not.
        Would you please share your views on the use of the term
    ``natural''?
        Mr. Giddings. This is something that rabbis and Jesuits
    could use years discussing.
        This much I can tell you: It is not clear to me what the
    term ``natural'' means when used in foods, because everything
    that we eat has been modified from the form it took before
    humans started to cultivate and care for livestock and so
    forth. So it has all been changed. Even wild fish stocks we
    have selected over generations and changed their genetic
    makeup.
        But this much I can tell you: foods derived from crops
    improved through genetic engineering, so-called GMOs--the term
    ``GMO'' has been defined as something modified in a way that
    does not occur in nature. But in the process of genetic
    engineering, we scientists in the lab learned how to do these
    things by observing these phenomena of genetic change happening
    in nature. These phenomena are widespread; they are found
    throughout the living world.
        The techniques that genetic engineers use in the lab to
    make these kinds of specific and directed changes with the
    degree of precision that is unprecedented in the history of
    humanity, these changes are all changes that we learned how to
    do by seeing it happen in nature. We use enzymes that we take
    from nature to make these things happen. If this is not a
    natural process, I have no idea what a natural process is.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Giddings.
        My time has expired, but you do believe we need a
    definition for ``natural''? Would that be helpful?
        Mr. Giddings. If you could come up with a definition, it
    would be helpful. But I am not sure it is possible.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Collins, 5 minutes
    for questions.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is a great hearing. I appreciate the witnesses'
    comments. And, certainly, I am a big supporter of Mr. Pompeo's
    bill.
        As we move into an area that I like to equate to
    hydrofracking, the scare tactics, the disinformation, the
    misinformation, the outright lies surrounding the safety of
    hydrofracking took on a life of their own for several years, to
    the point New York State banned hydrofracking. And, lo and
    behold, the EPA finally came out with an exhaustive study that
    said without any doubt that hydrofracking, when done properly,
    is absolutely safe and does not impose any risks on groundwater
    contamination. But for 2 years, people were on the Internet
    showing tap water coming out of the taps and putting a lighter
    to it and starting it on fire and scaring the bejesus out of
    the public, that, oh, my God, if that is hydrofracking, you are
    going to be drinking contaminated water.
        I compare that very similar to where we are today on this
    GMO debate. The opponents of it, like hydrofracking, have
    gotten out in front and basically said GMO equals bad, GMO
    equals dangerous. And so now people are at a point where, if
    they put anything to do with GMOs on their label, the average
    consumer, from misinformation and disinformation, is going to
    say, I don't want to buy that. Well, that is a tragedy for
    America, for the American consumer, and it just is,
    unfortunately, the facts of the life we live in.
        Also, the other issue that I know is problematic is, if
    every state creates their own labeling standards, if every town
    and every county, if all 62 counties in New York create their
    own labeling standard, the types of costs that are going to be
    passed on to consumers would be mind-boggling.
        We have a Cheerios plant just outside of my district, and
    if every box of Cheerios, you had to create a thousand
    different boxes because every village, every city, every town,
    every county, every state in America decided to willy-nilly
    pass their own laws, you wouldn't be able to afford a box of
    Cheerios.
        And, frankly, as the supply and demand chain goes for a
    very small state with very few consumers, they would just stop
    selling in that state. Vermont can go do what they want, but
    somebody might say, based on the cost of serving a very small
    market, I guess we will just no longer sell our product into
    that market. That is what consumers seriously need to be
    worried about.
        So I am just very happy that the FDA would be--we are
    asking them to do a study on the safety, like we asked the EPA
    to do a study on the safety of hydrofracking and it came back
    safe. And I am confident the same study will show that to be
    the case for GMOs.
        And I do think that Congress does have a role to play if
    there is labeling. We need to be preemptive and cut out the
    states from willy-nilly, putting out a thousand different sets
    of regulations. I am a small-government, local-decision-making
    guy, but this is a place for the Federal Government to step
    forward.
        But an observation and question, perhaps, to Mr. Blasgen:
    Cornell University, just, again, outside my district, did a
    study, and the study was: What would be the cost--now, this is
    certainly an estimate, but they did an actual data-based
    study--to the average consumer in America were these willy-
    nilly labeling by state, by town, by county, by village to go
    forward? And it was $500 at the end. They concluded the average
    family would be paying an additional $500 a year just for these
    labels on boxes. And $500 is a significant dent for getting
    nothing more than the cost on the producers.
        And I just wondered, Mr. Blasgen, have you seen similar
    studies? Does that make sense? Let's be honest with the
    consumers: do you want to pay an extra $500 a year?
        Mr. Blasgen. I have heard about that study, and I think it
    would probably even increase depending upon the number of
    states, the number of products that might be magnified by such
    labeling laws. The complications, the extra inventory, the
    extra time associated would be quite substantial when you think
    about all the manufacturers of food products, all the different
    items, and all the different labels that potentially could be
    on all these products.
        Mr. Collins. Yes.
        And do you also agree that there is certainly a risk that
    if a city, town, village, state, especially a small one,
    decided to pass a labeling law, there would be a fair chance
    that the supply chain would just simply stop providing that
    product into that market?
        Mr. Blasgen. It is possible. It all comes down to whether
    you can make a product, have a healthy margin so the
    manufacturers----
        Mr. Collins. You are going to look at your cost, you are
    going to look at your return and say, you know what, sorry,
    just not going to sell it into that market anymore. That is
    what America is all about, with choice and competition.
        Well, thank you all for your comments today. And I look
    forward to a study showing that GMOs, in fact, are safe.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        We are voting on the floor. It just started, so we have 14
    minutes left. We will go for a while. Then we will have to
    recess and come back if there are still questions that haven't
    been asked.
        So, at this point, the chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Oregon, Mr. Schrader, 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess questions for Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Reifsteck: What is
    the purpose of FDA labeling? What is the statutory requirement?
    Why do we label food?
        Mr. Jaffe?
        Mr. Jaffe. So that the consumers have truthful, non-
    misleading information about material issues that are
    important.
        Mr. Schrader. Mr. Reifsteck?
        Mr. Reifsteck. That would be my understanding also. I am
    not an expert on the science behind the food labeling, but that
    would be my understanding, yes.
        Mr. Schrader. Well, actually, it goes more specific. It
    talks about nutrition. And the goal is health and safety,
    obviously, of the American consumer.
        I have been listening closely to the discussion. A lot of
    it just seems like--I would say our bill covers a lot of the
    concerns that we are talking about here, which is truth and
    honesty in labeling.
        And I think everyone has responded to the chairman and
    other people's questions that there is currently no evidence
    that the genetically modified or genetically engineered crops
    we have to date cause health and safety problems. Our bill
    provides for, should they do that in the future, they would
    have to be labeled. This takes into account the fact that we
    don't know, maybe at some point in time there could be a
    problem, and FDA could regulate that. I think that is a good
    thing. I think we all would agree with that at the end of the
    day.
        The bill also--for the right-to-know folks, in my state, we
    had a big discussion about genetically modified organisms and
    GE labeling--it also provides for the right to know. It
    provides a mandatory labeling if you are going to claim that
    your product is non-GMO. I think that is important. People need
    to know.
        And then there is a process by which FDA and the Secretary
    can actually establish that. That is good. That allows the
    consumer to know exactly what he or she is getting.
        To the discussion on ``natural,'' there is a section here--
    I agree with Mr. Giddings, it would be tough to define
    ``natural.'' As an organic farmer, with all due respect to Mr.
    Daloz, who is talking about this partially produced, 70
    percent--it is like being half-pregnant. As an organic farmer
    and as an organic consumer, I want to know, is it organic or is
    it not?
        And right now I think it is important for members of the
    committee and citizens in our country to know we already have,
    a bioengineering label to some degree; it is called
    ``organic.'' As an organic farmer and, frankly, working on the
    farm bill this last Congress, we spent a lot of time trying to
    make sure that that meant something, that it was organic or it
    was not, and that the USDA and FDA had tools in place to
    actually make that statement.
        I have conventional farming friends that also have organic
    operations. And, yes, they have to use two separate facilities
    and stuff; there is a cost to it. But they make a market play,
    or it is a personal, philosophical thing that they want to do
    that at the end of the day. And that is good. The consumer
    benefits from that.
        The most important thing that this bill does, in my
    opinion, is it defines what a genetically engineered substance,
    organism is. Because right now there is nothing out there.
    There is the blogs, there is this hysteria, there is this--on
    the other side, the people that say everything has been
    genetically modified over time. To some extent, that is
    probably true.
        For the consumer that has a problem with stuff being done
    in vitro--which, as a scientist, I would argue is probably
    safer than traditional breeding, where you get inadvertent side
    effects that you can't control, where you can control them by
    just genetically splicing organisms at the end of the day. But
    those people that are concerned about that this gives them some
    certainty this is what this means. It gives the producer some
    certainly as to what genetically engineered actually means.
        And I think it has been clearly stated here that, to have a
    patchwork of regulatory framework where it sort of means this
    or it doesn't mean that, when we have food and produce that not
    only goes across county lines but state lines and now
    international lines, I think some sort of national standard is
    crystally clear and needed.
        This allows for those that are concerned about GE from a
    political or philosophical standpoint, not from a food health
    or safety standpoint, to get that stuff labeled and before them
    in time.
        I think this bill is a great piece of legislation. It
    doesn't over-legislate. It gives the consumer the right to know
    what they need to know, but allows American farmers, American
    food manufacturers to still produce the safest, healthiest food
    in the world that, I would point out, has increased yield,
    reduces tillage, reduces use of pesticides--many things that
    some of the very same people who are against any genetically
    engineered organism really also want at the end of the day.
        So I think this is an excellent compromise and would urge
    the committee to adopt it at the end of the day.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. Thanks to the gentleman.
        And I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
    Griffith, for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try
    to be quick.
        Mr. Jaffe, you indicated in one of the answers earlier that
    you didn't--and correct me if I got it wrong--that you didn't
    see any concerns today about allergens, that none of the foods
    that are out there now that have been genetically engineered
    have allergen problems, but you were concerned about the
    future.
        Can you get me information on that, if I got that
    information correct from you originally? Was that correct, what
    I thought I heard you say?
        Mr. Jaffe. Yes. That is correct.
        Mr. Griffith. Can you get me some information after the
    hearing in regard to concerns or papers about concerns about
    future allergens? As a father of a 9-year-old who has a lot of
    food allergies, I would be interested in that. Would you do
    that for me?
        Mr. Jaffe. Sure.
        Mr. Griffith. And, Mr. Daloz, industry is concerned about
    potential for private actions against manufacturers. Under your
    law, I believe the law is maybe unclear on that point.
        Does Vermont's law block private rights of action against
    manufacturers and suppliers? I am not going to ask you for an
    answer today because we are short on time. I am going to ask
    you if you would get us something on that.
        And if the answer is no, what do you intend to do to limit
    liability when a product, the person who manufactured it really
    didn't intend for it to ever end up in Vermont but somebody
    puts it on the shelf there anyway?
        And if you could get me an answer to that at a later date,
    I would greatly appreciate it. I am trying to make sure that
    Mr. Pompeo gets an opportunity.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. I now recognize Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be shorter
    than 5 minutes.
        I want to thank the panel.
        Mr. Jaffe, long time, no see. Thank you for your testimony.
        I confess to you, my head is kind of exploding on this,
    just trying to balance all of these different concerns. So I am
    still absorbing a lot of the information and perspective
    related to it.
        I take it, Mr. Jaffe, that even though there is a system
    now whereby the FDA, in effect, says that they think things are
    OK because they issued this letter that says they don't have
    any further questions, that you don't view that as an
    affirmative enough judgment being rendered by the FDA with
    respect to the safety of the item that is subject to the
    letter.
        Can you just elaborate a little bit more on why you feel
    that a more proactive, affirmative statement or standard or
    judgment or opinion on the part of the FDA would make sense in
    the context of this proposal?
        Mr. Jaffe. Sure. Thank you very much for that question.
        The FDA letter that comes back at the end of these
    consultations says--and I am sort of paraphrasing here but sort
    of quoting--it says, ``The FDA has no further questions at this
    time about your determination that you think the food is safe.
    You are responsible for safe food.'' So the developers,
    Monsanto or DuPont, that is what the ``you'' would be referring
    to in that case.
        So the public looks at that letter and says, FDA is not
    saying it is safe; FDA is saying you have to rely on Monsanto's
    determination that this is safe. And so I think that may not be
    an issue of actual safety, but it is an issue of perception of
    that. So FDA it not giving its opinion at all about that
    safety.
        When you look at--and the Congressman from Oregon mentioned
    his state had a referendum on mandatory labeling. There have
    been four states that have had those referendums. When you ask
    the consumers--and almost 50 percent voted for those--why did
    they vote for those, they say, ``Because we weren't sure these
    foods are safe. We want to avoid them because we are not sure
    they are safe.''
        So the solution to that is not to label at the back end;
    the solution is for FDA to confirm to consumers that those
    foods are safe on an individual, case-by-case basis for each
    individual product. And so I think that is what every other
    country in the world does in this area before they approve
    genetically engineered foods. Their food safety authority
    equivalent to FDA does it.
        And what is ironic about it, in the United States, USDA,
    you can't plant one of these crops without USDA saying they are
    safe, but we can eat the foods from them without FDA saying
    they are safe. That is not a product of a policy decision. It
    is a product of using old laws and fitting new technology into
    that. And I think----
        Mr. Sarbanes. Right. OK. Well, I appreciate that. My sense
    is you would believe that having that new standard would help
    address some of the anxiety that people legitimately feel about
    whether there are safety concerns there or not. And, in so
    doing, you might lessen the demand for the kind of labeling
    that Mr. Giddings and others are reluctant to see imposed.
        So I don't understand why there is a total departure
    between the two of you on this topic, because it seems that one
    would help the other to some degree.
        I am going to switch gears, and I am going to try to wrap
    up.
        I gather that the Vermont labeling bill is one that would
    require the producer, the manufacturer, whatever the right term
    is here for the person putting the label on there, to indicate
    that it is partially produced or wholly produced by GE, but
    that a label saying ``may contain GE'' is not an option? Or is
    it if there is no way to determine the origins?
        Mr. Daloz. I think that is an important point to make. It
    is an option. And producers can choose to qualify the
    ``produced with genetic engineering'' with the term ``may be''
    if they, after reasonable inquiry, can't determine whether
    their product is produced with genetic engineering.
        Mr. Sarbanes. But if they can determine it, they cannot
    choose to say ``may.''
        Mr. Daloz. Precisely. It has to be accurate.
        Mr. Sarbanes. That, to me, would be a solution to the
    entire problem in some ways.
        In any event, thank you all for your testimony.
        I will yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        We are voting on the floor. We have 2-plus minutes left.
        The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs.
    Brooks.
        Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I heard yesterday from Beck's
    Hybrids, a family-owned pioneer in the biotech world in seed
    production, who is in strong support of this bill.
        And I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
    Kansas, Mr. Pompeo.
        Mr. Pompeo. Thank you, Mrs. Brooks. I appreciate that.
        And I thank you all for being here, as well.
        Mr. Daloz, you said that you trust people to make their own
    decisions. In fact, we saw Mr. Welch hold up a container that
    said non-GMO today under the current law. Would that producer
    still be able to produce that container after H.R. 1599 passed?
        Mr. Daloz. That is not my understanding of H.R. 1599.
        Mr. Pompeo. So, he would. You understand it incorrectly.
    Because this is exactly what I wanted to address.
        There is nothing in this legislation that denies any food
    producer any ability to market their product as non-GMO as long
    as that is a truthful statement and accurate. That proves my
    point precisely. Chipotle could still sell you a 5,000-calorie
    burrito that was non-GMO and tell you it was a good idea. As
    long as it was truthful and accurate, they could continue to do
    that. And this is exactly what I wanted to get at.
        So you suggested that somehow H.R. 1599 denies anyone the
    right to know anything. But it doesn't. Can you tell me where
    in the bill you see that it would prevent someone from doing
    that?
        Mr. Daloz. I don't have the draft directly in front of me.
    My understanding is that a portion of title 1 of the amendment
    in the nature of a substitution suggests that it would be
    misbranding if a product were labeled without following some of
    the procedures laid out in title 2. I think it is 291(b) and
    (c).
        And my understanding of those is, at the point in time that
    H.R. 1599 took effect, there would be no state laws that could
    exist. And there would be up to a year, possibly longer, for
    the regulations to come into effect, which would essentially
    mean that, at the point in time H.R. 1599 took effect, it would
    be a rollback of the status quo today and certainly would
    eliminate----
        Mr. Pompeo. There would be hundreds of thousands of state
    laws still in effect. There just would be no ability for a
    state to have mandatory labeling.
        There would still be complete freedom for every company in
    the world that wanted to market their products as being
    something that was truthful, including non-GMO--they could
    continue to do so. There is absolutely no denial of anyone's
    right to know whether that product is there. And someone who
    only wants to eat non-GMO ice cream can do so today, and they
    can do so once we get H.R. 1599 passed.
        And so, if I am right about that, you will come join me on
    the podium when we celebrate its passage, I assume, and I will
    look forward to that.
        You also talked about there being lots of popularity for
    this. Has this ever passed by referendum in any state in the
    United States of America that you know of?
        Mr. Daloz. In Vermont, it was passed through the
    legislature----
        Mr. Pompeo. My questions was a yes-or-no question. Has it
    ever passed by referenda anywhere? When it has been put to the
    people, have they ever approved what you are proposing?
        Mr. Daloz. Not to my knowledge.
        Mr. Pompeo. Right. So every time it has been on the ballot,
    the American people have rejected it. And I think that is
    important for folks to understand, because there is this idea
    somehow there is this tidal wave of demand and everyone is
    screaming for it.
        In fact, Mr. Jaffe, a question to you. First of all, I want
    to say thank you. I have appreciated your counsel through this.
    You have been reasonable and rational and thoughtful, and I
    greatly appreciate that. We differ a little bit on the front
    end. I am happy to try and work with you to get that a little
    bit better. And I appreciate that.
        But you said 7 percent of the people want it. I don't know
    exactly how many it is. But my bill, in your judgment, it will
    allow those 7 percent of the people to continue to eat all non-
    GMO food if they chose and to only purchase products that
    contained a label that reflected that. Even after this bill
    came to passage, they could continue to do that, and they could
    pay the premium that was required, and life would be good for
    them.
        Is that correct?
        Mr. Jaffe. Yes. If the bill was passed, I do think it is
    important that for foods that are labeled non-GMO, that there
    is a Federal standard for that. Because right now consumers
    aren't necessarily getting what they are paying for.
        So, again, I would say there is no need for a consumer to
    want to purchase non-GMO food, but there are consumers who want
    to do that. I think you do need a Federal standard for setting
    what that means.
        Mr. Pompeo. I appreciate that distinction.
        I just want to clarify one thing to clean up something a
    little bit. Mr. Daloz, you kind of gave an answer that I want
    to just make sure I have right.
        So when the FDA came to testify, Michael Landa testified,
    he said that the FDA was confident that GE foods in the
    marketplace today are as safe as their conventionally bred
    counterparts. I asked Representative Kate Webb, the assistant
    majority leader in Vermont, that question. She said she agreed
    with it.
        I assume you agree with that statement from the FDA, as
    well?
        Mr. Daloz. I do. I don't have any reason to disagree with
    it.
        Mr. Pompeo. So you agree with it too. Great.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your
    consideration and your help with this.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        That concludes the questions of the members who are
    present. We will have questions in writing that we will submit
    to you. We ask that you please respond.
        I remind members they have 10 business days to submit
    questions for the record. And that means they should submit
    their questions by the close of business on Thursday, July 2.
        Very good hearing. Very important hearing.
        Thank you for your testimony and your expertise.
        Without objection, the subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]