[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 39 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1424-S1426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I would like to address a very 
important issue, which is the right for American citizens to know what 
is in their food. I am going to be talking about the topic of 
genetically modified ingredients in food. I will be pointing out that 
there are genetic modifications that are largely considered to have 
been beneficial and others that are largely considered to be causing 
significant challenges. In both cases, there is science to bring to 
bear around the benefits and there is science to bring to bear around 
the disadvantages. Ultimately, I will conclude--to give a preface 
here--that this is not a debate about the pros and cons. There is 
information on both sides, different aspects. What is at debate is 
whether our Federal Government wants to be the large, overbearing 
presence in the lives of Americans and tell them what to think, or 
whether we believe in our citizens' ability to use their own minds and 
make their own decisions. To be able to do that, they have to be able 
to know when there are genetically modified ingredients in the foods 
they are consuming.
  Let's start with the point that there are significant benefits from 
various GM modified plants. One example is golden rice. Golden rice, as 
seen here, has been modified in order to produce a lot more vitamin A. 
So growing this in an area where there is a vitamin A deficiency has 
been beneficial to the help of local populations.
  Let's take, for example, a certain form of carrot. It has been 
modified to produce an enzyme that helps rid the body of fatty 
substances. When you can't do that, you have Gaucher's disease. We have 
a lot of trouble with Gaucher's disease, with brain and bone damage, 
anemia, and bruises. But through the modification of these carrots, 
there is a solution, and should you be afflicted with Gaucher's 
disease, you would be very happy about that.
  Let's take another example. These are sweet potatoes that have been 
modified to resist a number of viral infections common in South Africa. 
So a place where otherwise you may not be able to grow these sweet 
potatoes, where the local population might not be able to benefit from 
nutrition in these sweet potatoes, they can now do so. These are some 
of the examples of some of the benefits that have come from some forms 
of genetic modification of plants.
  But just as there is science that shows benefits, there is also 
science showing concerns. I am going to start by explaining that the 
largest modification in America--the largest deployed modification--is 
to make plants such as corn, soybeans, and sugar beets resistant to an 
herbicide called glyphosate.
  The use of glyphosate has increased dramatically over the last two 
decades. In 1994 we are talking about 7.4 million pounds--not very 
much. But by 2012, we are talking about 160 million pounds of this 
herbicide being put onto our crops.
  Well, one's reaction may be this: OK, but is there any downside to 
that massive deployment of herbicides? Yes, in fact, there is. This 
herbicide is so efficient in killing weeds that it kills milkweed. 
Well, milkweed happens to grow in disturbed soil. So it has been a 
common companion to our agricultural world. Milkweed is the single 
substance that monarch butterflies feed on. So as the glyphosate 
expansion has increased over this time period, the monarch butterfly 
has radically decreased because its food supply has been dramatically 
reduced. This is not the only factor considered to affect the Monarch 
butterfly, but it is an example of a significant factor. That is 
something of which you think: What else could happen in the natural 
world as a result of changing dramatically the variety of plants that 
surround our farm fields?
  Let's turn to another impact. Millions of pounds of glyphosate go on 
the fields, and much of it ends up running off the fields and running 
into our streams and rivers. It is an herbicide. So it has a profound 
impact on the makeup of organisms in those streams and rivers.
  For example, it can have an impact on microorganisms, algae, and 
things that feed on that up the food chain--fish, mussels, amphibians, 
and so forth. We don't understand all the impacts of massive amounts of 
herbicides in our streams and rivers, but scientists are saying: Yes, 
there is an impact. Studies are underway to understand those impacts 
more thoroughly. Of course, we care about the health of our streams and 
rivers.
  Let's take another example. Sometimes you just can't fool Mother 
Nature. One impact of the massive application of glyphosate is that 
weeds start to develop a resistance to it, and then you have to start 
to use more of it. Also, that is true in a different sphere. I am 
talking about a particular genetic modification that goes into the 
cells of plants and is designed to fend off the western corn rootworm.
  The western corn rootworm eats corn when it is in the larvae stage--
that is the worm stage--and it does so when it is in the beetle stage. 
Some beautiful examples are shown here. It can eat the pollination part 
of the corn so that the corn doesn't produce healthy kernels as well. 
It can eat the leaves. It pretty much loves the entire corn plant.
  This genetic modification produces a pesticide inside the cell and 
was in the beginning very effective in killing these corn rootworms. 
But guess what. Mother Nature has a continuous stream of genetic 
mutations, and if you apply this to millions and millions of acres and 
millions of pounds, eventually Mother Nature produces a mutation that 
makes it immune to this pesticide. Then those immune rootworms start 
multiplying, and you have to start applying a pesticide again, and 
maybe you have to apply even more than before because they develop a 
resistance to it. That is exactly what is happening here. So that is a 
significant reverberation.
  All I am trying to point out here is that this is not really an 
argument about science. Science can tell us that there have been 
occasions in which genetic modifications have had an initial beneficial 
impact, and science will tell us that there are situations in which the 
reverberations of using the genetically modified plants are having a 
negative impact. So that is where it stands. It is like any other 
technology. It can be beneficial. It can be harmful.
  So the question is this: Does our government--the big hand of the 
Federal Government--reach out and say to our cities, our counties, and 
our States that there is only one answer to this and that is why we are 
going to ban you from letting citizens know what is in their food. Of 
course, there is no one answer. We have seen there are benefits and 
there are disadvantages. Quite frankly, I think it is just wrong for 
the Federal Government to take away our citizens' right to know. That 
is why I am doing all I can to publicize this at this moment.
  Various States have wrestled on whether to provide information to 
citizens so that the citizens can decide on their own whether they have 
a product that has genetically modified ingredients. Most of our food 
products do because virtually all of our corn, sugar beets, and 
soybeans are genetically modified, but citizens can look at what type 
of genetic modification. They can respond and use their minds with 
information.

  This is really what is beautiful in democracy. Government doesn't 
make up your mind for you. Government doesn't impose a certain 
framework in which you have to view the world.
  Yet, right now, at this very moment, there are a group of Senators in 
this

[[Page S1425]]

body who want to impose those blinders on you, American citizens. They 
want to tell you how to think. They are supporting a bill that says the 
Federal Government will take one side of this argument and tell you it 
is the truth and spend your tax dollars publicizing it. This is the 
type of propaganda machine that you would expect outside of a democracy 
but not here in the ``we the people'' government of the United States 
of America--not here, where we value our citizens' ability to make 
their own choices. So it is very important that we wake up quickly and 
respond to this, because the simple truth is a group of very powerful 
companies are working right now to get a bill passed that will take 
away our citizens' right to know about GM ingredients in their 
products. This bill is called the DARK Act, or the Deny Americans the 
Right to Know Act, and it has passed out of committee. The majority 
leader has said it is a priority for him to put the DARK Act on the 
floor of this Senate next week with virtually no notice to the United 
States of America.
  Most of these positions percolate inside committees for a length of 
time and then get digested on the floor for a length of time. But, no, 
there is an effort to slam this through--this imposition on the right 
to know in America. That is just absolutely wrong.
  Now let me talk a little bit about how American citizens feel about 
this. There was a survey done at the end of 2015, just a couple of 
months ago. This was a nationwide survey of likely 2016 election voters 
done in November of 2015.
  The question that was asked of the participants was this: As you may 
know, it has been proposed that the Food and Drug Administration, or 
the FDA, require foods that have been genetically engineered or contain 
genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled to indicate that. 
Would you favor or oppose requiring labels for foods that have been 
genetically engineered or contain genetically engineered ingredients?
  After the respondent gives the answer, then the follow-up question is 
this: Is that strongly or not so strongly? Well, 89 percent of 
Americans say they favor mandatory labels on foods that have 
genetically modified ingredients. That is powerful. That is nine 9 of 
10 Americans.
  Furthermore, 77 percent of the respondents said that they not only 
favor mandatory labels but they strongly favor the proposal. Now, this 
is very unusual to have nine Americans line up on one side versus one 
on the other.
  Is this something that has to do with party affiliation? Absolutely 
not. Across the great spectrum of ideologies in America, citizens agree 
in this poll, with 89 percent of Independents--the same as overall--84 
percent of Republicans, and 92 percent of Democrats. In other words, 
regardless of party, basically 9 out of 10 individuals say the same 
thing on the right, on the left, and in the middle.
  Well, that should be listened to up here on Capitol Hill because we 
are intended by constitutional design to be a ``we the people'' 
government, not the government of, by, and for powerful ag companies. 
If you want to serve in that kind of government, go to some other 
country because that is not the design of our Constitution.
  Our responsibility is to the people of America. They don't like Big 
Government trying to tell them how to think, and that is why this DARK 
Act is just wrong.
  There are some ideas floating around this building today. One of 
those ideas is, well, we will put a label on a food product that will 
be just a phone number, and if you, the citizen, want to know details 
about this product--whether it contains genetically modified 
ingredients--well, you can ring up this phone number and maybe somebody 
will answer your question. You can call the company, and the company 
will tell you what they think about their product.
  Well, first, Americans don't want to stand there in the grocery store 
and start making phone calls to companies. Can you imagine, you are 
standing there--and you actually care about whether there is a GMO in 
this product. You are going to make a phone call. You are going to wait 
while you go through a telephone tree. You are probably going to have 
to speak to somebody overseas who may not even understand what you are 
asking, or you get a company spokesman who is going to lay out the 
company line and never really give you an answer. Why should you have 
to do that?
  Think about the parallel situation. We have all these other 
ingredients on the package. We include things such as sea salt as 
opposed to salt. We have preservatives. We have colors that are 
incorporated into the food because people want to know about the 
colors, the food dyes that have gone into the food. They want to know 
about the preservatives that have gone into the food.
  We even tell companies that on the label they have to tell the 
consumer whether the fish has been caught in the wild or raised on a 
farm. Why do we require that label? Well, we require that label because 
citizens want to know about the ingredients in their food--in this 
case, the makeup of their fish, because it is different. There are 
different farming practices between catching wild salmon and raising 
salmon on a farm, in a pond, or in an ocean-contained area. There are 
different impacts. Citizens care about that, so we require it to be 
disclosed.
  We require our juice companies to say whether the juice is fresh or 
reconstituted. Why do we provide that information? Why do we require 
that? Because citizens want to know. There is a difference between the 
two products, and they want to know. It is their right to know what 
they put into their own bodies, what they feed to their families, what 
their children consume. It is their right to know. Again, 9 out of 10 
Americans say this is important to them.
  This telephone idea is just the worst possible scam. Let's put it 
frankly. Nobody is going to stand there comparing soups, making phone 
call after phone call after phone call. Nobody who wants to know if 
there is high fructose corn syrup in their food is going to stand 
there, look at a can, and dial phone number after phone number. That is 
why it is printed on the label. That makes it very simple.
  There is another idea floating around here: Put a computer code on 
the product, and people can scan it with their smartphone and get 
information. Well, this may be even more ludicrous than the phone idea 
in terms of stripping the power of American citizens' right to know. 
First, you have to be in the grocery store, and here are the different 
cans of soup you are going to compare. Oh, let me take a picture of the 
first one with my phone. Oh, OK, now I have to go to the Web site. I am 
taking a picture of the bar code, and I am going to go to the Web site. 
OK, which page of this Web site do I go to? Oh, look, this Web site was 
written by the company that makes it.
  They are making it hard for this information to be found. They are 
making it hard for this to be understood. They are not disclosing the 
details of the type of genetic modification. Well, that is absurd. Can 
any Member of this Chamber really tell me--can you stand and tell me 
that you are going to take pictures of 10 different products while your 
child is sitting in your grocery cart? And that is just to buy one 
thing on your grocery list. Does anyone here want to stand and claim 
they would do that? I think the silence speaks for itself.
  Certainly we are in a situation where people don't want to take 
pictures of these codes with their cell phones because it reveals 
information about them that the companies collect on them. Why should 
they have to give up their privacy to know about an ingredient in their 
food?
  Let's be clear. There are two scams being discussed right now by the 
majority leaders of this Chamber, this esteemed Chamber which should 
stand for free speech and knowledge, not suppressed speech and lack of 
knowledge. They want to send you down this rabbit hole of 800 numbers 
or this blind alley of computer bar codes rather than a simple 
indication on a package.
  Let's recognize that this is a pretty easy problem to resolve because 
most of the world has figured it out--64 other countries, 28 members of 
the European Union, Japan, Australia, and Brazil. They all have a 
simple disclosure on the package, a consumer-friendly phrase or symbol. 
That symbol is straightforward. There is no smokescreen. There is no 
blind alley. There is no rabbit hole. There is no cleverness

[[Page S1426]]

over an 800 number or a bar code or another computer code called a 
quick response code. No, they simply give the information, the way we 
do on everything else, the way we do on preservatives, food colorings, 
core ingredients, wild-caught fish versus farm fish, and juice from 
concentrate versus fresh juice. They make it simple. They just have a 
simple marking on the package.

  Do you know who else provides this simple information to their 
consumers? China. Do our citizens deserve less information than the 
Chinese, who live in a dictatorship? Why are Members of this Chamber 
trying to strip more information away from American citizens than does 
the dictatorship of China? That is just wrong.
  There is an easy solution here. There are a number of reasonable 
arguments that Big Agriculture is making. They say: Look, we do not 
want 50 States producing 50 different label standards.
  I absolutely agree.
  They say: We don't want a bunch of counties and cities producing yet 
other label standards; that could go into the thousands.
  Fair point.
  One common way of doing this would make sense. You cannot have a 
warehouse that is serving three or four different States or multiple 
communities that need to have this product sorted and distributed, one 
group to here and one group to there. You can't keep it all straight. 
It is expensive. There are all these different labels. It is confusing. 
That is a fair point. I agree. Let's do one 50-State solution.
  The industry says: We don't want anything pejorative. We don't want 
anything that says GM is scary or GM is bad.
  I pointed out that there are some advantages to genetic modifications 
and there are some disadvantages. So I agree there too. Let's not put a 
marking on a package that is pejorative.
  The industry says: We don't want anything on the front of the 
package. It takes up space. It may suggest there is something scary 
about this if you are putting it on the front of the package.
  OK, fair enough. Let's not put it on the front of the package. I 
completely accept that point.
  The industry says: There are several different ways we could do this. 
We would like flexibility.
  Absolutely. Let's have flexibility.
  So I have put together a bill which hits all these key points the 
food industry has raised. It is a 50-State solution. There is nothing 
on the front of the package. There is nothing pejorative. And it gives 
the type of flexibility the industry has talked about.
  Under the bill I have put forward, they are allowed to put initials 
behind an ingredient in parentheses or to put an asterisk on the 
ingredient and put an explanation below or to put in a phrase--as 
Campbell Soup plans to do--that simply says: This product contains 
genetically modified ingredients. Campbell Soup is planning to do that 
because they say they want a relationship of full integrity with their 
customers. Shouldn't we all be for full integrity with our citizens? 
Doesn't that make a lot of sense?
  Yet another option would be to put a simple symbol--any symbol chosen 
by the FDA, so certainly not one that suggests there is anything 
pejorative about it. Brazil uses a little ``t.'' OK, how about a little 
``t'' in a triangle or in a box or something else that the FDA or the 
food companies would like?
  The point is, if someone cares enough to pick up a package, turn it 
over, and look at the fine print on the ingredients, if they care 
enough to look, just as they might care enough to look up whether there 
is high fructose corn syrup, just as they might care enough to see if 
there are peanuts in it because they have a peanut allergy, or just 
because they want to look at the ingredients to see how many calories 
are in a product, if they care enough to pick it up and turn it over, a 
little symbol--all of those options are available under this type of 
reasonable compromise. It would appear on each product involved in 
interstate commerce. OK, so that is consistent, and that is a point 
made. It is clear. These symbols are clear.
  The public that cares get educated. They know what to look for. It is 
easy to find. It is right there on the package. There is no sending you 
off on a wild goose chase through a phone tree and an 800 number. There 
is no proceeding to tell you that you have to use a smartphone, which 
many people don't have. They might not even have reception to be able 
to use it effectively if they wanted to. No. It is a simple, 
straightforward phrase or initials right there on the ingredients 
package. What could be more appropriate than the simplicity of that?
  Many folks have stepped forward to say this makes tremendous sense. 
Campbell Soup said: Yes, we endorse this. This makes sense. Also, 
Nature's Path, Stonyfield, Ben & Jerry's, Amy's Kitchen, Consumers 
Union, the American Association for Justice, the National Sustainable 
Agriculture Coalition, and the Just Label It coalition.
  Yes, OK, that is fine, we are not asking for something on the front 
of the package. It doesn't have to be on the front. It doesn't have to 
be scary. It can be in that tiny print on the ingredients page. When an 
earnest, sincere citizen wants to know, they have the right to know in 
a consumer-friendly fashion.
  I particularly thank the Senators who have already signed on to 
endorse this legislation: Senator Leahy and Senator Bernie Sanders, who 
come from Vermont, which has a State labeling bill that would be 
preempted by this bill. It would be replaced by this 50-State national 
standard. But because this is a fair standard for consumers, they are 
endorsing this bill. I also thank Senator Tester of Montana, Senator 
Feinstein of California, Senator Murphy of Connecticut, Senator 
Gillibrand of New York, Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senator 
Boxer of California, Senator Markey of Massachusetts, and Senator 
Heinrich of New Mexico. All parts of the country, different parts of 
the country, and they are all saying: You know what, our citizens, 9 to 
1, want a simple, fair statement or symbol on the ingredients list. 
That is just the right way to go.
  If you are going to step on the authority of States to provide 
information that citizens want, you have to provide a simple, clear, 
indication on the package. That is the deal. That is the fair 
compromise. That is standing up for citizens' right to know. That is 
honoring the public interest. That is a compromise in the classic sense 
that works for the big issues the companies are talking about. They 
don't want the expense from individual States and they don't want the 
complexity and confusion from individual States. What consumers want is 
a simple indication on the package.
  Let's do the right thing. Let's not be worse than China and block our 
consumers from having access to information. Let's do the right thing 
that virtually every developed country has done and provide a simple, 
clear system for citizens to be able to know what is in their food.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

                          ____________________