[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1476-S1479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD LABELING BILL

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, many of you know that in my real life I am 
a farmer. I know where my food comes from and how it is made. 
Unfortunately, that is not true for most Americans.
  We will be dealing with a bill called the DARK Act shortly, and quite 
frankly the DARK Act does not empower America's consumers. It does not 
tell them what is in the packaged food they purchase, and it doesn't 
give them any information when we are dealing with genetically modified 
ingredients.
  I was told that the customer is always right. If you are a good 
businessman, you listen to your customers. In this particular case, the 
customer has a right to know what is in their food. In fact, they 
expect it because 9 out of 10 consumers say they want labeling for 
genetically engineered foods. Some of the folks in this body are not 
listening to the customers. They are not listening to their 
constituents. Instead, they are listening to the big corporations that 
want to keep consumers in the dark, and we cannot allow that to happen 
in this body today. The Senate is above that.
  Transparency in everything leaves better accountability and gives 
more power to average Americans, and that is also true when we talk 
about food. Free markets work when consumers have access to 
information. The U.S. Senate should not be in the business of hiding 
information from consumers.
  Let's be clear. What the new DARK Act, which is sponsored by the 
Senator from Kansas, does is it tells the American people: We in the 
Senate know what is best for you, and quite frankly, whether you want 
this information or not, you are not going to get it.
  How does this DARK Act do this? First of all, it blocks the States 
from enforcing their own laws, so we can throw States' rights out the 
window. Second, this ``compromise'' would hide the information behind 
800 numbers and QR codes.
  Let me tell you, if you think this is labeling, if you think this is 
giving the consumer a right to know what is in their food, you are 
wrong. This is a game. And for the mom who wants to know what is in her 
child's cereal or soup or bread, there may be a bunch of different 800 
numbers out there, and I don't know about you, but when it comes to 
phone numbers, especially the older I get, the harder it is for me to 
remember. Or you will stand in a grocery store aisle and scan each 
individual product with a smartphone, if you have a smartphone and if 
you have cell phone coverage at that location, because, quite frankly, 
in rural America, we don't in a lot of places. And that is going to be 
the labeling. Unbelievable.
  The fact is, if folks are so proud of the GMOs, they should label 
them. What they are saying is you can voluntarily do it. Frankly, 
voluntary standards are no standards at all. If they were standards, we 
would say to the super PACs: Tell us who you get your money from. Tell 
us what you are spending it on, why you are spending it. We don't know 
that. We don't know that in our elections, by the way, which puts our 
democracy at risk, and we won't know about our food if this DARK Act 
passes.
  There are 64 countries out there that require GMO labeling. China, 
Russia, and Saudi Arabia are not exactly transparent countries, but 
they are requiring GMO labeling. Vermont passed a GMO labeling law that 
would go in effect in July. Maine and Connecticut have passed mandatory 
labeling laws. There are numerous States that require things like farm-
raised or wild-

[[Page S1477]]

caught. FDA, in fact, even regulates terms such as ``fresh'' and 
``fresh frozen.''
  Some of the proponents of the DARK Act will say: Well, you know, 
folks from California and Washington defeated it when it was on the 
ballot.
  Yes, they did. Let me give you some figures. In Washington, more than 
$20 million was spent in opposition to the labeling law--more than $20 
million. By the way, about $600 of that came from Washington residents, 
according to the Washington Post. About $7 million was in support of 
that campaign, with at least $1.6 million of that $7 million coming 
from Washington residents.
  In California, the opponents to labeling our food with GMOs spent 
about $45 million to defeat it. Monsanto alone spent $8 million of that 
$45 million. Supporters of the labeling spent about $7 million.
  So let's be clear. When people have a choice to vote and get the 
facts, they want their food labeled. This DARK Act does exactly the 
opposite. It is bad legislation. It does not empower consumers. It does 
not empower the American people. In fact, it does what the title of 
this bill says: Keep them in the dark. That is not what the U.S. Senate 
should be about. We need to defeat this bill, whether it is through the 
cloture process or later on. This is bad, bad, bad policy.
  I yield my time to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, will my colleague from Montana yield for 
a question?
  Mr. TESTER. Yes, I will.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you. I appreciate the Senator's presentation.
  This Monsanto DARK Act 2.0--this new version--says to the States that 
they no longer have the right to respond to consumers' interest in 
providing a consumer-friendly label that alerts them to genetically 
engineered ingredients, but it does not replace that with a federal 
consumer-friendly label?
  Mr. TESTER. Correct.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Is it right that the Federal Government takes away this 
power from States, which are, if you will, our places of 
experimentation and creativity, and then does nothing at the national 
level? Is this an overreach of the Federal Government?
  Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. The Senator came out of the State Legislature 
in Oregon. I came out of the State Legislature in Montana. Quite 
frankly, much of the work is done at the State level. We follow their 
lead. This bill does exactly the opposite. It prevents States from 
labeling for genetically modified foods, and it replaces it with a 
voluntary labeling system basically or QR codes that nobody is going to 
have the technology, quite frankly, or the time to be able to 
investigate. So the Senator is right. This tells folks in Vermont and 
Maine and Connecticut and many other States--as I said, 9 out of 10 
consumers want genetically modified foods labeled, and this replaces it 
basically with nothing.
  The proponents will walk out here and say: No, no, no, there is going 
to be a QR code or 800 number. That simply does not give the consumers 
the ability to know what is in their food. We live in a very fast-paced 
society. I can tell you, it happened just this weekend when I was home. 
I pulled up in a pickup. My wife ran in the grocery store, grabbed what 
she needed, came out, and we zipped home. People don't have the time to 
look unless it is sitting right there and they can see it. And that is 
what your bill does, I say to Senator Merkley. Your bill gives the 
consumer the ability to simply look at the package and know what is in 
it, and that is what we should be fighting for in this body. We 
shouldn't be fighting to keep people in the dark; we should fight to 
let people know so they can make good decisions. If you have good 
information--and it is true here and it is true amongst the American 
public--if you have good information, you can make good decisions. When 
parents buy food for their kids, they ought to have the information so 
they can make good decisions. It is simply a right to know what is in 
your food.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleague from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I will use these papers as examples of food products. I have three 
different bags of rice, and I want to look. I can scan the ingredients 
list of these three products to see what they contain. Well, in about 5 
seconds--if what is required of me is to pull out my phone, call up an 
800 number, work my way through a phone tree, proceed to talk to 
someone who may or may not even know what I am calling about--and maybe 
I will get a busy signal or a message that says: I am sorry, our phone 
lines are very busy, but we will get to you in 25 minutes. How long am 
I going to have to stand there versus the 5 seconds that it takes if 
there is a symbol or an indication on the ingredients panel for these 
three products? While standing in the aisle of the grocery store, how 
long is it going to take me to try to find out if these three products 
have genetically engineered ingredients?
  Mr. TESTER. Well, you said it. For the people who heard you explain 
the process you would go through, that is not labeling. That is not 
transparency. That isn't telling folks what is in their food.
  Needless to say, I have to tell you, I think these are a pain in the 
neck. If I wasn't in this body, I don't think I would even have one, 
and there are a lot of people who feel that way. So now I am going to 
have to spend money and get a plan so I can determine what is in my 
food? Not everybody has the resources to have one of these. What does 
this do to folks who are poor? They deserve to have the food that they 
want to eat. They deserve to know what is in it. And they are not going 
to have that capacity. Then what about folks in places such as eastern 
Washington or all of Montana that isn't where a lot of people live? 
Oftentimes there is not that service. So it just does not make any 
sense. You are trying to replace what Vermont is doing with nothing, 
and that is not fair. It is not fair to the consumers.
  As I said in my remarks, the consumer is always right. They are. It 
is a fact of business. We ought to be listening to folks. That is why 
we have single-digit approval ratings in this body. We need to listen. 
And we are not listening with the DARK Act.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Is the Senator saying the whole idea presented in the 
Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 about putting a phone number on the package so 
someone can call a company is a sham?
  Mr. TESTER. Bogus.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Bogus.
  Mr. TESTER. Yes. It is worse than nothing. At least if you had 
nothing, you know what you have.
  Mr. MERKLEY. There is a second option put into the Monsanto DARK Act, 
which is the quick response code. You have to have a smartphone that 
can take a picture of that quick response code, take you to a Web site 
to get information--information, by the way, written by the very 
company that controls the product you are looking at. It is not some 
third party. I picture that as taking just as much time and being just 
as complex for the ordinary person as the 1-800 number. The QR code 
requires first that you actually have a data plan to be able to get to 
a Web site, that you have a smartphone instead of an ordinary cell 
phone, and furthermore it reveals information about you when you go to 
that Web site, so you are giving up your privacy.
  So is the QR code option being discussed also a sham?
  Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. It is just as bogus as the 800 number, quite 
frankly, if not more, for all the same reasons. First of all, you have 
to have a phone. You have to have service. Oftentimes that isn't the 
case.
  Quite frankly, what we need is what your bill does, and that is, just 
tell folks what is in the package--parentheses, three letters, or an 
asterisk that says what it is, very simple. People can understand and 
they don't have to jump through all these hoops.
  I know proponents of this DARK Act will say: Well, you know, that is 
going to cost a lot of money.
  Look, Budweiser makes a beer labeled for every NFL football team in 
the country. At Christmastime, they put Santa Claus on, and then they 
make the ones in the blue cans too. It is standard stuff. It is all the 
same

[[Page S1478]]

price. Companies change their labels all the time.
  So the fact that we are replacing what would be common sense--the 
Senator's bill, which is what we should be taking up and passing here 
on the floor because it makes sense, it gives consumers the right to 
know what is in their food--with something that has an 800 number or QR 
code is crazy. It is crazy. And the arguments that folks are using for 
keeping people in the dark simply are not factual.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Well, in this Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 that has been put on 
the floor, there is a third option beyond the voluntary labeling and 
beyond the 1-800 numbers and QR code, and the third option--door No. 3, 
if you will--is that the company can put something on social media, 
which means, I assume, Instagram, Facebook, or who knows what. So if I 
am a customer and I am in the store and I see these three products and 
I want to find out if they have GE ingredients and there is no 800 
number and there is no QR code because the company has chosen door No. 
3, how am I to know that?
  Mr. TESTER. You don't. And by the way, there are three doors here, 
and it is kind of like ``Let's Make a Deal.'' The problem is, what is 
behind No. 1, 2, and 3 are all zonks for the American consumers.
  I say to Senator Merkley, this makes no sense to me whatsoever 
because it is confusing. It absolutely keeps the consumers in the dark. 
And we are actually going to try to promote something like that in the 
Senate? It doesn't make any sense to me.
  Mr. MERKLEY. The majority leader has put this bill on the floor, and 
it has not even gone through a committee hearing because this is a new 
creation that we have just seen for the first time last night. 
Furthermore, it has been put on the floor the night before one of the 
most important primary days in the Presidential election, strategically 
scheduled, if you will, so that the news networks are busy with Florida 
and Ohio and Illinois and two other States, and they are not paying 
attention to this egregious proposal to take away States' rights and 
consumers' rights.
  We had a pledge from the majority leader coming into here that due 
process--things would be considered in committee and things would be 
fairly considered on the floor with an open amendment process. Has this 
Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 gone through a committee process, and is it 
getting a full opportunity to be heard on the floor? In fact, the 
motion to close debate was filed within seconds of it being put on the 
floor last night. Is this a true opportunity for the American people to 
wrestle with a major policy decision taking away States' rights and 
consumers' rights?
  Mr. TESTER. No. In a word, no. And of all the choices that we have 
out there, that we do every day, food is one of the most important 
choices we make. That is what we put in our bodies. It gives us power. 
It gives us intellect. It gives us the ability to do our daily jobs, to 
work, to be successful, to support our family. Quite frankly, this 
bill--and the timing of it is curious--this bill does none of those 
things to help move families and the people and society forward. It 
just keeps them in the dark, which is disturbing.
  As I said in my opening statement, the Senate should be above this. 
We should be empowering people, not taking away their right to know.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Well, this taking away the right to know--it isn't like 
the right to know some detail about how your car was manufactured. As 
the Senator put it, this is about the food you put into your 
mouth. This is about the food we feed our families. This is about what 
our children consume.

  I was very surprised to read this from a scientific study: Two-thirds 
of the air and rainfall samples tested in Mississippi and Iowa in 2007 
and 2008 contain glyphosate, which is the herbicide being applied in 
massive quantities because of the genetically engineered resistance of 
key crops, including corn and soybeans and sugar beets. So the 
herbicide is very prevalent in the rainfall samples and it is very 
prevalent in the air samples, or at least two-thirds of the air 
samples.
  Then, a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental & 
Analytical Toxicology found that humans who consume glyphosate-treated 
GMO foods have relatively high levels of glyphosate in their urine. So, 
actually, residuals are finding their way into our bodies
  There are other effects. Glyphosate is a known carcinogen. It has 
been defined as a known carcinogen. But this herbicide is also running 
into the streams. Study after study is showing big impacts on the 
microbial population, and that is at the base of the food chain, so it 
is affecting the food chain inside our rivers and our streams. There is 
gene transfer to relatives--weeds that are relatives of the growing 
crops. There is an impact on the evolution of bugs; specifically, the 
western corn root worm which is evolving, if you will, to become 
resistant to the pesticide that is in the plant because of the 
genetic--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to 
continue for another 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Chair.
  So we have these affects that scientific documents are showing.
  So when people come to this floor and say that it is OK to suppress 
the consumers' right to know because consumers have no legitimate 
concerns, that there are no scientific studies that show any legitimate 
concerns about the impacts of genetically engineered plants, are they 
telling the truth? Is that accurate?
  Mr. TESTER. Well, I think that is up to the consumer to find out, and 
the consumer never knows if it is not on the label. I think we put a 
lot of things on labels. I bought some orange juice last night. It was 
not from frozen concentrate; it was fresh squeezed. That is a consumer 
choice that I have. I buy that because I like it. I think it is better. 
I think it is better for you. That is what I choose to do.
  I think what this DARK Act does is it doesn't allow consumers to make 
the choices they want. They can do the research. Once they see what is 
in it and make the decision whether they--some people may want to eat 
it. It may be a positive thing: This is good. It has GMO in it. I want 
to buy that. For other folks, they may say: No, I don't want to buy 
that. That is their choice. That is what this country is about. It is 
about freedom. Now we are stopping that. That is what this debate is 
about. It is about labeling of food. It is about letting consumers know 
what they are eating and letting them make the decision as to what is 
best for their family.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I think my colleague summed it all up in the word 
``freedom''--the freedom to choose. And that freedom to choose--if it 
is between wild fish and farmed fish, we facilitate that by giving the 
information on the package. If it is the freedom to choose between 
juice from concentrate versus fresh squeezed--juice from concentrate or 
fresh juice--that, in fact, is a freedom of the consumer, and they can 
exercise it from the package.
  If someone decides they want to have a product that is vitamin A 
enriched, such as golden rice which has been done by GE engineering--
maybe they need more vitamin A--they should have the freedom to choose 
it.
  In fact, my point here is that there are scientific studies that show 
benefits in a variety of circumstances from genetic engineering, and 
there are studies that show legitimate concerns. On the benefits side 
we have cases--for example, sweet potatoes--in which they have been 
made to resist viruses that kill. In South Africa, that has been very 
important to the growth of sweet potatoes and the provision of that as 
part of a significant source of food in parts of that country. Then 
there is golden rice being enriched with vitamin A in regions of the 
world where people eat primarily rice, but they really lack vitamin A. 
But there are also studies that show concern.
  Shouldn't we as consumers have freedom? Why is it that we have on the 
floor a bill which not only takes away States' rights to respond to 
consumers' interests in freedom, but proceed to squash, for all time 
and in all geographic areas, the freedom of an individual to make that 
decision? And then they put up a sham which says that somehow, the 
consumer could inquire by guessing at a social media outlet or going to 
a phone bank that is somewhere overseas in the Philippines to

[[Page S1479]]

find out whether or not there is a GE ingredient or having to give up 
their privacy and go to a Web site sponsored by the company that made 
the food. That is not information that allows the consumer to make a 
choice.
  What if a consumer had to go to a phone company operating overseas to 
find out--I don't know--the calories that are in the food or the 
vitamins that are in the food? That would be ridiculous. It is absurd. 
It is a sham and a scam. It is a theft of individual freedoms in this 
country. And shouldn't we all in the Senate be standing up for freedom 
for American citizens who, by the way, when asked in a nationwide poll, 
9 to 1 say they want this information on the package; 9 to 1 say that. 
Here we are in this deeply divided country where we have this huge 
spectrum of ideologies that we are seeing in the Presidential campaign. 
Yet, on this issue, Independents, Republicans, and Democrats, 9 to 1--I 
am rounding off slightly, but very close--9 to 1 in all three 
categories say they want this information on the package, and 7 out of 
10 said they feel very strongly about this. So that is the desire of 
the American people. That is the ``We the People'' that is in our 
Constitution that we are pledged to support.
  Here we have a bill on the floor that is designed in the dark of 
night while people are paying attention to Presidential primaries, the 
press is paying attention to that, and in the dark of night they are 
trying to take away that freedom. Isn't that just completely wrong?
  Mr. TESTER. Well, absolutely. The Senator from Oregon hit the nail on 
the head. We need to defeat cloture. We need to defeat this bill. If we 
want to take up a labeling bill, we ought to take up the Merkley bill 
and pass it. That would empower consumers. It would give them freedom. 
It would live up to what our forefathers had in mind for this country. 
Instead, in my opinion, they are doing exactly the opposite.
  This is a bad piece of legislation. The Senator is right. The polls 
do show that across the parties, we are all Americans on this one, 9 to 
1. We have to listen.
  If folks are having a hard time hearing what people are saying, they 
should just read their emails. Hear what the folks out in front of our 
offices are saying, because folks are talking and we need to listen. 
Read the editorial pages. Folks are not asking for anything out of the 
ordinary. They just want to know so they can make decisions.
  So I hope this body will defeat this bill, put it to bed, and then we 
can talk about a labeling bill that makes sense for this country.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I thank so much my colleague from Montana for being such 
a clear and powerful voice on this issue of freedom, of American 
consumers' rights, of States' rights, and for his solid opposition to 
this Monsanto DARK Act--Deny Americans the Right to Know--2.0. Thank 
you.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________