[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1511-S1513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD LABELING BILL
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, an important consumer right is under
attack, under siege today in the United States Senate. It is the right
to know what is in your food. A lot of consumers take for granted that
they will read the ingredients on a package and they will know what is
in their food. The right to know what you are putting in your body is a
basic right, especially what your children are putting in their bodies.
[[Page S1512]]
I understand that the Agriculture Committee has reported--and the
majority leader has indicated that he will bring to the floor--a
misguided anti-consumer measure that will not only dilute but decimate
an essential aspect of that right to know. It is not the name of the
bill its proponents are using, but I agree with Members of the House
and this body who have called this bill the DARK Act. Why? Because it
denies Americans the right to know. Unfortunately, that is essentially
what the bill does. It denies Americans the right to know.
I hold a pretty simple belief that labels on the food we buy should
accurately reflect what is in the food. Whether it is the nutritional
content, the ingredients--whether something is organic or not--
consumers should know what they are paying for and what they are
putting in their bodies. That is how we keep the large corporations
that make most of our food from using ingredients that are
unhealthful--unhealthful and, essentially, potentially deceptive.
Like the overwhelming majority of people in this country--and by the
way, a poll released in December said it was about 90 percent--I
support mandatory on-package labeling of food containing genetically
modified organisms, GMOs. This support cuts across geographic lines and
party lines because it is such a commonsense position. Leave it up to
consumers--you and me--to decide when we buy food products and when we
consume them. If they want to buy a particular product, let them do so,
but make sure they know what they are getting. This issue is of
particular importance to my constituents.
I am proud that Connecticut was the first State to enact legislation
that would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.
And as attorney general of Connecticut, I championed this measure, and
it is a consummate example of consumer protection and consumer
education.
The DARK Act, by contrast, would strip my State of its ability to
protect our own people. It would prevent States, including Connecticut,
Maine, and Vermont, which have already done so, from enacting laws
requiring the labeling of GMO foods. It would take away from States
their right to pass laws to ensure their citizens have access to basic
information about their food, and it would preempt longstanding State
consumer protection laws in all 50 States. These laws pertain to false
advertising, consumer protection, fraud, breach of warranty, or unfair
trade practices.
This measure is a sweeping and draconian proposal, and that would be
bad enough, but the DARK Act actually goes further. It would also bar
States and local communities from enacting any kind of law overseeing
genetically modified crops. Several counties in California and Oregon,
as well as the States of Washington and Hawaii, have restricted
planting of GMO crops, citing the health effects of the seeds and
economic effects of megacompanies that produce these seeds on local
farmers and the unknown long-term environmental consequences. But this
bill would stop all of those efforts, State and local efforts. It would
stop them dead in their tracks.
In addition to keeping information from consumers, the DARK Act would
affect hard-working farmers who will have no way of knowing if the seed
they purchased is genetically engineered, and that is true even if the
seeds are altered in any way that prevents crops from reproducing,
forcing farmers to buy new seeds every season from the GMO company.
I don't mean to cast aspersions on the biotechnology industry. There
is enormous potential in research on this front, and scientists have
made many, many contributions to our food supply. There may be
scientific efforts under way in this area that have healthful and
economically beneficial results, but keeping consumers in the dark is
harmful, and the rule ought to be first do no harm.
If there is scientific support for the health or environmental
benefits, why not let consumers know? Let consumers make knowledgeable
and informed choices. Consumers are capable of those kinds of choices,
and I am shocked that this deliberative body is considering a measure
that is crafted so purposefully and intentionally to, in effect,
deceive the American public and actively deny them the accurate
information they deserve.
There is no question that this bill is nothing more than a carve-out
for big businesses and mega-GMO seed corporations. My view is that this
body ought to facilitate transparency. The Federal legislation should
promote information and education, not inhibit or prevent it. That is
why I have endorsed a bill that Senator Merkley and others of us are
proposing and advocating that in a very commonsense way allows
manufacturers to choose from a menu of options to indicate to consumers
whether a product includes genetically engineered ingredients.
I want to make clear and emphasize we are not calling for some kind
of skull and crossbones logo or black box warning label. In fact, we
are not talking about a warning; we are talking about information. The
options on the menu that would be offered to food producers are
nonjudgmental, clear, concise, and accurate. This information is
impartial and objective, allowing consumers to make informed decisions.
Last month, the Secretary of Agriculture convened a series of
meetings in an attempt to broker a compromise between industry and
labeling advocates, and I want to take a moment to commend the
unflagging leadership of a number of groups in my State and one of my
constituents, Tara Cook-Littman, who by coincidence was the only woman
at these meetings. She is the cofounder of Citizens for GMO Labeling.
She led the grassroots effort in Connecticut to pass the first-in-the-
Nation GMO labeling law. She is also the mother of three children whom
I have met. Like most Americans, she cares deeply about what she and
her family are eating.
As part of their innovation cycle, food companies often redesign and
relaunch products, adding new attributes to existing products, such as
flavors and new ingredients, so they can handle the normal course of
relabeling and repackaging.
One of the most important points Tara has raised is that the
industry's proposed solution to include QR codes on GMO products is
really no solution at all. QR codes, which let customers use a
smartphone to scan a product to be linked to a Web page with
information, are no substitute for clear, explicit labels that all
consumers can see with the transparency and objectivity they deserve
and need. Relying on QR codes discriminates against people who are
unable to afford a smartphone or a data plan. It threatens privacy by
allowing industry to keep track of who is scanning what product--
information that many of us might not want to be in the hands of
companies and used to market to us--and, from a very practical
standpoint, may not be usable where reception is weak or nonexistent.
As anyone who has ever shopped with a baby or a child knows, shopping
is hard enough under some circumstances, and forcing consumers to try
to get the right scan of a product when information could simply appear
on the label is absurd. What is the reason for the QR code other than
to make it more difficult for a consumer to know? What rationale could
there be other than creating a hurdle for that consumer to learn that
information?
So I urge my colleagues, do not be fooled or tricked by the DARK Act
claims that food prices will rise with GMO labeling--not so. Food
processors regularly make changes to these labels to meet changing
consumer demands or for other marketing or regulatory reasons. In fact,
Ben & Jerry's cofounder, Jerry Greenfield, confirmed: ``It's a normal
course of business to be going through changes on your labels.'' And
other responsible food companies have joined Ben & Jerry's, most
prominently Campbell's Soup. I commend their leadership. My
constituents and all consumers should be aware that there are companies
like Campbell's that have stepped forward and want consumers to be more
informed, not less.
We are on the brink of potentially passing legislation as early as
tomorrow morning that would ban States such as Connecticut from
requiring GMO labeling. That is a violation of the very essence of
States' rights to protect their citizens. It may well be that some
States would want to be stronger in protecting their citizens than
others, and they should have the
[[Page S1513]]
right to do so. Preempting all State legislation in this area infringes
on that fundamental sovereignty and right of States to protect their
citizens.
As the American Association for Justice has stated, this legislation
will unjustly preempt State consumer protection laws. I know the
importance of that preemption doctrine as a former attorney general who
has fought consistently to allow States to set standards for consumer
protection and enforce those standards, both Federal and State.
I commend those manufacturers that have realized that now is the time
to embrace GMO labeling, including Campbell's, Ben & Jerry's, Amy's
Kitchen, and Nature's Path. I hope we can work together with food
manufacturers to give American consumers, like consumers in 63
countries around the world--63 countries around the world--a more
transparent food system by approving a mandatory on-packaging GMO
labeling system and rejecting this anti-consumer effort.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
____________________