[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.

                          ____________________