Senate Rejects GMO-Labeling RestrictionSenate Rejects GMO-Labeling Restriction
Washington, DC,
March 21, 2016
|
By Peter Urban
Tags:
Jobs and Economic Growth
WASHINGTON – Legislation to block states from enacting their own labeling laws for genetically modified foods failed to advance in the Senate last week...
Senate Rejects GMO-Labeling RestrictionLegislation to block states from enacting their own labeling laws for genetically modified foods failed to advance in the Senate last week. The measure was designed to nullify a Vermont law set to go into effect in July that would require foods that contain genetically-modified organisms, or GMOs, to be labeled or face fines. The food industry and its supporters in Congress argue that GMOs are safe and that allowing individual states to set labeling standards would be unworkable. Instead, they argued for a voluntary labeling process that would be created and administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “What we face today is a handful of states that have chosen to enact labeling requirements on information that has nothing to do with health, safety, or nutrition. Unfortunately, the impact of these decisions will be felt all across the country,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee. Opponents to the voluntary approach say consumers want to know what they are eating and that labels on food packages give them a quick way to know if they want to purchase the item or not and that the Senate measure would eliminate that ability. “We are going to eviscerate states’ rights to respond to this desire of citizens to know what is in their food. This is a desire that stretches all across the United States, all genders, all ages, all parties,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon. Monsanto first introduced a variety of pesticide-resistant GMO corn in 1996. Today, more than 90 percent of corn, soy and sugar beet grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. Consuming GMO plants is considered safe, according to the Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization. The Senate measure failed on a procedural vote that required a 60-vote majority to advance the legislation. Proponents could muster only 48 votes. Sens. John Boozman, R-Ark., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., James Inhofe, R-Okla., and James Lankford, R-Okla., voted in support of the bill. |