Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

You are using software which is blocking our advertisements (adblocker).

As we provide the news for free, we are relying on revenues from our banners. So please disable your adblocker and reload the page to continue using this site.
Thanks!

Click here for a guide on disabling your adblocker.

Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

GMO labeling bill becomes law: now what?

On Friday, July 29, 2016 President Obama signed into law the GMO Labeling bill recently passed by Congress. This law preempts Vermont’s first-of-its-kind GMO Labeling law, which had just gone into effect on July 1, and authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop a mandatory disclosure program for “bioengineered” (aka GMO) foods. Now that the law has been enacted, all eyes are on USDA, which has the primary responsibility of implementing the law.

USDA has one year to conduct the QR code feasibility study, and two years to develop the labeling standards and regulations. Both of these processes will also require public input before being finalized.

Given the projected timeline, it’s highly unlikely that USDA could complete the necessary feasibility study and public rulemaking process before the next Administration is in place. They could certainly begin the process though, and thereby get important foundations and building blocks in place for the incoming transition team.

It is clear USDA is working toward as smooth a transition as possible; at the time Congress passed the GMO labeling law (S.764) USDA announced that it had already established a working group to begin crafting the rules to properly and promptly implement it.

Logically, one would think that the QR code feasibility study would need to be completed before the regulations are developed. As the new law clearly lays out, the intent of the study is to determine whether or not “consumers, while shopping, would not have sufficient access to the bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods.” If USDA were to find that consumers did not have sufficient access, they would be required to provide “additional and comparable options” for disclosure, after consulting with food retailers and manufacturers.

Read more at the NSAC blog
Publication date: