For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Politics and Democracy page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The food industry has finally found its champion in Congress to help beat back state attempts at mandatory GMO labeling.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) is aiming to introduce a labeling bill backed
by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and dozens of other food groups
sometime in the next two weeks, before the House breaks for its Easter
recess, POLITICO has learned.

The legislation would create a federal voluntary labeling system for
foods that are not genetically modified — which the bill refers to as
“bioengineered” — and increase FDA’s regulatory oversight of GMOs,
according to a draft version of the measure obtained by POLITICO. The
effort aims to create a friendlier, preemptive set of federal rules to
quell public concerns over GMOs and stem the roughly 20 pending state bills and ballot initiatives that will be costly for the industry to fight.

The question now: Will the industry’s federal solution go anywhere?

Pompeo’s office and the coalition are working with the Energy and
Commerce Committee, of which Pompeo is a member, to finalize the bill.
They’re seeking out co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle, but it
doesn’t appear that lawmakers are jumping to sign on.

Elected to the House in 2010 from the ag-centric 4th District of Kansas,
the second-term congressman — an Army veteran and former military
contractor — also serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, where he is known for being hawkish on foreign policy.
Pompeo has experienced little success in his short time on the Hill when
it comes to sponsoring legislation. He’s sponsored at least 25 bills since 2011, none of which have achieved passage.

Pompeo’s office did not return a request for comment by press time.

For months, food policy insiders have speculated
that the more senior Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) might sponsor a food
industry-friendly GMO labeling bill, and sources say his office has been
helping to craft the bill’s language. But Upton, chairman of Energy and
Commerce, has yet to publicly commit to the bill.

In fact, sources say the coalition has yet to sign on any lawmakers other than Pompeo.

“This continues to be an important issue for the committee and we will
carefully review any proposal that is presented,” is all a spokeswoman
for the Energy and Commerce Committee would say.

GMA has been talking to lawmakers about the issue since at least last fall and in February joined forces
with 33 other food and agriculture groups, forming the Coalition for
Safe and Affordable Food, to help push the legislation. The coalition
includes the American Bakers Association, American Beverage Association,
American Frozen Food Institute, National Corn Growers Association and
the Biotechnology Industry Association, to name a few, but is fully
funded by GMA, sources said.

“We continue to work with a broad group of members of Congress,” said
Claire Parker, a spokeswoman for the coalition. “We’re encouraged with
the progress we’re making on legislation to protect consumers and avoid a
costly and confusing 50-state patchwork of labeling regimes.”

Coalition leaders have met with all the Republicans on the committee as
well as several Democrats, including dean of the House Rep. John Dingell
of Michigan and red-state Democrats Jim Matheson of Utah, John Barrow
of Georgia and Bruce Braley of Iowa, sources said.

There is not yet a companion bill in the Senate, a fact that makes some
in the coalition concerned about whether the effort will attract the
broad-based support needed to become law — or even dissuade state
action.

On top of questions about support in Congress, there is trepidation
about the fact that the Food Marketing Institute, which represents large
chains like Kroger and Walmart, and the National Grocers Association,
which represents independently owned grocery chains, are not part of the
coalition.

Retailers are wary of the GMO-labeling issue, which has grown
increasingly contentious in recent years, especially as some companies
that have funded anti-labeling efforts at the state level have been
targeted by activists with boycotts.

“While we strongly agree that we need a federal solution, driven by FDA
and USDA, to avoid a confusing 50-state system, FMI hasn’t joined the
coalition at this point because there are some provisions in the bill
that we believe could prolong and expand the discussion,” said FMI
spokeswoman Heather Garlich. “We believe the draft legislation, as we
understand it, is well-intentioned and FMI supports that intention, but
in order to be part of the coalition, we would need to advocate for all
the provisions that are included in the draft legislation in a
comprehensive format.”

GMA hosted what one source described as an “all-hands-on-deck cattle
call” coalition meeting at its headquarters in Washington on March 20 to
unveil the current legislative language.

The 21-page draft bill Pompeo is ready to sponsor would prohibit states
from requiring GMO labeling, something the food industry says threatens
to create a patchwork of different regulations across the country.

It would require pre-market notification of FDA for new GMO food
products. FDA would have 210 days from the date it receives a petition
to review the submission. If a safety or allergen issue is raised, FDA
could require labeling.

However, genetically engineered enzymes used in food processing and
products developed specifically for use as animal feed are exempt from
the notification requirement.

If this sounds familiar, it should. The draft bill mirrors talking points floated to lawmakers by GMA late last year, as first reported by POLITICO.

The bill would also create standards for companies who want to label
their products as GMO free, though such labeling “may not suggest either
expressly or by implication that foods developed without the use of
bioengineering are safer than foods produced from, containing, or
consisting of a bioengineered organism.” Such labeling could be made on
meat and animal products produced from livestock fed or treated with
GMOs, or foods produced with a GMO enzyme.

FDA would have 24 months to promulgate regulations under the bill,
though the provisions of the legislation would take effect 30 days after
the yet-to-be-determined date of enactment “irrespective of whether
regulations or guidance have been finalized or issued.”

GMO-free label claims under the bill could be made before the rules are finalized.

The bill further calls for FDA to, within two years of enactment, issue
regulations defining the term “natural” on food labeling — a gray area
that the food industry would very much like to see FDA clear up. Dozens
of food companies are battling “all natural” labeling lawsuits, which
claim using the term is misleading to consumers when the products
contain genetically engineered ingredients, and FDA has said it will not
take up the issue.

After the legislation is introduced, the GMA-led effort, being run by
boutique PR firm Weber Merritt, will provide literature and grassroots
messaging to help groups engage their member companies and build
support. Sources tell POLITICO the goal is to hold a hearing on the bill
either in the summer or fall.

Greg Jaffe, director of the project on biotechnology at the Center for
Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group that is more
accepting of GMOs than others, said he thinks the measure is “a step in
the right direction,” but ultimately falls short of the reforms he
believes might improve consumer confidence.

“This bill does not have a mandatory pre-market approval process. So
while it does acknowledge the need for FDA to get more involved in the
oversight of genetically engineered crops to ensure their safety and
improve consumer confidence, it really is a baby step,” said Jaffe.

“It gives FDA very limited authority,” he said. “It acknowledges, but
doesn’t really address, the problem in a comprehensive way.”