Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an idea. It is a radical idea. It is something that is unprecedented for this Congress, something that would genuinely surprise the American people. That idea is simple; let's give the American people what they want.
Poll after poll shows that an overwhelming majority of the American people favor mandatory GMO labeling. People want to know what is in their food that they eat, and they want to know how it is grown. We should give them what they want; yet the bill before us goes in the opposite direction. It keeps the American people in the dark about whether their food contains GMOs. It is no wonder why Congress is so unpopular.
To the supporters of this ``keep Americans in the dark'' bill, I would ask one simple question: What are you afraid of?
This debate is not about whether GMOs are good or bad. I consume GMOs; my kids consume GMOs. This is about consumers' rights to know what is in the food that they eat, plain and simple.
As many of my colleagues know, I am passionate about ending hunger, both here in this country and around the world. If I thought for one second that GMO labeling would cause food prices to rise, I wouldn't be calling for GMO labeling.
This is a scare tactic being used by opponents of GMOs labeling. The fact is companies change their labels all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Transportation and commodity prices are drivers of food prices, not labeling.
If you are worried about 50 States requiring 50 different labels, then support mandatory GMO labeling. Do not override States that have already embraced GMO labeling or consumers who want them. Sixty-four countries already have GMO labeling. Why can't we?
American food companies already have to label their foods as containing GMOs in those countries. Why can't American consumers have access to the same information? Keeping consumers in the dark about what is in their food is the wrong approach.
It is a ``Washington knows best'' approach from politicians inside the beltway who think they know better than the American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1599.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise today to highlight an editorial that my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman CHELLIE PINGREE of Maine and I recently wrote expressing our opposition to H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. It appeared in the July 21, 2015 online edition of The Boston Globe.
[From the Boston Globe, July 21, 2015]
Let Americans Decide for Themselves on GMOs
(By Jim McGovern and Chellie Pingree)
America has a proud tradition of empowering consumers. You can walk into any grocery store in the country, pick up a product from the shelf, and immediately learn the calorie count, the amount of protein per serving, and the full list of ingredients.
So it's alarming that Congress could soon pass a bill that aims to keep consumers in the dark when it comes to foods with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
This week, the House of Representative will consider the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. Unfortunately, the bill does nothing to support safe and accurate food labeling. Instead, it protects the status quo by preventing states from requiring labels on foods containing GMO ingredients and locks in the current and inadequate voluntary GMO labeling system.
As more of the foods we eat contain GMOs, consumers naturally want to know which foods contain them. All they are asking for are the facts. This bill ignores that.
Congress needs to pass a law that puts consumers first by requiring mandatory GMO labeling across the country, eliminating confusion and establishing one national standard.
Polls consistently show that there is overwhelming support for clearly labeling foods that have been genetically modified or contain GMO ingredients. In a 2012 survey by the Mellman Group, 89 percent were in favor of labeling with 77 percent saying they ``strongly'' prefer GMO labeling. That same survey also showed strong bipartisan support for GMO labeling with huge majorities of Democrats (85 percent), independents (93 percent), and Republicans (88 percent) all in favor.
While Congress has been stuck in neutral, states have stepped up and passed laws that give the power back to consumers. In 2014, Vermont became the first state to require mandatory GMO labeling. Connecticut and Maine have both passed laws to require labeling and more than a dozen other states are considering similar oversight, including Massachusetts. What's more, 64 other countries have GMO labeling, including Brazil whose consumption patterns are similar to those in the United States.
Supporters of the bill claim that GMO labeling will increase food prices. While plenty of things impact the prices we pay at the grocery store--including transportation costs and ingredient costs--GMO labeling is not one of them. In study after study, we have seen that a simple GMO disclaimer on food packaging will not increase prices.
Food companies change their labels all the time to make new claims, and all food companies will soon have to change their labels to make important changes to the Nutrition Fact Panel. Adding a few words to the back of the food package about genetic engineering will not have any impact of the cost of making food.
Opponents of updating food labeling made the same bogus arguments when they fought nutrition labeling in the 1980s. Back then, they claimed that disclosing the presence of calories, salt, fat, and sugar would require costly reformulations. But those much more significant changes to foods labels--adding the Nutrition Facts Panel and including more information about ingredients--didn't change the price of food at all.
Americans want more information, not less. What we need is one law that makes GMO labeling mandatory across the country and establishes a single national standard that eliminates confusion and puts consumers in charge.
This debate isn't about the safety of GMOs. It's about consumers' right to know what's in the food they put on their tables. We ought to give them that right.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source