Today's hearing is on a topic about which many Americans have strong feelings. Twenty years ago, the first genetically engineered food, the slow ripening "Flavr Savr" tomato, went on the market. Today, the vast majority of corn and soybeans and cotton and canola and sugar beets and papaya grown in the US are genetically engineered. All of these foods have been assessed by FDA in a voluntary consultation process, and FDA has found no significant differences between them and their traditionally bred counterparts.
Some 70 to 80% of packaged foods contain ingredients from genetically engineered, or "GE," plants. Yet, despite their ubiquity and FDA's OK, many consumers remain uncomfortable with these foods and want mandatory labeling so they can avoid them.
As we consider the questions on GE foods at today's hearing, I will examine them in the context of some important principles I have long supported.
First, I believe that it is critical that our actions be based on science. As with so many other matters pertaining to products we use and consume every day, we need to rely on the expertise of FDA and other scientific regulatory agencies.
Second, when we consider requiring labeling on food, that label should provide useful, science-based information to consumers. I certainly believe that food labels should enable consumers to make informed choices. I fought hard to pass legislation that gave consumers useful information about the nutritional content of food.
Third, unless there is a compelling policy reason otherwise, we should maintain the ability of states to make a decision that is different from the federal government. All three of these concepts are at play here today, and I think we should examine each carefully.
On the first concept--what does the science tell us about GE foods--FDA and other scientific authorities have concluded that genetic engineering is not an inherently dangerous technology. Certainly, when it is used to give new properties to plants, we need to make sure those new properties don't affect the safety or nutrition of food from those plants. But FDA has done that, and finds that the GE foods on the market to date do not differ in any significant way from traditional food, so why should it be labeled as other?
If there are safety questions about a food, then it shouldn't be allowed on the market at all. I look forward to hearing more from FDA on this today.
Nevertheless, I understand that people may still want information about how their foods are produced. So let's look at the second concept of whether there is a way to give them meaningful and useful science-based information.
On the one hand, I am concerned that people have the information they want or need. On the other hand, I am concerned that mandatory GE labeling could be inherently misleading. Mandatory labeling could lead consumers to believe that if the government is requiring a GE label, it must mean that GE foods are riskier or somehow fundamentally different from non-GE foods, and to date, scientists have concluded that they are not.
Furthermore, given that up to 80% of packaged foods contain GE ingredients, if we require labels, most food on the shelves would have a label declaring the presence of GE ingredients. I am not sure what good that does us. Under our current system, if consumers want to avoid GE foods, they can. They can buy organic foods--which, by law, cannot contain GE ingredients--or they can search out the foods that manufacturers have certified and labeled as non-GE. That more targeted information may in fact be more usable. I'd like to hear what our witnesses think about that.
Now, let's turn to the third principle of preserving the ability of states to make decisions that are right for their citizens, absent a compelling policy reason to the contrary.
Even if there is not a compelling reason to require GE labeling at the federal level, that doesn't necessarily mean Congress should tell Vermont and other states that they cannot require such labeling. I have always believed states should have the right to act in the best interest of their residents. I will want to hear from our industry witnesses why the Vermont legislation, and potentially similar legislation in other states, is so harmful to some legitimate public interest that Congress should override them. Absent a compelling reason otherwise, I support letting states make their own laws and govern themselves.
I remain open to hearing the views of all of our witnesses today on these three points and on any other points pertaining to this issue. I think today's hearing will be very interesting and informative and I thank the chairman for holding it.