U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2016

114–403 

Calendar No. 379 

S. 2609, RELATED TO ROBERTS SENATE 

AMENDMENT #4935 TO S. 764, A NATIONAL 

BIOENGINEERING LABELING DISCLOSURE 

STANDARD 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, 

AND FORESTRY 

ON

S. 2609 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

DECEMBER 9, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SENE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
Calendar No. 379 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–403 

S. 2609, RELATED TO ROBERTS SENATE AMENDMENT #4935 TO S. 764, A 

NATIONAL BIOENGINEERING LABELING DISCLOSURE STANDARD 

DECEMBER 9, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. ROBERTS, from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 2609] 

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, having 

considered an original bill (S. 2609) to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national voluntary labeling standard for bioengineered foods, 

and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to preempt state and local actions that 

mandate labeling of whether a food or seed is genetically engineered, and establish a mandatory uniform national disclosure 

standard for human food that is or may be bioengineered. The disclosure requirement can be accomplished with several options—text 

on package, a symbol, or an electronic or digital link disclosure. 

The legislation allows for additional disclosure options for certain 

food manufacturers and provides for exemptions and other determinations by the Secretary. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

The solution to the state-by-state patchwork of regulations—express preemption—takes effect immediately and prevents states, 

tribal, or local governments from mandating labeling on food or 

seed that are genetically engineered. The first state law took effect 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

on July 1, 2016 in Vermont and other states have also passed mandatory labeling laws. 

The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to establish a mandatory 

uniform national disclosure standard for human food that is or may 

be bioengineered. For this purpose, the definition of bioengineering 

is set in statute and establishes the scope of the disclosure standard. The comprehensive federal regulatory review process has determined that there is no difference in safety between a bioengineered food and its non-bioengineered counterpart. The legislation 

ensures that the disclosure standard and USDA’s implementing 

regulations treat a bioengineered food the same as its non-bioengineered counterpart by precluding any statements that would suggest or imply that one is safer than the other. The legislation requires mandatory disclosure with several options for compliance— 

text, a symbol, or an electronic or digital link disclosure. This will 

replace state laws, including those which mandate on-package labeling. The only language that is required to accompany the electronic or digital link disclosure option is ‘‘scan here for more food 

information’’. Nothing in the requirement can be used to denigrate 

biotechnology. 

Within one year of passage, USDA is directed to study any potential technological concerns related to using electronic means of disclosure that are dependent on wireless and telephone networks, 

unique to small or rural retailers, voluntary activities in place or 

under consideration to address potential challenges, and relevant 

costs and benefits. If necessary, the Secretary could allow for additional and comparable disclosure options only if they conclude that 

consumers lack sufficient access through electronic or digital disclosure. 

In addition, the legislation allows website addresses or telephone 

numbers to satisfy the requirement for small food manufacturers. 

Very small food manufacturers and restaurants are exempt from 

the requirement. The disclosure requirement only applies to human 

food solely subject to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act labeling requirements as well as some meat and poultry products. Those foods 

where a meat, poultry, or egg product is the main ingredient are 

exempt. Furthermore, the legislation prohibits the Secretary from 

considering any food product derived from an animal to be bioengineered solely because the animal may have eaten bioengineered 

feed. Enforcement of the disclosure requirement is accomplished 

through an examination and audit process that allows for a hearing 

before a summary of the audit is made public. Recall authority is 

not authorized for this standard and no Federal fines or other penalties are permitted. A food that is not subject to the disclosure requirement cannot automatically claim to be ‘‘non-biotech.’’ Separately from the disclosure standard, the law permits organic products to make a ‘‘non-biotech’’ claim. The legislation does not impact 

the authorities or obligations under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, or the Organic Foods Production Act. And, the legislation shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with U.S. trade obligations 

under international agreements. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to establish through 

rulemaking a mandatory uniform national disclosure standard for 

human food that is or may be bioengineered. For this purpose, the 

definition of bioengineering is set in statute and establishes the 

scope of the disclosure standard. Congress intends an item of food 

to be subject to the definition if it contains genetic material that 

has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic 

acid (DNA) techniques and this same modification could not be otherwise obtained through conventional plant breeding or found in 

nature. Subparagraph (A) limits application of the definition to a 

particular type of genetic material (a food containing genetic material modified through recombinant DNA techniques). On the other 

hand, food that is not genetically modified is not intended to be included in the scope of the definition. Use of some gene editing or 

breeding technologies during product development would lead to 

certain food products that would not be subject to the standard because the foods do not contain genetic material modified through 

recombinant DNA techniques or because the modification could be 

obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature. The 

statutory definition of bioengineering is fully consistent with the 

approach adopted by most countries to date. 

The disclosure requirement applies to human food subject to the 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act labeling requirements as well as 

some meat and poultry products. It is the intent of Congress that 

the disclosure requirement applies only to those foods subject solely 

to the labeling requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act and excludes from its scope alcoholic beverage products over which the Tax & Trade Bureau has labeling authority 

pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. 

Unpackaged foods and food processed or prepared in a restaurant 

or similar retail food establishment are also excluded from the 

scope of the disclosure requirement. It is the intent of Congress 

that such products also are covered by the preemption provisions 

set forth in Subtitle F, Section 295. 

It is the intent of Congress that the mandatory disclosure provisions not apply to animal feed, pet food or ingredients used in animal feed or pet food. The language prohibits the Secretary from 

considering any food product derived from an animal to be bioengineered solely because the animal may have eaten bioengineered 

feed. Further, Congress intends that meat, milk, eggs and other 

human food products derived from animals that consume bioengineered feed or feed ingredients are not considered to be bioengineered food subject to mandatory disclosure. 

Those foods where a meat, poultry, or egg product is the main 

ingredient are expressly exempt. Very small food manufacturers, 

restaurants, and similar retail food establishments are exempt 

from the disclosure requirement. And, Congress intends the Secretary to provide exemptions and other determinations under 

which a food is not considered bioengineered. Congress recognizes 

that states that had passed labeling mandates provided exceptions 

for a range of food products including those sold online; those that 

may include enzymes, additives, and processing aids; foods with 

medicinal and supplementary applications; and other characterisVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:41 Dec 17, 2016 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR403.XXX SR403

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

tics. In order to meet the legislative intent, the Secretary, when determining the amounts of a bioengineered substance that may be 

present in food, or the threshold requirement, shall minimize the 

impacts on all aspects of the domestic and international value 

chain. 

The comprehensive federal regulatory review process has determined that foods produced using bioengineering are safe and not 

materially different in any way from those made using other methods. This is consistent with scientific research conducted and reviewed by both federal agencies and private entities. Consequently, 

the legislation ensures that the national disclosure standard and 

USDA’s implementing regulations treat the safety of a bioengineered food the same as its non-bioengineered counterpart. The 

mandatory disclosure requirement is designed solely to address 

marketing matters, not based on any concerns with respect to safety of bioengineered foods or ingredients, which is why authority for 

implementation of this program is given to the Secretary under the 

Agricultural Marketing Act. The legislation does not change the authority of the FDA to require that a bioengineered food be accurately labeled should any material difference arise with respect to 

safety or nutrition. FDA’s authority over bioengineered foods remains the same. 

The legislation directs the Secretary to provide manufacturers 

with three particular disclosure options—text on package, a symbol, or an electronic or digital link disclosure—with alternative reasonable options for food in small or very small packages. Congress 

directs USDA to be impartial on a manufacturer’s selection of options as those manufacturers shall have sole discretion in choosing 

from whatever disclosure options are available. In addition, the legislation allows website addresses or telephone numbers to satisfy 

the requirement for small food manufacturers. In considering definitions of terms, package sizes, types of manufacturers, and similar 

decisions, Congress expects efforts be taken to ensure consistency 

with other federal requirements and definitions. The legislation directs the Secretary to ensure that any language on the food package that accompanies a telephone number or an electronic or digital link is limited to indicating that those sources will provide 

‘‘more food information.’’ When a consumer accesses one of the electronic or digital link disclosure sources, the legislation requires the 

bioengineering disclosure to be consistent and conspicuous. 

Congress intends USDA to establish any text or the symbol that 

could appear on packaging to solely satisfy the disclosure requirement and not be used as a tool to denigrate biotechnology. In doing 

so, USDA should identify the symbol, its placement, and its type 

size. With regard to the placement and type size, Congress does not 

believe the symbol should be given more prominence than the required label elements, including ingredient statement, nutrition information, and statement of manufacturer, packer, and distributor. 

Congress does not intend the electronic or digital link disclosure 

option to include any text on the package, other than the language 

expressly stated in statute, which could be used to denigrate biotechnology. 

Congress intends for the standard to be technology neutral and 

reflect technological changes over time. Congress recognizes that 

consumers are interested in increased access to information about 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
5 

their food. We understand that consumers increasingly research 

and make purchases online and in this scenario, they are accessing 

product information and disclosures online and not directly via the 

product packaging. The Secretary, as part of the implementation of 

this act, should consider the ways consumers access product information for online sales. The Secretary should look at the opportunities associated with electronic disclosures where the point of sale 

is online, and may provide for comparable options to access disclosure information. 

Congress is aware that some food manufacturers have voluntarily responded to the growing number of consumers who are 

seeking detailed information about the products they purchase 

when consumers are interested in getting that information. Consumers expect a wealth of information at their fingertips and have 

become accustomed to getting the answers to any questions they 

may have about a product they wish to purchase via their 

smartphone or computer. As such, current private sector initiatives 

led by food manufacturers reflect the change in the type of information consumers expect and how they expect to receive it. These efforts provide access to detailed information on thousands of food 

products, and consumers will be able to access more detail about 

their food than ever before. Additionally, these efforts are intended 

to satisfy the disclosure requirement and will be helpful tools to 

members of the agriculture community who are interested in voluntarily providing more information to the consumers about the 

science and resources necessary to provide the safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply in the world. 

Congress recognizes that some food manufacturers are already 

voluntarily disclosing the use of bioengineered ingredients either 

digitally or on package. Additional manufacturers may want to disclose information about ingredients prior to USDA establishing the 

uniform bioengineered disclosure standard. Congress does not intend to prevent food manufacturers from voluntarily disclosing ingredient information prior to or after USDA establishes the disclosure standard and compliance date for meeting such standard. Additionally, Congress understands that some manufacturers may not 

disclose information until a uniform disclosure standard has been 

finalized by USDA. However, food manufacturers must meet the 

USDA disclosure standard when the compliance dates are effective. 

The legislation directs the Secretary, within one year of passage, 

to conduct a study of any potential technological concerns related 

to using electronic or digital link disclosure. In particular, the 

study shall consider availability of wireless internet or cellular networks; availability of landline telephones; challenges facing small 

and rural retailers, efforts taken by retailers and other entities to 

address potential technological and infrastructure challenges, and 

the costs and benefits of installing evolving technology. Congress 

intends that this study will occur before USDA establishes the uniform disclosure standard and compliance deadline for such standard. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary that the study 

shall not measure the extent to which manufacturers disclose information or consumers choose to access information via electronic or 

digital disclosure methods. If the Secretary determines, based on 

the results of the study, that consumer access to the disclosure is 

not sufficient, the legislation authorizes the Secretary to provide 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
6 

additional and comparable disclosure options within the national 

bioengineered food disclosure standard and implementing regulations. 

The ability of the FDA and the USDA to enforce food safety laws 

is not impacted by the legislation. Both agencies have authority to 

protect the consuming public from unsafe food products under their 

respective jurisdictions. 

With respect to the requirement for disclosure of bioengineered 

foods, Congress intends USDA to have authority for an examination and audit process that allows for a hearing before a summary 

of the audit is made public. Recall authority is not authorized for 

this standard and no Federal fines or other penalties are permitted. 

Congress intends USDA, FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, 

and any other relevant agency to maintain existing authorities to 

enforce against any claims that are false or misleading. The legislation does not affect the authority of States to enforce against claims 

that are false or misleading or that otherwise violate State consumer protection laws, except to the extent that any such enforcement would create a de facto labeling requirement that is not identical to the Federal bioengineered food disclosure standard and implementing regulations under this legislation. Specifically, Section 

296 codifies the fact that the legislation does not preempt any State 

or Federal remedy under common law or statutory causes of action. 

Although the Secretary may consider establishing consistency between the bioengineered food disclosure standard and the existing 

Organic Foods Production Act rules and regulations, nothing in 

this legislation would require USDA to take any action or make 

changes in the Organic Foods Production Act rules and regulations. 

Congress does not intend the legislation to impact the authorities 

or obligations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the 

Federal Alcohol Administration Act, or the Organic Foods Production Act. Additionally, the legislation shall be implemented in a 

manner that is consistent with U.S. trade obligations. 

Further, Congress does not intend a food that is not subject to 

the disclosure requirement to be able to automatically claim to be 

‘‘non-biotech.’’ There is no intent to define or clarify those claims 

in the legislation. 

Congress recognizes the importance of having a uniform national 

standard for the disclosure of whether a food is or may be genetically engineered to prevent a patchwork of state, tribal, and local 

requirements. The preemption provision in Section 295 applies to 

all disclosure requirements regarding whether a food or seed is genetically engineered. Congress selected the term ‘‘genetically engineered’’ food or seed, rather than ‘‘bioengineering,’’ because it is the 

intent for the provision to broadly preempt state, tribal, and local 

requirements regarding genetically engineered foods or seed regardless of whether the technology used to develop the food or seed 

falls within the definition of bioengineering. The intended goal is 

national uniformity and avoiding the confusion and disputes that 

would arise if a jurisdiction could require disclosure relying on one 

or more other terms that might be used to refer in various ways 

to genetic engineering, biotechnology, or breeding techniques, now 

or in the future. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
7 

For seed, the only State and local requirements that are preempted are those for disclosure of whether seed is genetically engineered. All other seed labeling requirements, whether Federal, 

State or local, and whether existing or future, would be unaffected 

by the Act. Examples include, but are not limited to, requirements 

related to disclosure of information on kind, variety, type, hybrid, 

mixtures, lot numbers, origin, inert matter, germination, and presence of weed seed, treated seed, hard seed, and inoculated seed. 

The Congress recognizes states have expressed an interest in 

regulating the disclosure of bioengineered foods. The language in 

section 293(e) provides states with the legal authority to establish 

disclosure requirements for bioengineered foods, provided, the state 

establishes a definition for bioengineered food and disclosure requirements that are identical to those established by USDA. The 

state would be preempted from establishing requirements that differ from the federal requirements for bioengineered foods. 

Congress intends to preserve remedies available through private 

rights of action established by state or Federal statutory or common law. Some examples of state remedies that would be available 

under this clause include monetary damages and injunctive relief. 

However, the state remedy could not impose labeling or disclosure 

requirements regarding the presence of bioengineered material or 

establish a definition for bioengineered food, genetically engineered 

food, or any similar term or establish any other requirements that 

differs from the requirements established by USDA under the national bioengineered food disclosure standard. 

In Section 2, organic products are permitted to make a voluntary 

‘‘non-biotech’’ claim. USDA is given no new authority under the biotechnology disclosure provisions related to ‘‘non-biotech’’ claims. 

Furthermore, the Congress recognizes that food manufacturers 

are facing multiple, costly label changes with varying compliance 

dates. Thus, Congress urges the Secretary of Agriculture to consult 

with the Secretary of Health and Human Services so that food 

manufacturers will be able to minimize the number of label 

changes to comply with the national bioengineered food disclosure 

standard and other nutrition or health-related updates. New Federal requirements requiring label changes will impact virtually 

every food and beverage product on the market, thus it is essential 

that timeframes for compliance for these changes be considered and 

harmonized to the greatest extent possible. Congress requests that 

the Secretary of Agriculture keep the relevant Committees informed of efforts to coordinate the timeframes for compliance for 

federal label changes. 

It is also Congress’s intent that USDA utilize and recognize other 

label changes and standards where appropriate to minimize burdens imposed by the mandatory disclosure program. This legislation is intended to address a consumer demand for marketing information in a manner that creates as little interruption in the value 

chain as possible. For instance, only the manufacturer decides how 

best to comply with the standard, including whether to indicate a 

product may contain bioengineered food or may be bioengineered. 

It is not intended to increase the costs of food manufacturing or 

changes in distribution or handling. Furthermore, every effort was 

taken to ensure farmers access to seed technology and not limit the 

options available to agriculture production. Congress intends 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
8 

USDA to take every effort to minimize the impacts on growers, 

handlers, processors, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and 

consumers. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF RELATED BILLS S. 2609 AND S. 764 

On Mar. 1, 2016, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry ordered to be reported favorably to the Senate, 14–6, S. 

2609, an original measure amending the Agricultural Marketing 

Act of 1946. 

On July 23, 2015, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation reported S. 764, with an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute reauthorizing and amending the National Sea Grant 

College Program Act, with written report No. 114–90. 

S. 764 passed the Senate with an amendment by Unanimous 

Consent on July 28, 2015. On Sept. 18, 2015, the House passed the 

bill with further amendment pursuant to H. Res. 421. 

On July 7, 2016, the Senate concurred in the House amendment 

to S. 764 with Senate amendment #4935, an amendment in the nature of a substitute, submitted by Senator Roberts, which consisted 

of a national bioengineering labeling disclosure standard, 63–30 

margin. The House agreed to the Senate proposal on July 14, 2016. 

The resulting enactment P.L. 114–116, establishes a national bioengineering labeling disclosure standard. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In compliance with subsection (a)(3) of paragraph 11 of rule 

XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states 

that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of that subsection in order to expedite the business of the Senate. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with subsection (b)(2) of paragraph 11 of rule 

XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states 

that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with the requirements of paragraph (1) of that subsection in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

contained in the bill, as reported, meet the definition of congressionally directed spending items under the rule. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT #4935 TO S. 764, 

THE AGREEMENT ON AN AGRICULTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY DISCLOSURE SOLUTION

Section 1 

Subtitle E of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946— 

Section 291 amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 by 

providing definitions for a national bioengineered food disclosure 

standard. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
9 

Section 292 provides that the national bioengineered food disclosure standard will apply to claims indicating that food is bioengineered and the standard specifically applies to food subject either 

to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), or the Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the 

Egg Products Inspection Act (FSIS authorities) only if the food subject to the FSIS authorities falls under at least one of two possible 

criterion. 

The first criteria is whether the FSIS food’s most predominant 

ingredient is, by itself, subject to FDCA jurisdiction. If the most 

predominant ingredient is subject to FDCA jurisdiction, the FSIS 

regulated food will fall under the national standard. 

The second criteria is whether the FSIS food’s most predominant 

ingredient is broth, stock, water, or a similar solution, and the second most predominant ingredient is, by itself, subject to FDCA jurisdiction. If the first ingredient is broth, stock, water, or a similar 

solution, and the second ingredient is subject to FDCA jurisdiction, 

the FSIS regulated food will fall under the national standard. 

It also clarifies that the definition of ‘‘bioengineering’’ does not affect other Federal authority or programs. 

Section 293 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations establishing a mandatory national bioengineered 

food disclosure standard for food that contains or may contain bioengineering. 

Subsection (b)(2) provides for various requirements in the regulations including authorization for the Secretary to determine as appropriate, an amount of bioengineered substance for food to be a 

bioengineered food under the national standard, and provides for 

exemptions and other determinations by the Secretary. It also authorizes three particular disclosure options, reasonable options to 

address package sizing, and options for small food manufacturers. 

Subsection (b)(3) does not allow regulations promulgated and 

food disclosures made pursuant to paragraph (2) within the disclosure standard to treat a bioengineered food differently than its 

non-bioengineered counterpart based on its safety notification 

through the Federal regulatory review process. 

Subsection (c) authorizes a study of factors that would affect access to bioengineering disclosures through electronic or digital link 

methods. 

Subsection (d) includes various disclosure requirements, including direction to the Secretary requiring on-package language to accompany an electronic or digital link and telephone number disclosure, protection for personal consumer information, and a minimum size requirement. 

Subsection (e) intends to allow a State to have an identical 

standard and mandatory disclosure requirements as provided 

through Section 293. Here, the requirement that a State standard 

must be identical to the national bioengineered food disclosure 

standard furthers the purpose of national uniformity on bioengineering food disclosure. 

Subsection (f) requires the Secretary to consider establishing consistency between the national standard and the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
10 

Subsection (g) provides the Secretary with enforcement authority 

for examination, audit, and disclosure. The Secretary may not recall any food under the authority of this subtitle. 

Section 294 requires consistency with US trade obligations and 

preserves specific other authorities. It also prevents the Secretary 

from authorizing a ‘‘non-GMO’’ or similar claim because the national standard does not require that the food bear a disclosure 

that the food is bioengineered. 

Subtitle F of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946— 

Section 295 takes two actions. The section first defines food according to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Secondly, the 

provision preempts any state or political subdivision law relating to 

the labeling of whether food or seed is genetically engineered or developed or produced using genetic engineering. Here, preemption 

furthers the purpose of national uniformity on genetic engineering 

food disclosure, including the prohibition of any state or local requirements that would prevent uniformity in any disclosure of this 

type. 

Section 296 codifies language regarding exemptions from Federal 

preemption. 

Section 2 

Certification of food under the Organic Foods Production Act of 

1990 is sufficient to allow a ‘‘non-GMO’’ or similar claim. 

ROLLCALL VOTES IN COMMITTEE

By a rollcall vote of 14 yeas and 6 nays as follows, the bill was 

ordered reported without amendment: 

YEAS NAYS 

Mr. Roberts Ms. Stabenow 

Mr. Cochran Mr. Leahy 1

Mr. McConnell 1 Mr. Brown 

Mr. Boozman 1 Mr. Bennet 

Mr. Hoeven Mrs. Gillibrand 

Mr. Perdue Mr. Casey 

Mrs. Ernst 

Mr. Tillis 

Mr. Sasse 

Mr. Grassley 

Mr. Thune 

Ms. Klobuchar 

Mr. Donnelly 

Ms. Heitkamp 

1 By proxy 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
(11) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR STABENOW 

I respectfully file dissenting views to this report that accompanies S. 2609. On March 1, 2016, the Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry ordered to be reported favorably to the 

Senate, by a vote of 14–6, an original measure amending the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, which I, along with five members 

of the Committee opposed. This measure subsequently failed to advance on the floor of the Senate. The content of this committee report however, has been used to describe the Roberts Senate 

Amendment #4935 to the House amendment to S. 764, which was 

a legislative product agreed to by me and Mr. Roberts. That bill became P.L. 114–116, which creates a national bioengineering disclosure standard within the Agricultural Marketing Act of the Department of Agriculture. As such, I respectfully dissent solely because 

this report accompanying S. 2609 includes information on legislative text never referred to or acted on by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
12 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that, in its opinion, it 

is necessary to dispense with the requirements of that paragraph 

in order to expedite the business of the Senate. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN