U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–704 2016

A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW 

AND LABELING OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 18, 2015 

Serial No. 114–58 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

Ranking Member 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 4 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 4 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Rick Blasgen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council of Supply Chain 

Management Professionals .................................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 125 

Todd W. Daloz, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Vermont Attorney 

General .................................................................................................................. 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 129 

John Reifsteck, Chairman of the Board and President, Growmark, Inc. ........... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 135 

Gregory Jaffe, Biotechnology Project Director, Center for Science in the Public 

Interest .................................................................................................................. 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 139 

L. Val Giddings, Senior Fellow, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation .................................................................................................................... 69 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 141 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of support from Members of the Agriculture Committee, submitted 

by Mr. Pompeo ...................................................................................................... 110 

Statement of support from the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food, submitted by Mr. Butterfield .................................................................................... 115 

Statement of support from the biotechnology industry, submitted by Mr. 

Butterfield ............................................................................................................. 121 

Statement of support from the National Association of Manufacturers, submitted by Mr. Pitts .............................................................................................. 123 

1 Mr. Giddings did not respond to submitted questions for the record by 

the time of printing. 

(1) 

A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW 

AND LABELING OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD 

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Pitts, Guthrie, Whitfield, Shimkus, 

Murphy, Burgess, Blackburn, Lance, Griffith, Bilirakis, Ellmers, 

Bucshon, Brooks, Collins, Upton (ex officio), Green, Capps, 

Schakowsky, Butterfield, Castor, Sarbanes, Schrader, Kennedy, 

and Pallone (ex officio). 

Also Present: Representatives Pompeo and Welch. 

Staff Present: Clay Alspach, Chief Counsel, Health, Sean 

Bonyun, Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Noelle Clemente, Press 

Secretary; Carly McWilliams, Professional Staff Member, Health; 

Tim Pataki, Professional Staff Member; Graham Pittman, Legislative Clerk; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; John Stone, Counsel, Health; Dylan Vorbach, Staff Assistant; 

Greg Watson, Staff Assistant; Christine Brennan, Minority Press 

Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Eric Flamm, Minority FDA Detailee; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Samantha Satchell, Minority Policy 

Analyst; and Kimberlee Trzeciak, Minority Health Policy Advisor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. Good morning. I ask that all of our guests today 

please take their seats. The subcommittee will come to order. The 

chair will recognize himself for an opening statement. 

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is a term that refers 

to ingredients sourced from crops that have been genetically engineered to express certain traits or characteristics. 

There are real sensitivities around these issues and all issues regarding the food we eat and feed our children and grandchildren. 

It is our job, as policymakers, particularly as it relates to the public 

health, to establish a factually and scientifically sound foundation 

prior to taking any action that would impact consumers and our 

economy. 

2 

This hearing provides a great opportunity to put rhetoric aside 

and do just that. Genetic engineering in agriculture has occurred 

for centuries. Ingredients from genetically engineered plants have 

been a part of the U.S. Food supply for decades. 

In fact, as much as 90 percent of our corn, sugar beet, and soybean crops are now genetically engineered and more than 70 percent of processed foods contain ingredients derived from such crops. 

The Food and Drug Administration oversees the safety of all food 

products from plant sources, including those from genetically engineered crops. These products must meet the same safety requirements as foods from traditionally-bred crops. The FDA currently 

has a consultation in place which developers of the underlying 

technologies address any outstanding safety or other regulatory 

issues with the agency prior to marketing their products. 

FDA has completed approximately 100 of such consultations. No 

products have gone to market until FDA’s safety-related questions 

have been resolved. FDA officials have repeatedly stated that the 

agency has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in any meaningful way, and the World 

Health Organization has confirmed that ‘‘No effects on human 

health have been shown as a result of consumption of such foods.’’ 

In fact, they can grow faster, resist diseases and drought, cost less, 

and prove more nutritious. Nonetheless, there have recently been 

a number of State initiatives calling for the mandatory labeling of 

food products that contain GMOs. 

We will hear today from a number of witnesses who can speak 

to such actions and the impact they would have. I am concerned 

that a patchwork of State labeling schemes would be impractical 

and unworkable. Such a system would create confusion among consumers and result in higher prices and fewer options. 

Finally, I want to commend Representative Mike Pompeo and 

Representative Butterfield for their leadership on these issues and 

look forward to learning more about their continued efforts to work 

in a bipartisan manner on H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food 

Labeling Act of 2015. All these efforts will continue as the legislative process moves forward. I am encouraged that the revised language circulated in advance of this hearing has been informed by 

conversations between the sponsors, the committees of jurisdiction, 

the implementing agencies, and the impact of stakeholders. 

I would like to welcome all of our witnesses for being here today. 

I look forward to your testimony. And I yield the balance of my 

time to distinguished vice chairman of the full committee, Representative Blackburn of Tennessee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS

The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The Chairman will recognize himself for an opening statement. 

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is a term that refers to ingredients 

sourced from crops that have been genetically engineered to express certain traits 

or characteristics. 

There are real sensitivities around these issues, and all issues regarding the food 

we eat and feed our children and grandchildren. It is our job as policymakers, particularly as it relates to the public health, to establish a factually and scientifically 

sound foundation prior to taking any action that would impact consumers and our 

3 

economy. This hearing provides a great opportunity to put rhetoric aside and do just 

that. 

Genetic engineering in agriculture has occurred for centuries. Ingredients from genetically engineered plants have been a part of the U.S. food supply for decades. 

In fact, as much as 90 percent of our corn, sugar beet, and soybean crops are now 

genetically engineered and more than 70 percent of processed foods contain ingredients derived from such crops. 

The Food and Drug Administration oversees the safety of all food products from 

plant sources, including those from genetically engineered crops. These products 

must meet the same safety requirements as foods from traditionally bred crops. The 

FDA currently has a consultation process in place in which developers of the underlying technologies address any outstanding safety or other regulatory issues with 

the agency prior to marketing their products. FDA has completed approximately 100 

of such consultations. No products have gone to market until FDA’s safety-related 

questions have been resolved. 

FDA officials have repeatedly stated that the agency has no basis for concluding 

that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in any meaningful way, and 

the World Health Organization has confirmed that ‘‘no effects on human health 

have been shown as a result of consumption of such foods.’’ In fact, they can grow 

faster, resist diseases and drought, cost less, and prove more nutritious. 

Nonetheless, there have recently been a number of state initiatives calling for the 

mandatory labeling of food products that contain GMOs. We will hear today from 

a number of witnesses who can speak to such actions and the impact they would 

have. 

I’m concerned that a patchwork of state labeling schemes would be impractical 

and unworkable. Such a system would create confusion among consumers and result 

in higher prices and fewer options. 

Finally, I want to commend Rep. Mike Pompeo (R–KS) and Rep. G.K. Butterfield 

(D–NC) for their leadership on these issues, and I look forward to learning more 

about their continued efforts to work in a bipartisan manner on H.R. 1599, the Safe 

and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. While these efforts will continue as the 

legislative process moves forward, I am encouraged that the revised language circulated in advance of this hearing has been informed by conversations between the 

sponsors, the committees of jurisdiction, the implementing agencies, and impacted 

stakeholders. 

I would like to welcome all of our witnesses for being here today. I look forward 

to your testimony. I yield to ——————————————. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to all. And the chairman mentioned the food that we 

eat and that we feed our children and grandchildren. I want to add 

one category to that, what we feed our pets. And we are concerned 

about that aspect also. 

I do appreciate Mr. Pompeo and the assistance they have given 

us as we look at pet food labeling. And the chairman also mentioned that we have had these products in the marketplace for decades. I would say we are talking about over 100 years. Go back and 

look at what farmers did. And they would breed cattle to get the 

best traits. Look at the work that George Washington Carver did 

in his 40 years of teaching and research at Tuskegee, looking for 

ways to improve the soil, looking at different varietals of peanut 

and sweet potatoes and improving the health of individuals in the 

south. 

Genetically modified foods are components that are indeed with 

us, and it is because of them that we have greater yields per acre; 

we have more varieties, and that our farmers markets that I visit 

every single weekend are full of beautiful products that encourage 

people to access these fresh foods and bring them into their homes 

and kitchens. 

With that, I thank all for their work. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

4 

Now I recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Green for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I was glad our vice chair of the subcommittee worried about our pets. My problem is I had a dog one 

time that ate pillows and curtains and everything else. I think he 

ate everything he could get his mouth on. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a statement I would like to put into the 

record, but I would like to yield my time to Congressman 

Butterfield. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN

Good morning and thank you all for being here today. 

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, first hit the market around 20 years 

ago and in the years since, have only expanded in prevalence. Nowadays, most corn, 

sugar beets, canola and cotton crops grown in the U.S. are genetically modified. 

Today, as we debate whether there is a need for a national framework for the labeling of GMO ingredients, I feel it is important to first talk about the safety and 

science of genetically modified organisms. 

The FDA has conducted evaluation after evaluation on GMOs through their voluntary consultation process, and consistently found no material difference between 

the GMO and their non-modified counterparts. Moreover, there have not been any 

cases where FDA found that a genetically modified organism was unsafe for consumption. 

Genetically Modified food is not only safe for consumption, but has a positive environmental impact. A comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences 

found that GMO’s have significantly increased crop yields while decreasing pesticide 

use and soil erosion. 

The benefits of GMOs are not limited to environmental stewardship. Norman 

Borlaug, the father of the ‘‘Green Revolution’’ and recipient of the Noble Peace Prize 

is credited with saving a billion lives through his creation of Dwarf Wheat, a genetically modified plant that doubled the crop yield in Pakistan and India, dramatically 

improving food security in those countries. 

Even today, Golden Rice, a crop containing biosynthesized beta-carotene is essential in combatting Vitamin A deficiency in Asia. This GMO crop is credited with saving the lives of 670,000 children under the age of 5 every year. At this point, it has 

clearly been demonstrated that GMO technology is not only safe, but of immense 

benefit to society. 

Most analysts estimate that 80% of packed foods in the u.s. contain genetically 

modified ingredients or plants. When it comes to mandatory labeling, food labels 

should impart useful, scientifically-sound information to consumers. With that said, 

consumers who want to know the origin and process of their food should have access 

to that information through a voluntary and certified GMO-Free label that they can 

be confident in. I feel that H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act 

moves us towards that goal. 

At the same time, any proposed legislation that preempts existing State Law must 

be considered with careful scrutiny. Congress must have a compelling reason to create a national standard. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the 

proposed legislation, science of genetically modified food, and perspectives on the 

current state-by-state patchwork. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Green and Mr. 

Pitts. Before beginning, Mr. Chairman, I just want to publicly extend my condolences to the families of the nine victims in Charleston, South Carolina who were horrifically murdered last night 

5 

while attending a prayer meeting. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

allowing me to digress for just a moment to offer my sympathies 

to those families. 

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1599. I am the bill’s lead democratic co-sponsor. This bill is bipartisan. It proposes a national labeling standard for foods produced with genetically modified ingredients. The alternative is a complex and unworkable patchwork of 

differing state laws that can only cause confusion and do little to 

provide greater transparency. Several states have moved forward 

with proposals that would require foods containing ingredients to 

be labeled. This is in response to unsubstantiated claims that foods 

containing genetically modified ingredients are, in some way, dangerous in human consumption. I take exception to these unfair and 

downright dishonest claims. 

Foods containing genetically modified ingredients are safe. The 

FDA, USDA, National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the WHO, 

every major scientific and governmental organization agrees with 

that statement. Even opponents of genetically modified foods admit 

genetically modified foods have failed to produce any untoward 

health effects. But the demonization of genetically modified foods 

continues despite objective science proving to the contrary. 

Those opposed to genetically modified foods simply reject science, 

and that is tremendously disappointing. And though I stand with 

science and my belief that these foods are safe, I understand the 

concerns expressed by the opponents and want to be responsive. 

That is why I have worked with my friend, Mr. Pompeo, and others 

in advocating for a Federal framework for labeling and crop commercialization that puts the FDA and USDA, our Nation’s foremost 

food safety authorities, putting them in the driver’s seat. 1599 is 

a balanced approach that reduces confusion by providing consumers with labeling uniformity across state lines that addresses 

the concerns of those who are opposed to genetically modified foods 

while not neglecting the fact that our Nation’s farmers and manufacturers grow and produce foods that are so far and wide and not 

just within a state’s borders. Without a Federal standard, Mr. 

Chairman, those farmers and manufacturers will be forced to comply with uneven costly and potentially misleading and onerous 

state-by-state mandates. Compliance will require new costly supply 

chain infrastructure that would disrupt the Nation’s food supply, 

cause confusion and uncertainty. 1599 is reasonable. And most importantly, it is workable. 

I want to thank the more than 60 bipartisan co-sponsors for joining me and Mr. Pompeo in agreeing that our bill is the best way 

forward. 

I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Welch of Vermont. 

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. The issue here is not so 

much whether GMOs are safe. The issue is whether individual purchasers, consumers, who purchase food have a right to know that 

GMOs are part of the food they are buying. It is a consumer rightto-know issue. I agree with my colleagues that a national standard 

would be good, but there is no national standard in this bill. It is 

a voluntarily labeling, which means there will be no labeling whatsoever. 

6 

Many states are reflecting the desires of their consumers to basically know what is in the product they are buying, and the consumer has the right to do that. They just do. And this legislation 

is ironic in this sense: If GMOs are so safe, and I am not here to 

challenge that assertion, but if they are so safe, why not label so 

that folks who are getting what the manufacturers assert is so safe 

know that their product will be labeled and consumers can then 

make their own decision. My question really is, if they are so safe, 

why would anyone be afraid of labeling those products so that consumers would have a right to know? 

Now, in Vermont we have our assistant attorney general here, 

Todd Daloz, who is going to talk about what we have done in 

Vermont. Three States have passed labeling laws. Several others 

are considering them. There have been referendums that almost 

passed in California and it is reflecting this groundswell of desire 

that consumers have to know what is in the products that they are 

buying. 

Now, I am going to play a little unfair here, Mr. Chairman, because I am here today to give Mr. Pompeo—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Finally. 

Mr. WELCH [continuing]. And Mr. Butterfield a GMO free labeled 

pint of the most nutritious product on planet earth, and that is Ben 

and Jerry’s ice cream. And this is labeled, and it sells. People love 

this. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the chair of the full committee, Mr. Upton, 

5 minutes for opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Good morning. We continue our examination of the 

role biotechnology plays in our Nation’s farms and in our food supply. Our food, as we know, is literally our lifeline. It is important 

for the public to be engaged. It is the job of this subcommittee to 

establish a record based on the facts and the science so we ultimately pass legislation that is in the best interest of our constituents and our economy. 

At the hearing that we held in December of last year and in 

other venues since then, the FDA has been clear that the premarket consultation process currently in place to review food produced from genetically engineered crops is rigorous and the agency 

has no basis for questioning its safety. The WHO and every other 

legitimate health and scientific body that has examined this evidence has echoed the FDA’s findings. Nonetheless, there are a 

number of state-specific labeling requirements in various stages of 

consideration that are inconsistent, potentially confusing to consumers, would increase food costs that cast out over the safety of 

biotechnology. 

Mr. Pompeo and Butterfield have been working tirelessly on a bipartisan basis in putting together a clear, understandable national 

framework that maintains FDA’S current review process, codifies 

Federal labeling standards and related requirements, establishes a 

certification process that the Department of Agriculture, consistent 

7 

with current organic program, for the labeling of products as being 

produced or developed without the use of genetic engineering. 

The draft amendment to H.R. 1599 circulated before this hearing 

is another step in the right direction, and I commend the Ag Committee for working with us to get the bill through the House to ensure consumers will have a clear, concise, and consistent system to 

assist in their food choices. I yield the balance of my time to Mr. 

Pompeo. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Good Morning. Thank you Chairman Pitts for holding this important hearing to 

further examine the role biotechnology plays on our nation’s farms and in our food 

supply. I understand that this is a sensitive issue and one that folks are passionate 

about. It is the job of this subcommittee to establish a record based on the facts 

and the science and, as we have done so many times this Congress, pass legislation 

that is in the best interests of our constituents and our economy. 

At the hearing we held on these issues in December and in other venues since, 

FDA has been very clear that the premarket consultation process they currently 

have in place to review food produced from genetically engineered crops is rigorous 

and the agency has no basis for questioning their safety. This position is shared by 

the World Health Organization and every other legitimate health and scientific body 

that has examined the evidence. 

Nonetheless, there are a number of state-specific labeling requirements in various 

stages of consideration that are inconsistent and would cast doubt over the safety 

of biotechnology, confuse consumers, and increase food costs. Fortunately, Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R–KS) and G. K. Butterfield (D–NC) have been working tirelessly on putting together a national framework that maintains FDA’s current review process, codifies federal labeling standards and related requirements, and establishes a certification process at the Department of Agriculture-consistent with 

the current organic program-for the labeling of products as having been produced 

or developed without the use of genetic engineering. 

The draft amendment to H.R. 1599 circulated before this hearing is another step 

in the right direction and I commend the Agriculture Committee for working with 

us to get this bill to the House floor as soon as possible. With that, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Pompeo. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. 

I want to thank Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Green for 

holding this hearing. I appreciate it. I very much want to thank 

Mr. Butterfield, too. We have been working on this for quite some 

time, and I think we are making fantastic progress. I also thank 

Mr. Welch for the ice cream as well. I hope it was Chunky Monkey. 

I couldn’t see exactly what it was. 

And I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today as 

well so that we can get the facts about both the technology and this 

legislation. 

The fact is scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered products is overwhelming. Precisely zero pieces of credible 

evidence have been presented to show that food produced with biotechnology poses any risk to health and safety of consumers. 

Before the idea that the government at any level should step in 

and mandate that they be labeled borders on the absurd. Expanding government at any level to enshrine preferences into a costly 

legal requirement is bad policy. 

What policymakers need to realize is that this bad policy has real 

effects on families we represent in our districts. Those who support 

mandatory genetically engineered product leveling must stand up 

8 

and admit they are willing to increase the cost for foods for families 

in places like Wichita, and Houston, and Grand Rapids, and New 

York in order to satisfy the unscientific demands of anti-biotechnology activists. Our goal here must be to ensure that families 

in America have access to safe, nutritious, affordable food for their 

kids and families. Having hundreds of different governments, state 

and local, regulating food labeling, increases costs to families 

across America and for no benefit. 

We should also consider the effects of biotechnology on the ability 

to feed the world. Providing affordable food around the planet is 

something that Americans and Kansans are going to need to be an 

important part of, and allowing biotechnology to flourish will be an 

important part of getting this policy right. 

The potential amendment we are considering on H.R. 59 and the 

one that we are reviewing today is the result of much conversation 

between the Energy and Commerce Committee and Ag Committee, 

and I appreciate their work alongside us. Like the current language this amendment ensures that every new genetically engineered plant destined to enter our Nation’s food supply goes 

through an FDA safety review. 

Additionally, this amendment improves our bill by aligning 

USDA and FDA responsibilities to ensure that a thorough and 

complete review of these products is done. I have a letter from over 

two dozen members of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Pitts, that 

I would like to enter into the record dated June 18th. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. 

The reality is that biotechnology, time and time again, has been 

proven safe. This is simply not a debatable point. Our policy ought 

to reflect that, and we shouldn’t raise the price for consumers 

based on a desire of a particular set of activists. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Pitts, and I look forward to the hearing. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now I recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Pallone, for 5 minutes for opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we will hear a range of views on why there should or 

should not be mandatory labeling of foods from genetically engineered or GE plants, and on why States should and should not be 

allowed to impose such labeling requirements. 

I have been long been a proponent of strong food labeling requirements. I was an original co-sponsor of the Nutrition Labeling 

and Education Act of 1990. I was a strong advocate for the ACA 

provision requiring nutrition labeling on menus and sponsored legislation last year, which I will be reintroducing to update and 

strengthen current FDA nutrition labeling requirements. And I 

have strongly opposed any attempts to weaken existing labeling requirements, such as the Commonsense Nutrition Labeling bill, 

which I believe would impede consumer access to nutritional inforVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jul 20, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-58 CHRIS
9 

mation on menus and restaurants, pizza parlors, grocery stores, 

and convenience stores. 

So I am inclined to be skeptical of legislation aimed at limiting, 

rather than enhancing, information on a food label. At the same 

time, I recognize that the differences between nutrition labeling 

and GE labeling may warrant different regulatory approaches. Nutrition labeling provides information and enables consumers to 

make health-related choices on how they eat. There is no question 

in my mind the Federal government should food companies to put 

that information on food labels. 

GE labeling is about the breeding techniques used to make agricultural crops. Food from such crops do not share any particular 

nutritional or health-related properties. A GE label provides no information on the consumption of the food or whether—on the composition of the food on whether it is good for bad for you, on whether it tastes good or bad, or on whether it is safe or unsafe. There 

is no scientific evidence that GE foods pose safety issues any different from non-GE foods. 

I have to admit, when I hear critics argue that GE foods are dangerous, I feel the same way I do when I hear people deny climate 

change, argue against vaccinating children, or say they aren’t scientists when asked if they believe in evolution. So from a science 

or health perspective, there doesn’t seem to be a compelling government interest in forcing a food company to label a food that is 

made with or without genetic engineering. 

That being said, if the State of Vermont wants to require food 

companies to put such information on their food labels, is there a 

compelling Federal Government interest in prohibiting them from 

doing so? Perhaps not. But I do think there is a compelling Federal 

interest in preventing any labeling that is false or misleading consistent with current law. 

If mandatory GE labeling were inherently misleading, for example, because it implied that GE food was somehow inferior to normal food, that would seem to be a compelling reason to prohibit it. 

I am so far not convinced that the requirement imposed by 

Vermont would be inherently misleading. I would be interested in 

hearing from our panelists today on that question. 

Now, there may be a compelling Federal interest from preventing 

companies from having to face 50 different food labeling regimes. 

In fact, it was a fear of such unworkable set of State food labeling 

requirements that led food companies and restaurants ultimately 

to support Federal requirements for nutrition labeling. To avoid a 

50-state problem, there are two obvious solutions: We can band 

right-to-know labeling requirements outright, or we can replace 

them with a uniform Federal mandatory GE labeling requirement, 

but I personally think a voluntary labeling approach is more appropriate for GE labeling. I also don’t believe in preempting State law 

without good reason. 

So I think this is an important hearing, Mr. Chairman. There are 

a number of competing issues to weigh before moving forward on 

legislation, and I hope we will take our time in considering them. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

10 

That concludes the opening statements of the members. As 

usual, all written opening statements of the members will be made 

a part of the record. 

We have one panel today. I will introduce them in order of their 

presentations. First, Mr. Rick Blasgen, president and chief executive officer of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals; secondly, Mr. Todd Daloz, assistant attorney general, Office of Vermont Attorney General; thirdly, Mr. John Reifsteck, 

chairman of the board and president of GROWMARK, Inc.; then 

Greg Jaffe, Biotechnology Project director, Center for Science in the 

Public Interest; and, finally, Mr. Val Giddings, senior fellow, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. 

Thank you, all, for coming. Your written testimony will be made 

part of the record. You will each be recognized for 5 minutes to 

summarize your testimony. 

You have a series of lights on the table; green, yellow will go on 

with one minute left, red, we will ask that you please wrap up. And 

if you want to take less than 5 minutes, that is OK. We are going 

to have to run a tight gavel this morning. 

So, Mr. Blasgen, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your summary. 

STATEMENTS OF RICK BLASGEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COUNCIL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS; TODD W. DALOZ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL; JOHN REIFSTECK, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND 

PRESIDENT, GROWMARK, INC.; GREGORY JAFFE, BIOTECHNOLOGY PROJECT DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR SCIENCE 

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST; AND L. VAL GIDDINGS, SENIOR 

FELLOW, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION 

FOUNDATION 

STATEMENT OF RICK BLASGEN 

Mr. BLASGEN. Thank you very much, and good morning, Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Green, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Rick Blasgen. I am president and chief executive officer of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals representing well over 8,500 members globally. Prior to 

joining CSCMP I was senior vice president for Integrated Logistics 

and ConAgra Foods, and in similar positions at Kraft Foods as well 

as Nabisco. I have been president and CEO of CSCMP since 2005. 

In this capacity, I serve as the primary issue expert relating to logistics and supply chain management. 

I want to thank you very much for inviting me to explain the importance of national labeling frameworks. I will focus my remarks 

on the costs associated with Vermont’s labeling mandate, a law 

that goes into effect on July 1, 2016, and imposes incalculable burdens on our Nation’s largest manufacturing sector. 

Grocery manufacturing is a high-volume, low-margin business, 

and any increase in cost, even by a matter of cents, can substantially affect a manufacturer and its supply chain. The primary cost 

centers in the supply chain are the cost of source materials, capital, 

operations, labor, storage, distribution centers, transportation, 

11 

maintenance, and, of course, fuel. The supply chain for a processed 

food begins with the raw commodity. The supplier sells the raw 

food to a manufacturer, and the manufacturer stores the food at 

the plant until it is processed into its ingredient form. That ingredient may be the final product, such as in cooking oils, or it may 

be used in products containing multiple ingredients. 

Finished goods are sent to a manufacturer’s distribution center 

where they are stored until ready for transport into the customer’s 

distribution center. The customer may be a national or regional 

chain or a regional distributor that sells to other retail outlets. The 

customer stores the finished goods at its center and distributes 

them to its retail outlets where they are sold finally to consumers. 

A manufacturer typically plans each stage of the supply chain to 

ensure it is handled as efficiently as possible. The core unit in a 

grocery manufacturer supply chain is the stock keeping unit, or 

SKU. This SKU is simply a unique identifying number that applies 

to each distinctly packaged and marketed product. 

A single national SKU facilitates efficient storage, distribution, 

and inventory tracking. Manufacturers do not create different 

SKUs for different states. Vermont’s legal time clock is ticking, and 

manufacturers will have to determine which products contain ingredients likely derived from GE crops. Companies will navigate 

Vermont’s exemptions, such as foods bearing USDA-approved labels. Restaurant food is also exempted, and this could impact segregation and transportation costs. Each exemption provides more 

complexity to the supply chain, less clarity for consumers, and 

more red tape for manufacturers. 

Manufacturers will have to make new labels with state-approved 

text and design. Labeling materials are one of the largest expenses 

affecting a manufacturer’s bottom line. And the inventory left over 

when a manufacturer implements a labeling change must be discarded, which is a waste not only of materials, but the money the 

manufacturer may have spent in anticipation of using that stock. 

Waste and recycling charges will also apply. 

At the processing facility, let’s assume it takes 5 minutes to stop 

and start to accommodate the new package. This reduces production time as the companies pay for the lost time and labor, energy, 

and capital costs of depreciation. 

Now assume a single plant with 10 lines running simultaneously, 

each with one Vermont run per payday, over 300 days in the year. 

That makes 500 lost hours per year, or about 3 weeks of idle time. 

These assumptions are meant for illustration with respect to only 

one single plant. Large manufacturers may have dozens of plants, 

and each plant may have dozens of production lines. The Vermont 

products would then need to be segregated from the other products 

and be placed on their own pallets. Pallets take up space wherever 

they go. They will take up space in warehouses, on trucks, and at 

customer distribution centers. These Vermont pallets must have 

sufficient space to reduce the risk of product being shipped to the 

wrong state; namely, product not intended for Vermont ending up 

on shelves there. 

Manufacturers would have to renovate or purchase new storage 

space or real estate. Additional pallets means additional trucks will 

be needed to transport products to customers. The trucks are capVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jul 20, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-58 CHRIS
12 

ital investments with ongoing maintenance needs and associated 

labor costs. And this is just on the manufacturing end of the supply 

chain. The products intended for Vermont must then go through 

distributors and/or retailer supply chain systems who purchase the 

product and thus, then, own it exponentially increasing the costs 

to service Vermont and also increasing the chance for error. 

Despite best efforts, mistakes will be made. One manufacturer 

calculates that 7 to 10 percent of non-Vermont product could be 

shipped to Vermont in error. That manufacturer will face penlites 

of $1,000 per day per product. For a large company that has 2,500 

SKUs, could translate to 175,000, or $250,000 in daily fines. Multiplied by thousands of products among multiple companies, these 

fines quickly reach tens of millions of dollars. Products would long 

shelf lines greater than 18 months that are currently in distribution or already on the shelves will be subject to fines. 

Mr. Chairman, from a supply chain logistical perspective, this 

law really is a nightmare. U.S. Consumers benefit from the safest 

and most efficient food supply in the world. I urge Congress to protect our national food system from an unnecessary patchwork of 

state-labeling schemes that will hurt American employers and do 

nothing to protect consumers. 

I thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blasgen follows:] 

13 


97704.016
14 


97704.017
15 


97704.018
16 


97704.019
17 


97704.020
18 


97704.021
19 


97704.022
20 


97704.023
21 


97704.024
22 


97704.025
23 


97704.026
24 


97704.027
25 


97704.028
26 


97704.029
27 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

I recognize Mr. Daloz for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF TODD DALOZ 

Mr. DALOZ. Thank you. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Green, 

Congressman Welch, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. As you are well aware, the 

State of Vermont has been deeply involved in the labeling of food 

produced with genetic engineering, passing a law requiring such labeling, which will take effect a little over a year from now. 

Vermont’s Attorney General, Bill Sorrell, is tasked with the enforcement of this law and has adopted regulations implementing 

the law. My name is Todd Daloz, I am an assistant attorney general, and I am testifying today on behalf of Attorney General 

Sorrell about the draft legislation and the discussion draft of the 

H.R. 1599 and to discuss and answer questions about Vermont’s experience in labeling foods produced with genetic engineering. 

In my oral testimony, I want to highlight two main points as we 

begin. The first is the role of states within our democracy and the 

importance of the state and the Federal Government in sharing responsibility for protecting consumers. 

What is most troubling about the proposed legislation, both the 

draft in front of you and the discussion draft, is that it would cut 

short and prematurely end state efforts to label foods before 

Vermont’s law even takes effect. It also offers no substantive replacement for the regulations Vermont has in place. 

Vermont does not oppose all of the Federal regulation in this 

area, nor even all elements of the bill. What is important to 

Vermonters is the ability to have accurate factual information in 

front of them in order to make informed decisions about their food 

purchasers. 

And this is a historical design of our democracy. States, in the 

famous words of Justice Brandeis, have long been the laboratory of 

democracy, experimenting with social and economic policy in manners that allow them to test how policy works and determine the 

best course. And there is a robust history of states leading the way 

towards ultimate Federal regulation. 

Two simple examples that come to mind, the first is fair credit 

reporting. Vermont and other states were among the first to require credit reporting to consumers. And as we all know, Congress 

ultimately moved forward with that, making it national law. 

Another example that was referenced by Mr. Blasgen is menu labeling—I believe it was Rick—menu labeling, which New York 

began requiring the labeling of certain nutrition facts at chain restaurants. Vermont and other states followed suit, and recently the 

FDA has implemented the same informational labeling requirement nationwide. 

Vermont’s Act 120 is no different than that. It is the state taking 

a lead role in requiring a factual disclosure, a simple, four-word 

factual disclosure on the back of the package, stating nearly, produced with genetic engineering. It is not a warning. It is a notification. And it is a notification that is there to provide consumers with 

accurate information so, as the Vermont legislature found, they can 

make intelligent choices about their consumption. 

28 

And that is the second point I want to talk about. Trusting people to make their own decisions is a fundamental American principle. And what Act 120 does is trust consumers to make their own 

decisions. It trusts consumers to be intelligent and make intelligent 

choices. 

There was tremendously strong demand in Vermont for this labeling bill. There is, in fact, strong demand across the country for 

such labeling. The legislature found that giving consumers this information enables them to make a choice similarly to calorie 

counts, to cartoon figures on the front of the package, to flavor. 

This is another piece of information that consumers want in order 

to make a decision about whether and how they will purchase their 

food. 

And it is important that there is no state oversight of what information is disclosed. It is nearly the presence of materials that have 

been produced with genetic engineering. This is not the state determining what is right for consumers to know. This is the state simply providing information for consumers to make decisions on. 

Lastly, I want to briefly touch upon the fact that Vermont’s law 

also has flexibility in it. It doesn’t mandate exactly where the disclosure has to be placed. It doesn’t mandate the size of the font. 

It provides a floor for where the font is and where the disclosure 

should go, and that kind of flexibility, I think, is important as manufacturers and retailers begin to comply with Vermont’s law. 

So I want to thank the committee and Chairman Pitts and also 

Representative Pallone for inviting me here today, and I am happy 

to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daloz follows:] 

29 


97704.030
30 


97704.031
31 


97704.032
32 


97704.033
33 


97704.034
34 


97704.035
35 


97704.036
36 


97704.037
37 


97704.038
38 


97704.039
39 


97704.040
40 


97704.041
41 


97704.042
42 


97704.043
43 


97704.044
44 


97704.045
45 


97704.046
46 


97704.047
47 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Mr. Reifsteck, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your summary. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN REIFSTECK 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Thank you. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member 

Green, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding 

today’s hearing. I am John Reifsteck, a grain farmer from Campaign County, Illinois, and chairman of the board of GROWMARK, 

a regional agricultural cooperative base in Bloomington, Illinois. 

Our co-op is owned by local member cooperatives and provides 

input such as seed, fuel, plant nutrients, crop protection products, 

and grain marketing services. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf 

of GROWMARK, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, and 

the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food. I live in the farmhouse 

my grandfather built 101 years ago. The farm has sustained three 

generations of my family. My father and grandfather were good 

farmers, but the tools and the practices they used in our farm back 

then would not be good enough to meet the needs of our country 

and our world today. Instead, each generation of my family has 

used new technology to build on successes of the past. 

Global Positioning System, automatic steering, and biotechnologies are examples of new tools available today that future generations will use to build a better agriculture tomorrow. 

I know firsthand the value biotech crops provide for my operation. My farming experiences illustrate this. In the past, I have 

abandoned parts and fields that were riddled with insect damage 

or overcome by weeds. Harvesting those fields are not just an economic loss, but it presents a real risk of fiscal harm to my farm 

employees as did myself. 

These are memories I won’t forget. They represent past challenges that biotechnology has helped me overcome. I am very proud 

to say that GROWMARK has been a key part of the solution to 

these problems. Our affiliated companies and farmer owners have 

been directly involved with use of biotechnology crops for a number 

of years. GROWMARK was at the forefront of providing this technology to producers when it first introduced in the 1990s. I have 

successfully used biotech feeds in my farm since it became available. I believe the rapid adoption of these products reflects an understanding of their value and real-world benefits. 

Farmers also realize that crops they grow today benefiting from 

biotechnology are just as safe and healthy as the crops grown by 

their parents and their grandparents. This is important to farmers 

and is providing our customers with safe quality products as our 

number-one priority. 

Biotechnology provides substantial benefits to producers, to the 

environment, and to consumers. To reverse course now would 

wreak havoc amongst America’s agricultural industry. Make no 

mistake, that is what a patchwork of biotech labeling laws would 

represent, an unworkable step backward. A growing concern among 

farmers and co-op managers is this patchwork would not stop at 

the State level, but perhaps could extend down to the individual 

cities, counties and even townships. Food and agricultural compaVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jul 20, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-58 CHRIS
48 

nies, including cooperatives like GROWMARK, would have no 

choice but to comply with hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of 

varying, if not directly conflicting, labeling laws. A near impossible 

task for us. 

The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act introduced to this Congress by Representatives Mike Pompeo and G.K. Butterfield would 

ensure that the labeling of biotech ingredients of food products is 

based on consistent standards using sound science. It would allow 

those who wish to label their products as GMO free to do so by utilizing a verified process offered through the USDA, very similar to 

that of the Department’s successful certified organic program. 

I encourage members of this committee and Congress to support 

the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. This bill would ensure 

the consumers are provided with accurate and consistent information about the food they purchase while preserving the choices 

available to grocery shoppers and to our Nation’s farmers. 

In conclusion, I strongly urge the subcommittee to support a voluntary, uniform, and national standard for labeling food products 

derived from biotech ingredients. The impact of not taking action 

would have a devastating effect on food and agricultural companies 

across the country, as well as farmers whose livelihoods depend on 

the freedom to conduct their business using the best methods available to them. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify before this committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reifsteck follows:] 

49 


97704.048
50 


97704.049
51 


97704.050
52 


97704.051
53 


97704.052
54 


97704.053
55 


97704.054
56 


97704.055
57 


97704.056
58 


97704.057
59 


97704.058
60 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now I recognize Mr. Jaffe, 5 minutes for your summary. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY JAFFE 

Mr. JAFFE. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Green, I want to 

thank the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 

Subcommittee on Health for having today’s hearing and inviting 

me as a witness on behalf of the Center for Science in the Public 

Interest. 

The issues surrounding the proper role of the Federal Government in the oversight of genetically engineered crops and the labeling of foods made with or without ingredients from those crops are 

issues of obvious public concern that Congress needs to address. It 

is critical that the Federal Government ensures that all GE crops 

are safe and that whatever information is provided to consumers 

about foods and ingredients made from those crops be truthful, 

neutral, and nonmisleading. I am here today as the director of 

CSPI’s biotechnology project. CSPI is a nonprofit consumer organization established 44 years ago. CSPI works primarily on food safety and nutrition and publishes our nutrition action newsletter to 

educate consumers on issues surrounding diet and health. CSPI receives no funding from industry or the Federal Government. 

CSPI has long advised consumers, journalists, and policymakers 

that foods and ingredients from currently grown GE crops are safe 

to eat. The current crops have also provided tremendous benefits 

to farmers and the environment in both the United States and 

around the world. CSPI has advocated for improvements in current 

Federal oversight to ensure safety to humans, animals, the environment, and agriculture. 

I will limit my testimony today to the Federal Government’s 

oversight of food and feed safety issues, which are the primarily responsibility of the FDA and directly related to this hearing. FDA 

ensures the safety of food under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

Under that law, FDA has established a voluntary consultation 

process whereby developers of GE seeds can provide FDA with 

safety data and their analysis of those data to show FDA that the 

crop is substantially equivalent to its conventional counterpart. 

When FDA consultation is completed, FDA responds that the 

seed developer by stating in a letter that FDA has ‘‘No further 

questions about the developer’s determination that the GE crop is 

substantially equivalent to its conventional counterpart.’’ 

CSPI believes that FDA should determine the safety of all GE 

food crops before foods from those crops enter our food supply. FDA 

should review the safety data submitted by the developer, conduct 

its own analysis of that data, and provide the developer and the 

public with its opinion on whether foods from GE crops are safe to 

eat by humans and animals. That would be consistent with how 

most other countries ensure the safety of GE crops. 

H.R. 1599 goes only a small step towards what we believe is the 

proper role of FDA to ensure the safety of GE crops and the foods 

made from them. H.R. 1599 would codify the current FDA voluntary consultation process. It does not require, however, FDA to 

provide its opinion on each particular GE crop safety. In addition, 

it does not put the burden of proof on the notifier to satisfy FDA 

61 

that the GE food crops or foods and ingredients made from the 

crops are safe before marketing the GE crop. 

The recently announced amendments to H.R. 1599 does not correct those major deficiencies and does not grant FDA any new legal 

authority to ensure that GE food crops are safe. Instead, it amends 

the Plant Protection Act to state that a GE crop that has been 

granted nonregulated status under USDA regulations cannot be 

marketed in interstate commerce until the USDA has received from 

the developer the ‘‘no further questions’’ letter it receives from 

FDA. FDA would still not need to make its own independent determination that the GE food crops meet the safety standard, and the 

amendment does not provide FDA with the needed authority to 

prevent foods or ingredients from GE crops from entering the food 

supply until the notifier satisfies FDA of their safety. 

H.R. 1599 and the amendment provides USDA’s agricultural 

marketing service with unique legal authority to establish a certification and labeling system for food manufacturers who wish to 

label foods that either contain or do not contain ingredients from 

GE crops. CSPI supports the Federal Government’s oversight of GE 

and non-GE labels to ensure they are truthful, neutral, and nonmisleading. There is no standard definition of what it means to be 

a non-GMO, no standard way to describe that claim in a neutral 

manner, and no way for the consumers to know if that claim is accurate. 

While CSPI believes that there is no benefit to consumers from 

avoiding foods that contain ingredients from GE crops, CSPI understands that some consumers do want to buy such foods. The system 

that would be implemented at USDA if Congress passed H.R. 1599 

would go a long way towards uniform labels with verifiable, nonmisleading claims. 

Therefore, CSPI endorses that portion of this legislation. I thank 

the committee for allowing me to testify, and I am happy to answer 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jaffe follows:] 

62 


97704.059
63 


97704.060
64 


97704.061
65 


97704.062
66 


97704.063
67 


97704.064
68 


97704.065
69 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. Right on time. 

The members are voting on the floor. We still have 12 minutes. 

So we are going to continue the witnesses’ testimony and some 

questions before we recess to go to the floor to vote, and then we 

will come back. 

Mr. Giddings, you are recognized 5 minutes for your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF L. VAL GIDDINGS 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green. I very 

much appreciate the invitation to testify before you this morning 

on behalf of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation 

on the safety and appropriate labeling for crops and foods improved 

for biotechnology. ITIF is a nonpartisan research and educational 

think tank whose mission is to formulate and promote public policies to advance technological innovation and productivity. We focus 

on innovation issues. We have long been involved in the conversations about agricultural biotechnology and how best to ensure its 

widely shared benefits to humans and the environment are not 

burdened by ill-considered policies, especially those based on fear 

and misunderstanding. 

I very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on these 

issues here today and thank, in particular, Mr. Pompeo for proposing this legislation, which I think is approaching perfection as 

a solution to some of the problems we face in this area on public 

policy. 

The introduction of crops improved through biotechnology, often 

called GMOs, has been one of the greatest booms to humanity in 

the last 10,000 years of our history. No other innovation in agriculture has been taken up more widely or more quickly, and none 

other has delivered greater benefits to humans, our livestock, and 

companion animals and the environment. These crops have been 

grown over the two decades on over 4 billion acres worldwide. Last 

year alone, they were grown on 448 million acres by 18 million 

farmers in 28 countries legally, including a lot more where they 

were grown by farmers without government sanction where the 

farmers could get access to the seeds. 

The farm gate value added has totaled more than $120 billion. 

And the environmental impacts of agriculture have been reduced, 

on average, by 18 percent. This has entailed a 37 percent reduction 

in the use of pesticides, a 22 percent increase in yields, and a 68 

percent increase in farmer income. 

The single most important element in the equation of credit for 

this avalanche of global benefits is the science-based regulatory 

process adopted by the United States in 1986 for which you and 

your colleagues and your predecessors bear an enormous amount of 

credit. 

The bipartisan endorsement supporting the science-based approach to regulation that has been in place in the United States 

for the past four decades has been absolutely essential and made 

it possible for this technology to be developed, adapted, and disseminated. The intention of H.R. 1599 to extend this legacy of bipartisan support for science-based regulation is important as special interests seek to undermined its credibility and authority with 

70 

false claims and ill-considered policy proposals at every level, particularly at the State level. Congress clearly has authority to address these issues and should formally preempt state level actions 

as the Constitution directs in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the 

interstate commerce clause. 

I am less enthusiastic and, indeed, would advise against one provision before you in this legislation, which would change the nature 

of the FDA safety review process for bioengineered foods by making 

it mandatory. It widely acknowledged that the biotech-derived 

foods on the market today are safe, that they have all gone through 

this review process, the review process has worked and is working 

well, does not need any fixing; there are no safety issues outstanding, which it fails to address. 

I know that there are those who favor making this process mandatory, but if Congress were to take that step, it would, for the first 

time, step away from the science-based regulation that has served 

us so well for decades. I say this because the term ‘‘GMO’’ is an 

artificial construct, and it does not represent a meaningful class of 

items deserving of special, much less discriminatory, regulatory 

status or scrutiny. That category further bears no meaningful relation to hazard or risk. GM is a process. It is not a product. Provisions with FDA regulations on labeling already in place mandate 

consumer information about the contents of the foods that they buy 

and consume. 

So I would enter a plea that as you consider these issues, please 

think carefully about what will help accomplish your objectives and 

what will not. Making it clear to the States that labeling is a Federal responsibility, that is something that would be helpful. Actions 

that some will construe and represent to be an acknowledgement 

that there are safety issues or concerns where, in fact, there are 

none, would not be helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

to you this morning, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Giddings follows:] 

71 


97704.066
72 


97704.067
73 


97704.068
74 


97704.069
75 


97704.070
76 


97704.071
77 


97704.072
78 


97704.073
79 


97704.074
80 


97704.075
81 


97704.076
82 


97704.077
83 


97704.078
84 


97704.079
85 


97704.080
86 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair advise the 

members, there is still 7 minutes left to vote, but some 382 members have not yet voted. 

So I will begin questioning and recognize myself 5 minutes for 

that purpose. 

My first question is for each of you. Today’s hearing is not the 

first hearing this subcommittee has held on this topic. Previously, 

the FDA has stated that their current consultation process has provided appropriate oversight of new foods derived from genetically 

engineered plants. FDA testified before this subcommittee last December that the consultation process is working well and provides 

for rigorous food safety evaluation of such foods. I would like to ask 

each of our witnesses, do you agree with the agency’s assessment? 

Yes or no? 

Mr. Blasgen? 

Mr. BLASGEN. Yes. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Daloz? 

Mr. DALOZ. I don’t believe I have a basis for agreeing or disagreeing, but I trust the agency. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Reifsteck? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Yes. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Jaffe? 

Mr. JAFFE. No. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Giddings. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Absolutely yes. 

Mr. PITTS. All right, thank you. 

FDA also testified in December that there have not been any material differences identified between genetically engineered ingredients and those derived from traditionally-bred crops. Again, would 

each of you please answer, yes or no. Do you have any evidence to 

the contrary? 

Mr. Blasgen? 

Mr. BLASGEN. No. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Daloz? 

Mr. DALOZ. No. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Reifsteck? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. No. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Jaffe? 

Mr. JAFFE. No. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Giddings. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. There are some examples where there are material differences as with cooking oils that have been modified to be 

more heart healthy. But where those have occurred, they have still 

been reviewed by FDA; they have passed the safety reviews, and 

the differences are indicated on the labels. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Finally, FDA testified that there is scientific consensus about the 

validity of the research and science behind the safety of foods derived from genetically engineered plant varieties. Do any of you 

disagree with that? 

Do you disagree, Mr. Blasgen? 

Mr. BLASGEN. No. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Daloz? 

Mr. DALOZ. No. 

87 

Mr. PITTS. I am sorry. I couldn’t hear what you said. 

Mr. DALOZ. No. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Reifsteck? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. No. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Jaffe? 

Mr. JAFFE. For the current crops that have been grown and are 

being grown, I would answer no. But for each future crop, we need 

to look at those on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Giddings? 

Mr. GIDDINGS. I am not aware of any area in science where the 

consensus on safety is stronger than in this field. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. Mr. Giddings, can you explain what additional testing the Department of Agriculture conducts on new plant 

varieties used in food before they are commercialized? 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Well, the USDA does not necessarily do testing for 

food safety per se. That is the province of FDA. USDA does extensive analyses of a vast and broad amount of data relevant to safety 

and potential impacts for U.S. Agriculture and the environment. 

These are—the data that is submitted by applicants comes in response to their filling out APHIS’ Form 2000, which lists a series 

of questions relevant to the safety of these crops on which the 

USDA wants data. The amounts of data provided are voluminous. 

They go far beyond, in fact, what regulators need to know to assess 

the safety of these crops. These crops have been examined in more 

depth, in more detail, in advance for safety than any others in 

human history, and their record of safety is unblemished. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. 

Mr. Giddings, or any of you, I have heard from a number of constituents who insist, despite this evidence to the contrary, that 

GMOs are dangerous to their health and are harming the environment. Why has this sentiment recently proliferated? Who would 

like to speak to that? Mr. Giddings? 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are very few issues in 

our lives to which we are more emotionally attached than food. And 

the idea of somebody messing around with our food supply is inherently one of concern. And folks who have issues with food, their 

concerns are heightened. And there is a very well-funded campaign 

of special interests who have adopted raising unwarranted fears in 

this way as their marketing tactic through which they seek to expand their market share. This campaign has been funded massively and executed across the United States and around the world 

for years, and they have succeeded dramatically in shaping the 

public view on these issues to create an appearance of safety issues 

where, in fact, they are absent. 

Recent surveys have shown that the difference in opinion between the public and between the scientific community on these 

issues is wider than on any other major public policy issues before 

us today, and this is the result of an ongoing propaganda campaign 

designed to raise fears and mislead consumers, and this mandatory 

labeling push is an integral part to that. 

Mr. PITTS. My time has expired. 

We still have a minute and a half to vote. But 288 members 

haven’t voted yet, so the chair recognizes Ranking Member Green 

for 5 minutes of questions. 

88 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank our witnesses testifying today on GMOs. 

Dr. Giddings, one of my concerns, are you aware of any instance 

where a GMO crop caused an adverse impact on human or animal 

health? And, frankly, why don’t we start with you and we can go 

down the list. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. There are none, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Jaffe? 

Mr. JAFFE. I am not aware of any, but when you genetically engineer a crop, what you are doing is adding some DNA that might 

produce a protein. And we do know that some proteins can be allergens to humans. So I do think we need to check those to make sure 

for example that does not occur for a new genetically engineered 

crop. 

Mr. GREEN. Would the bill that we are discussing today correct 

that with the authority given? 

Mr. JAFFE. So FDA looks at data from the companies on a voluntary basis concurrently, and H.R. 1599 would make that process 

mandatory. What I think is missing is FDA giving its opinion on 

the safety of that food. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Reifsteck? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. In my farming operation, actually, GMOs have 

increased the safety of my farming operation, because they have allowed us to substitute GMO technology for other products that are 

more dangerous for me to use on my farm. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Daloz, anything to offer from the Attorney General’s Office? 

Mr. DALOZ. I am unaware of any such studies. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Blasgen? 

Mr. BLASGEN. No. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Giddings, are you aware of a situation where an 

unknown consumption of GMO in grain has caused adverse health 

reaction? Again, to all five of our witnesses. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. There are none on the record. And on the issue 

of allergenicity, that is one of particular concern to me because my 

son has a life-threatening peanut allergy. And I can tell you, Congressman, that the only foods that are reviewed before they are introduced to the market for allergenicity, the only food so reviewed 

are biotech derived. 

Mr. JAFFE. I am not aware of any harm. 

Mr. BLASGEN. I am not aware of any. 

Mr. DALOZ. I am not aware of any harms, but I am aware that 

consumers have deep concerns about that issue. 

Mr. GREEN. And I know the concerns, and I think the legislation 

would probably would move it forward to help with some certainty 

including FDA oversight. 

One of my other questions, Mr. Reifsteck, and can you explain 

how the state-by-state patchwork would affect farmers and co-ops, 

and also Mr. Blasgen, then I will start with Mr. Reifsteck first. 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Well, certainly, having to fulfill all the requirements of every state is a difficult, time-consuming, and expensive 

proposition. As you think about how we grow crops in the United 

States, we grow corn; we grow soybeans. If we have to identity preserve those crops to make sure they fit into a marketplace, for exVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jul 20, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-58 CHRIS
89 

ample, non-GMOs, that adds a tremendous amount of time and expense to the production of those crops because we have to shepherd 

those all the way from the seed to my farm, to the end user, and 

that will add cost and expense. 

Mr. BLASGEN. I will add also manufacturers typically produce 

products for the Nation through a series of distribution networks. 

That product is shipped, then, into the retail network and then finally to the consumer shelf where its purchased. So the right to 

know, the choice is very important, that is why clear national 

standard is so critical to the manufacturing community. 

Mr. GREEN. It would seem to be the same thing on the labeling, 

because I don’t think we will ever have 50 different labeling requirements, but if two or three states do it, then, really that shows 

we need a national standard. 

Mr. BLASGEN. Right. The level of complexity with that type of labeling would be an incalculable burden on manufacturing. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. Appreciate it. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Time has expired on the floor vote, so we will come back as soon 

as we vote. There are two votes. 

And the committee stands in recess for the floor vote. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PITTS. The time of the recess having expired, we will continue with the questions. 

And, at this point, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all of the witnesses for joining us today on 

this very important subject. As a matter of fact, I walked out of 

this hearing to go back to my office before I went to the floor for 

a vote, and there were a group of seven people in there who wanted 

to talk about this bill. So somebody is really organized today, Mr. 

Shimkus. But it is an important issue. 

And, Mr. Jaffe, I would like to just ask for your comments. FDA 

has made it very clear that their current consultation process is 

rigorous, involves a number of experts well versed in these methods, and is entirely, to use their words, entirely sufficient for purposes of reviewing the safety of these products. 

And so, if the FDA is perfectly comfortable in the process, feels 

that it adequately protects the public and food safety, why are you 

arguing for new legal authority that FDA does not believe it even 

needs? 

Mr. JAFFE. So thank you very much for the question. 

I agree with you that FDA is clearly the agency in the government with the expertise on food safety. And if there is any agency 

that should be deciding the safety of GM crops or anything that 

goes in our food supply, it should be the FDA, and I believe that 

they do have that expertise. So I agree with you that they have the 

expertise and they are using that in this consultation process. 

But I think this consultation process works only because of the 

good nature of the companies that are coming forward with these 

genetically engineered seeds, with that data. They are not required 

by law to do that. And while there are lots of incentives for compaVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jul 20, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-58 CHRIS
90 

nies that are based in the United States to do that, that may not 

be the case for imported foods that come in from other countries. 

So I can give you an example of China, which is now spending 

$300 million a year doing research on genetically engineered crops. 

And so they may be soon growing a genetically engineered rice variety, and that rice variety may get turned into different food products that get imported into the United States. And those companies 

may not think of the voluntary process as mandatory. And FDA 

may not know about those because they weren’t homegrown products that started with research trials in a company or at a university here in the United States. So USDA may not be aware of 

those. 

And so FDA needs those tools to deal with those imports that 

come into this country. They need that authority to make sure that 

something is overseeing that those foods are safe. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So your primary concern is on imports? 

Mr. JAFFE. That is one thing, and also on the exports. I do a lot 

of work in developing countries and around the world, and we do 

a lot of exports of our genetically engineered crops. And those countries can’t look to the FDA decision. There is no opinion from FDA 

that these are safe. 

And so those countries—many of our exporters from the U.S. 

would like to say to those countries, ‘‘Please defer to FDA here. 

They have shown that this is safe.’’ And many countries in the 

world do that with lots of other foods or drugs that the U.S. does 

approve. But, in this case, because there is no approval, they can’t 

do that, and so they have to have their own process. 

So it hurts both our exports as well as our imports. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And, Mr. Giddings, I get the sense that you have 

an opinion about this, as well. So tell me what you think about it. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Jaffe and I have been friends 

for three decades, and it gives me a great deal of pain to have to 

disagree with him, but I think virtually everything he said here is 

mistaken. 

There are a couple things that we need to remember. Number 

one is that FDA has absolute authority to require that all food 

placed on the market in the United States be safe. That is all the 

authority they need. It doesn’t matter what process is used; if it is 

food on the market, FDA has the authority to ensure that it is safe. 

The other thing to remember is that this category of GMOs or 

GM foods or whatever you want to call it is based upon a definition 

that is fundamentally at odds with the facts as we find them in the 

real world. This category is an artificial category. There is no 

meaningful basis to distinguish genetically modified organisms 

from others that are not, because everything on Earth is genetically modified. 

There is no correlation between those products of the most modern plant-breeding technologies and any hazard or food safety risk. 

These things have an unblemished safety record. We know what 

causes safety problems in the consumption of food, and it is primarily the presence of pathogens. The only impact that biotech-derived foods are likely to have is to reduce the potential for pathogenic infestations. 

91 

So this whole idea that this is somehow a category that is meaningful in a sense that is relevant to risk assessment or safety is 

just contradicted by the facts, data, and vast experience. 

So the FDA is correct; there are no data, there is no experience 

which suggests that they need additional authorities or that there 

is a problem here in need of fixing. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Reifsteck, do you have a comment you would 

like to make on this? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Well, I am obviously not qualified to talk about 

the regulatory process, but I will say that the American farmers do 

trust our regulatory process. They believe that these products are 

safe. And they do need a regulatory process that delivers products 

to farmers in a timely manner to deal with the issues we have to 

deal with in the future. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

To the attorney general of Vermont, I am certainly not an expert 

in food safety. I buy a lot of food, though. But anytime you go to 

a store and you see on a label ‘‘this contains such and such’’ or 

‘‘this may contain such and such,’’ it almost seems like it is a warning label. 

And just, without giving a lot of thought to this—and that is why 

we enjoy these hearings—without giving a lot of thought to it, I 

mean, I think that is one of the primary concerns I would have 

about the Vermont law. It almost looks like it is a warning label. 

And I’m not aware of any scientific evidence that there is any safety issue involved, truthfully. 

Would you want to make a comment on that? 

Mr. DALOZ. Certainly, Congressman. And thank you for the question because I think it is an important distinction to make with regards to Act 120 and the disclosure that Vermont’s law requires. 

Fundamentally, the placement of that disclosure and the size and 

the font and things like that—in looking at the issue of how consumers are interested in this information and how they can best 

access the information, the attorney general’s office intentionally 

chose to make the disclosure either—there are choices for industry. 

It can be the same size as the serving size disclosure on the nutrition facts panel on the back that the FDA already requires or the 

ingredients listing there, the goal being to say it has to be easily 

read and it has to be easily found. Those are the standards. 

It is not a clear and conspicuous warning. It is a simple statement of fact on the back of the package, that if a consumer is interested in finding the information, they can look for it, they can read 

it, and they can make a choice accordingly. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes 

for questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I said in my opening statement, I don’t think genetically engineered foods pose special safety or environmental risks or are otherwise different from non-GEO foods. Therefore, it doesn’t seem to 

make sense to require them to be labeled. 

At the same time, unless there is some harm created by allowing 

Vermont to impose mandatory GE labeling, I don’t think we in 

92 

Congress should be telling Vermonters what to do. And I am hoping the panelists can help me figure this out. 

Let me ask a question. One issue I have heard is that requiring 

GE foods to have a special label would be inherently misleading because it would indicate that there was something different about 

those foods. 

So let me ask Mr. Jaffe: I know CSPI is a staunch supporter of 

strong food labeling. What are CSPI’s views on that question? 

Mr. JAFFE. So, thank you for that question. 

CSPI has been a strong proponent of labeling as something very 

informative to consumers and important, but that labeling has to 

be truthful, neutral, and nonmisleading. I think that is critical. 

We have also been a strong believer that only the most important 

information should be mandated by the government. So if we are 

talking about safety information, whether something is an allergen, 

for example, would be something that, if people don’t know about 

that, they could end up in the hospital about that; or nutritional 

information, how much salt or how much calories are in it, because 

that has a direct relationship to their diet. 

As you said, genetically engineered foods are—the current ones 

that are on the crop are safe. And so there is no safety or nutritional reason to label those. 

So, while we support the idea that there should be transparency 

and consumers who want to find that information about where 

their food comes from should be allowed to do that, I guess our 

view is that, in terms of when the government mandates labeling, 

those should be left for the most critical pieces of information. If 

we mandate everything on a label, the consumers don’t know what 

is the most critical information. 

So, for us, the things that are most critical are either safety information or nutritional information. This doesn’t qualify there. So, 

while we think and we understand the consumers want information about this, we think that there should be ways to figure that 

out less than mandatory, government-imposed labels. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

So let me ask Mr. Daloz why you don’t think GE labeling is inherently misleading. 

I think one of my colleagues on the Republican side said, you 

know, if you see the label, you are just going to say, well, obviously, 

this is different or maybe this is bad, even though it doesn’t say 

that. 

So why don’t you think that the GE labeling is inherently misleading? 

Mr. DALOZ. Thank you for the question, Congressman. There are 

two answers to that, and I will start with one that came along very 

recently. 

It is important to remember that H.R. 5099 is not the only challenge that Act 120 faces. The Grocery Manufacturers Association 

and a number of other trade groups have of course sued the State 

of Vermont to enjoin the law from ever taking effect. And it is important for this body to remember that there is a bound on what 

Vermont can do in terms of misleading labels or anything like 

that—— 

93 

Mr. PALLONE. I know that I am interrupting, because I want to 

ask another thing. 

Mr. DALOZ. OK. 

Mr. PALLONE. I just want to know why it is not misleading. You 

have to tell me that. 

Mr. DALOZ. Well, I will say—— 

Mr. PALLONE. I haven’t decided what to do here, OK? 

Mr. DALOZ. To cut myself shorter, the Federal court just ruled 

that it wasn’t misleading, that it was, in fact, a straightforward 

factual disclosure. ‘‘Ruled’’ is a strong word, but agreed with 

Vermont’s position and indicated that that was how the court was 

looking at it. 

And, again, that is the fundamental piece of Act 120, that is it 

is a factual disclosure about a process involved in making the product. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

Let me see if I can get—I only have a minute. My other main 

question about the labeling is whether it imposes undue burdens 

on industry. 

So, Mr. Blasgen or Mr. Reifsteck—we don’t have much time—I 

understand that neither of you support mandatory labeling. However, why would putting a statement such as ‘‘produced with GE 

ingredients,’’ just that, ‘‘produced with GE ingredients,’’ on a label 

require a need to create new supply chain lines or new distribution 

lines? 

What problems do you foresee with the inclusion of just a small 

statement like that that doesn’t say it is good or bad or anything, 

just ‘‘produced with GE ingredients’’? 

Mr. BLASGEN. I think if it is—thanks for the question. 

I think if it is a clear national standard, manufacturers can deal 

with it. If we had multiple States requiring different labeling requirements for all of these products, it would be an enormous burden on them to make sure that they got it right. 

Manufacturers secure their supply chains. They are very concerned about securing the ingredients and their finished goods 

right up and to the point of consumption. In particular, this issue 

is that the manufacturers find themselves liable for product that 

is outside of their control. So that is one aspect of it. 

But they are—— 

Mr. PALLONE. It sounds like you are saying you wouldn’t have a 

problem with that label. 

Mr. BLASGEN. Well, there clearly is a problem for multiple labeling directions coming from many different entities. 

Mr. PALLONE. So what if it was one national standard, ‘‘produced 

with GE ingredients’’? 

Mr. BLASGEN. I think if there is a clear national standard, that 

minimizes the risk in that. I think that they would have an easier 

time dealing with that type of law versus many, many different 

types of States imposing laws upon them. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Reifsteck, do you want to respond? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Please. 

I think American farmers have demonstrated they can produce 

very safe and abundant and inexpensive food. We have a history 

94 

of doing that. And I think if there is a demand for non-GMO foods, 

American farmers will respond, and they will produce those nonGMO foods. 

Our challenge is we don’t want consumers, maybe low-income 

consumers, to have to pay burdensome costs for a supply chain 

management program if they are not interested in purchasing nonGMO. 

So what this act does, it gives us a pathway. As a farmer, I can 

decide if I want to grow GMO crops or non-GMO crops. There is 

a standard that it can enter into the marketplace to give consumers not only the right to know but a right to choose products. 

And I think that is what is powerful about this legislation. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And to my friend, Ranking Member Pallone, my question is going 

to follow up on yours in two points. 

So one is, that the country feeds the world. United States, we 

feed the world. And I would argue, being from Illinois—and I am 

glad John is here—Illinois and the Midwest is a predominant producer of base commodity products that go around the world. 

So, John, these two questions are for you. First of all, the last 

couple years, we had a pretty big drought. Had we had that 

drought a decade ago or two decades ago, what would have been 

the result? And what made our ability to withstand the drought 

survivable? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Well, droughts for farmers are years that burn 

themselves into your memory. 1993—I can go through the list of 

these droughts. And I tell people the drought of 2012 was different. 

Because even though we didn’t have a good rainfall and because we 

had very high temperatures, we still had reasonable yields across 

much of the corn belt. 

And it makes sense, if you can protect a plant from damage to 

the root system, if you can protect the plant from damage to the 

stems, if you can protect it from weeds, then it can maximize the 

use of the water that is available. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And how do you do that? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. And you do that with biotechnology. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Biotechnology is the best solution for those problems I just talked about by far. The safest, most efficient way for 

me to get those kinds of results is by using biotechnology. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And not just in the United States, but as we assist 

other countries around the world to feed themselves, it is through 

the great aspect of science that has allowed us to do this. And, unfortunately, it is an untold story in this debate, because without it 

and the population growth and the climate changes, we could be 

in a disastrous position. 

Let me go to the next question, because it really talks about an 

individual producer. So the producer sometimes gets lost in this debate. OK, so we have now this bifurcated system of labeling and 

not labeling and a supply chain. Tell me how a corn or a bean 

farmer in central Illinois who is planting 750 to 1,000 acres, what 

would you have to do? 

95 

Mr. REIFSTECK. What would I have to do to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. To produce two sets of corn going for the same 

product, one GMO, one non-GMO. 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Well, basically, it would start with the selection 

of the seed. We would have to buy different kinds of seeds. We 

would have to make sure that we keep the integrity of that seed, 

that it only is planted in the field. We would have to do—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You would have to stop the winds maybe? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. You would have to stop and clean planters out. 

You would have to make sure that the right products get incorporated into the field. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You would have to have different silos? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. You would absolutely have to have different 

silos. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Different trucks? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. You would have to have—the trucks and the harvesting equipment all would have to be cleaned. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So when it went to the food processing facility, 

would they have to have different silos? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Absolutely. Absolutely. You would go—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Two different whole chains? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. You would go to—special elevators where we deliver grain would have special handling equipment that was designed to handle that equipment and keep it segregated. So, 

yes—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So I know that corn now is sold around the world. 

And I was kind of surprised that sometimes they are in containers 

and container—— 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I always think they would be in a big hull, you 

know, and you just pour all the corn in. 

So what if it pulls up to a port and they do a sample and, of the 

billions of kernels, they find one that is either/or? Then what happens? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. Then that country or company that finds that 

kernel will decide whether they want that shipment of corn or not. 

If it is in their favor, they could decide to take it. Or they could 

decide to reject it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So this is really a big debate that we are having, 

and I think we need to tread very careful. 

I want to thank my colleague for taking the leadership on this, 

Mr. Pompeo. I mean, he has the wheat story to tell, I am sure, 

which is very similar to a corn or a bean story. And we haven’t 

even talked about segueing it into the livestock issue and the feed 

issue and multiple, multiple other derivations that this—so that is 

why I am a cosponsor and look forward to working with him as he 

moves it forward. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

And I thank each of our witnesses for your testimony. 

96 

I firmly believe that consumers have the right to make informed 

decisions about the food they eat. I hope this is a point on which 

we all can agree. 

And I think there is general agreement that a good Federal 

standard for genetically engineered, or GE, labeling is preferable to 

a confusing patchwork of State labeling rules. But there is disagreement about exactly what that standard should be. And I am 

not convinced that H.R. 1599 will assure consumers that they have 

the reliable and clear information that they are looking for. 

Dr. Jaffe, do you think this bill meets consumer demands for 

clear, consistent labeling of GE products? 

Mr. JAFFE. So I think we don’t have a good idea of what consumer demands really are. So there are a number of polls, and if 

you ask the question, do you want GE labeling, most consumers 

say yes. If you ask them do they want pesticides labeled, they say 

yes; if you want antibiotics labeled, they say yes. And as a consumer myself, if somebody offered me more information, why would 

I say no to that? 

But there is a Rutgers poll where they asked open-ended, what 

new information would you want on the label, and I believe it was 

7 percent who said GM labeling. And, again, when they asked people what do they want for all of those different things I just mentioned, everybody said 70 percent for each of those. 

So I guess I am not convinced that there is an overwhelming 

number of consumers. And I think most of those polls show—the 

Rutgers poll, which I think is a good, independent poll—and I am 

happy to submit that to the committee. 

Ms. CAPPS. That would be great. 

Mr. JAFFE. That two-thirds of consumers haven’t even had a discussion about this in the last 3 years and don’t know about it. 

So providing information without knowledge about what that information means can inherently be misleading. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, could you provide for us, within your purview, 

the difference between organic, non-GMO, and natural food products? How do these types of products differ from one another? Just 

to set the record straight here. 

Mr. JAFFE. So an organic product, there is an actual definition. 

So USDA has a definition of what is organic. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. 

Mr. JAFFE. And if you follow that definition, then you can call 

your food organic in the United States. And those have certain procedures that have to be followed, certain rules that have to be followed. It is not based on science. It is based on did you follow the 

rule. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. OK. That is clear then. 

Non-GMO, is that—— 

Mr. JAFFE. So, currently now, there is no uniform definition of 

what non-GMO is. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Oh. 

Mr. JAFFE. So there are private certifiers, such as the Non-GMO 

Project, which have their own definition of it. There are other companies that have come up with their own. And there are countries 

that call non-GMO—sometimes they use a 1-percent threshold, 

sometimes they use a 0.9-percent threshold—— 

97 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. 

Mr. JAFFE [continuing]. A host of different things. So that is not 

uniform. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I understand. 

Consumers, however, we all agree, should not be confused about 

something as basic and fundamental as the food they eat. And consumers should be able to trust that the labeling on the food is accurate and truthful. 

And FDA currently has a policy of self-regulation. Producers 

have the option to voluntarily label their GE foods. However, over 

15 years after the implementation of this policy, very few products 

on the market have been labeled as being genetically engineered. 

Yet we all know there is a great number of GE foods on the market. 

The fact is consumers want to know if their food is GE, and they 

are calling on policymakers to help make this information more accessible. And I think that is why we are looking carefully at 

Vermont’s new law, because it is a reflection of this consumer demand. 

Mr. Daloz, can you explain how the Vermont law differentiates 

between foods that are labeled as ‘‘produced with genetic engineering,’’ and foods that are labeled as ‘‘partially produced with genetic 

engineering’’? What is the difference there? 

Mr. DALOZ. Certainly, Congresswoman. And this is part of the 

flexibility that Vermont’s law has built into it. 

If a product contains less than 70 percent GE material by weight, 

then a producer can choose to use the statement ‘‘partially produced.’’ Otherwise, the standard statement is ‘‘produced with genetic engineering’’—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. I see. 

Mr. DALOZ [continuing]. And that has to occur on any product. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, I submit that we need to make sure that labels 

are clear and informative for consumers, and H.R. 1599 falls short 

of this standard. But I hope we can work together to find the right 

balance that works for both consumers, as Vermont has done, or 

is doing, and industry as well. 

And, with that, I yield back the balance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes 

the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon, 5 minutes for questions. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say I support the consumer’s right to know what 

is in their food products, but I also think it should be based on 

science. And I support Congressman Pompeo’s legislation. 

I know it has been said, but I want to reiterate for the record 

some quotes from organizations around the world, really, talking 

about GMO. 

American Medical Association: ‘‘Our AMA recognizes that there 

is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of GE 

techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms. Bioengineering foods have been consumed for close to 20 

years, and, during that time, no overt consequences on human 

health have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature.’’ 

98 

Natural Academies of Science: ‘‘Genetic engineering is one of the 

newer technologies available to produce desired traits in plants and 

animals used for food, but it poses no health risks that cannot also 

arise from conventional breeding and other methods used to create 

new foods.’’ They go on to say, ‘‘An analysis of the U.S. experience 

with genetically engineered crops shows that they offer substantial 

net environmental and economic benefits compared to conventional 

crops. Generally, GE crops have fewer adverse effects on the environment than on non-GE crops produced conventionally.’’ 

And, finally, the World Health Organization: ‘‘GM foods currently 

available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of 

the consumption of such foods by the general population in the 

countries where they have been approved.’’ 

So, that said, as a medical doctor, I was charged with advising 

patients on therapy that works, therapy that doesn’t work. And, of 

course, based on the Internet and other sources, there are all kinds 

of proposed therapies for cancer and heart disease out there that 

have been unsubstantiated that patients frequently ask me about. 

And so I guess my question to everyone on the panel is, should 

people like elected officials or other people who are in charge of informing the public, should we buy into what I see is a movement 

without really substantiated reason to be there in the first place? 

Or, for example, me, buy into a treatment that is not proven to be 

effective? Or should I lead and should I say to my patients or 

should I say to the general public what the facts are and not buy 

into unsubstantiated claims? 

And what I see honestly is really, for the most part, a political 

and economic movement—political because of misinformation and 

economic because of companies that want their product to be labeled non-GMO so that they can compete with everybody else. 

So I will start at the end, and just comment on what your 

thoughts are. Should we buy in, or should we inform the public and 

stand up to what is clearly misinformation? 

Mr. BLASGEN. Right. As a consumer, I believe we should inform 

the public, as you say. And I think that everyone here believes 

there is a right to know and that choice is very much of importance 

here. We care about consumer choice as consumers, but we also 

want to understand the implications as an industry person on what 

demands we are going to place on industry and whether it is going 

to be effective, as well. And, in this case, we don’t think so. 

Mr. DALOZ. I think there is a challenge here, and that is that to 

disable consumers from accessing information that they are interested in having suggests that the government has a role in controlling information people want—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. I am going to interrupt just briefly. As a medical 

doctor, should I promote a therapy that I know not to be effective 

because the Internet says that it is? 

Mr. DALOZ. I respect the example. What I would say is that there 

is no promotion going on in Vermont’s law. All there is—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. Well, there will be because people have a 

misperception that GMO in some way is inferior to non-GMO products. I am just taking the devil’s advocate approach here. 

99 

Mr. DALOZ. Absolutely understood. And I think what consumers 

do with that information and why consumers want the information 

is not necessarily the role that Vermont’s legislature chose to take. 

What Vermont’s legislature chose to do, after hearing a lot of testimony and really looking at a lot of different sides of the issue, 

was to say we are going to provide this information to consumers. 

It is accurate, it is complete, and we are going to let them do what 

they want. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Fair enough. 

I want to get the other three in in my last 25 seconds here. 

Mr. REIFSTECK. I believe Congress’ responsibility is to ensure 

that American consumers have an accurate, fair, and non-misleading system for labeling foods. 

Mr. JAFFE. I think it is Congress’ role, I think it is CSPI’s role 

and everybody else to provide the facts to consumers out there. I 

think the current crops that are engineered are safe, and I think 

generally this is a safe technology, but you have to look at each application on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Congressman, it is important to recognize that 

Vermont Act 120 and other similar legislation is a direct consequence of attempts to mislead consumers as to the safety of foods 

that are derived from crops and foods that are by technology. 

I have read every iteration of that law multiple times, and the 

legislative record is very clear. The findings of fact associated with 

it put forward a whole host of verifiably false claims about the safety of these foods. And while the State of Vermont, I am completely 

confident, does not intend to mislead consumers, the folks who 

pushed them into adopting this legislation and who are leading the 

campaigns have very different motives. 

And, you know, let me give an example of a couple of quotes from 

them. 

Dr. BUCSHON. My time has expired. Can you submit the rest of 

your response to that for the record? 

Mr. GIDDINGS. It is in my written remarks, and—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK. Great. 

Mr. GIDDINGS [continuing]. To summarize very briefly, the intention of the folks pushing these mandates for information on labeling is directly to mislead consumers as to their safety as a means 

of growing their market share. 

Dr. BUCSHON. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Butterfield, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, before getting started, I would ask unanimous 

consent to have two letters inserted into the record, the first one 

addressed to Members of the House and dated April 28. It is signed 

by nearly 400 stakeholders, including the National Federation of 

Farm Bureaus, as well as the State farm bureaus from Alaska to 

Florida. It is worth noting that the Vermont Farm Bureau is one 

of the signers. The letter expresses the support of the 400 signers 

for H.R. 1599. 

I offer this letter. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

100 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Additionally, the second one, Mr. Chairman, 

addressed to Mr. Pompeo and me and dated April 16, 2015, is from 

29 biotechnology industry stakeholders and state biotech associations, including the North Carolina Bioscience Organization and 

the Bio New Jersey Association. The letter expresses, again, support for 1599. 

I offer this letter. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blasgen, I apologize for being in and out, but we are multitasking today, and I think you understand that. But thank you so 

much for being here today, and thank you for lending this committee your expertise in supply chain management. 

I have come to understand our Nation’s food supply chain is a 

vast and interconnected web that starts with seed development and 

ends on the consumer’s plate. The complex process of feeding 

America is staggering. It is easy to appreciate why upending manufacturing processes would cause significant disruptions to the supply chain, ultimately will result in consumers actually paying more 

for the same food that they buy today. 

Number one, considering that you have spent the last 15 years 

as a supply chain logistics expert, do you believe a Federal labeling 

standard is in the best interest of both American consumers and 

our Nation’s food producers? 

Mr. BLASGEN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. That is unambiguous. All right. Thank you. 

I understand that there are concerns that the cost to comply with 

the Vermont law could exceed food company sales revenue for products that are actually sold in Vermont. 

If companies decide to no longer sell products in Vermont or any 

other state, as that goes, that has state mandates because it is too 

costly for them to comply, it is the consumer, not the company, that 

loses. That is my logic. Would you agree? 

Mr. BLASGEN. I do. And as I mentioned in my statement, the grocery manufacturers are very high-volume, low-margin, and they do 

everything they can to keep very efficient and effective manufacturing operations, as well as distribution operations, right up until 

the time the consumer consumes the product. Securing that supply 

chain is very important to them, and they do everything that they 

can to make it the most efficient possible so that we can pass on 

those savings to consumers. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. What are the practical impacts of different 

state-by-state mandates on consumers? And why is a national 

standard in the best interest of consumers, in your own words? 

Mr. BLASGEN. Right. It would literally mean manufacturing lines 

all across the country would have to stop and start and stop and 

start over and over again to change labeling, change packaging, 

create separate inventories of the same product essentially, ensure 

that they are segregated so they can end up in the right state. That 

would complicate things not only in the manufacturing sector but 

also in the inventory management sector because we would have 

to ensure those inventories are segregated and tracked as best as 

101 

possible to ensure they are ending up in the right states. It is very 

difficult to do that throughout the entire supply chain. 

In particular, I will reiterate the fact that the manufacturers 

have control of only so much of that supply chain, and they turn 

it over to the retailers and wholesalers, who redistribute that product to stores. And then it is their job to make sure that product 

ends up where it is intended. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. OK. 

And now to the other end of the table, Dr. Giddings, and thank 

you, sir, for coming. 

At the December 2014 hearing, one witness said that some food 

companies label their food as ‘‘natural’’ even though it contains genetically engineered ingredients. He said that some consumers 

thought that was intentionally misleading because they believed 

exactly the opposite, that genetic engineering is not natural. 

While ‘‘natural’’ is not currently defined, the original version of 

1599 would have required FDA to do so. The amendment in the nature of a substitute before us today, though, does not. 

Would you please share your views on the use of the term ‘‘natural’’? 

Mr. GIDDINGS. This is something that rabbis and Jesuits could 

use years discussing. 

This much I can tell you: It is not clear to me what the term 

‘‘natural’’ means when used in foods, because everything that we 

eat has been modified from the form it took before humans started 

to cultivate and care for livestock and so forth. So it has all been 

changed. Even wild fish stocks we have selected over generations 

and changed their genetic makeup. 

But this much I can tell you: foods derived from crops improved 

through genetic engineering, so-called GMOs—the term ‘‘GMO’’ has 

been defined as something modified in a way that does not occur 

in nature. But in the process of genetic engineering, we scientists 

in the lab learned how to do these things by observing these phenomena of genetic change happening in nature. These phenomena 

are widespread; they are found throughout the living world. 

The techniques that genetic engineers use in the lab to make 

these kinds of specific and directed changes with the degree of precision that is unprecedented in the history of humanity, these 

changes are all changes that we learned how to do by seeing it happen in nature. We use enzymes that we take from nature to make 

these things happen. If this is not a natural process, I have no idea 

what a natural process is. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Giddings. 

My time has expired, but you do believe we need a definition for 

‘‘natural’’? Would that be helpful? 

Mr. GIDDINGS. If you could come up with a definition, it would 

be helpful. But I am not sure it is possible. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Collins, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

102 

This is a great hearing. I appreciate the witnesses’ comments. 

And, certainly, I am a big supporter of Mr. Pompeo’s bill. 

As we move into an area that I like to equate to hydrofracking, 

the scare tactics, the disinformation, the misinformation, the outright lies surrounding the safety of hydrofracking took on a life of 

their own for several years, to the point New York State banned 

hydrofracking. And, lo and behold, the EPA finally came out with 

an exhaustive study that said without any doubt that 

hydrofracking, when done properly, is absolutely safe and does not 

impose any risks on groundwater contamination. But for 2 years, 

people were on the Internet showing tap water coming out of the 

taps and putting a lighter to it and starting it on fire and scaring 

the bejesus out of the public, that, oh, my God, if that is 

hydrofracking, you are going to be drinking contaminated water. 

I compare that very similar to where we are today on this GMO 

debate. The opponents of it, like hydrofracking, have gotten out in 

front and basically said GMO equals bad, GMO equals dangerous. 

And so now people are at a point where, if they put anything to 

do with GMOs on their label, the average consumer, from misinformation and disinformation, is going to say, I don’t want to buy 

that. Well, that is a tragedy for America, for the American consumer, and it just is, unfortunately, the facts of the life we live in. 

Also, the other issue that I know is problematic is, if every state 

creates their own labeling standards, if every town and every county, if all 62 counties in New York create their own labeling standard, the types of costs that are going to be passed on to consumers 

would be mind-boggling. 

We have a Cheerios plant just outside of my district, and if every 

box of Cheerios, you had to create a thousand different boxes because every village, every city, every town, every county, every 

state in America decided to willy-nilly pass their own laws, you 

wouldn’t be able to afford a box of Cheerios. 

And, frankly, as the supply and demand chain goes for a very 

small state with very few consumers, they would just stop selling 

in that state. Vermont can go do what they want, but somebody 

might say, based on the cost of serving a very small market, I 

guess we will just no longer sell our product into that market. That 

is what consumers seriously need to be worried about. 

So I am just very happy that the FDA would be—we are asking 

them to do a study on the safety, like we asked the EPA to do a 

study on the safety of hydrofracking and it came back safe. And I 

am confident the same study will show that to be the case for 

GMOs. 

And I do think that Congress does have a role to play if there 

is labeling. We need to be preemptive and cut out the states from 

willy-nilly, putting out a thousand different sets of regulations. I 

am a small-government, local-decision-making guy, but this is a 

place for the Federal Government to step forward. 

But an observation and question, perhaps, to Mr. Blasgen: Cornell University, just, again, outside my district, did a study, and 

the study was: What would be the cost—now, this is certainly an 

estimate, but they did an actual data-based study—to the average 

consumer in America were these willy-nilly labeling by state, by 

town, by county, by village to go forward? And it was $500 at the 

103 

end. They concluded the average family would be paying an additional $500 a year just for these labels on boxes. And $500 is a significant dent for getting nothing more than the cost on the producers. 

And I just wondered, Mr. Blasgen, have you seen similar studies? 

Does that make sense? Let’s be honest with the consumers: do you 

want to pay an extra $500 a year? 

Mr. BLASGEN. I have heard about that study, and I think it 

would probably even increase depending upon the number of 

states, the number of products that might be magnified by such labeling laws. The complications, the extra inventory, the extra time 

associated would be quite substantial when you think about all the 

manufacturers of food products, all the different items, and all the 

different labels that potentially could be on all these products. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. 

And do you also agree that there is certainly a risk that if a city, 

town, village, state, especially a small one, decided to pass a labeling law, there would be a fair chance that the supply chain would 

just simply stop providing that product into that market? 

Mr. BLASGEN. It is possible. It all comes down to whether you 

can make a product, have a healthy margin so the manufacturers—— 

Mr. COLLINS. You are going to look at your cost, you are going 

to look at your return and say, you know what, sorry, just not 

going to sell it into that market anymore. That is what America is 

all about, with choice and competition. 

Well, thank you all for your comments today. And I look forward 

to a study showing that GMOs, in fact, are safe. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

We are voting on the floor. It just started, so we have 14 minutes 

left. We will go for a while. Then we will have to recess and come 

back if there are still questions that haven’t been asked. 

So, at this point, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Schrader, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess questions for Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Reifsteck: What is the 

purpose of FDA labeling? What is the statutory requirement? Why 

do we label food? 

Mr. Jaffe? 

Mr. JAFFE. So that the consumers have truthful, non-misleading 

information about material issues that are important. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Reifsteck? 

Mr. REIFSTECK. That would be my understanding also. I am not 

an expert on the science behind the food labeling, but that would 

be my understanding, yes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, actually, it goes more specific. It talks 

about nutrition. And the goal is health and safety, obviously, of the 

American consumer. 

I have been listening closely to the discussion. A lot of it just 

seems like—I would say our bill covers a lot of the concerns that 

we are talking about here, which is truth and honesty in labeling. 

And I think everyone has responded to the chairman and other 

people’s questions that there is currently no evidence that the geVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:08 Jul 20, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-58 CHRIS
104 

netically modified or genetically engineered crops we have to date 

cause health and safety problems. Our bill provides for, should they 

do that in the future, they would have to be labeled. This takes 

into account the fact that we don’t know, maybe at some point in 

time there could be a problem, and FDA could regulate that. I 

think that is a good thing. I think we all would agree with that 

at the end of the day. 

The bill also—for the right-to-know folks, in my state, we had a 

big discussion about genetically modified organisms and GE labeling—it also provides for the right to know. It provides a mandatory 

labeling if you are going to claim that your product is non-GMO. 

I think that is important. People need to know. 

And then there is a process by which FDA and the Secretary can 

actually establish that. That is good. That allows the consumer to 

know exactly what he or she is getting. 

To the discussion on ‘‘natural,’’ there is a section here—I agree 

with Mr. Giddings, it would be tough to define ‘‘natural.’’ As an organic farmer, with all due respect to Mr. Daloz, who is talking 

about this partially produced, 70 percent—it is like being half-pregnant. As an organic farmer and as an organic consumer, I want to 

know, is it organic or is it not? 

And right now I think it is important for members of the committee and citizens in our country to know we already have, a bioengineering label to some degree; it is called ‘‘organic.’’ As an organic farmer and, frankly, working on the farm bill this last Congress, we spent a lot of time trying to make sure that that meant 

something, that it was organic or it was not, and that the USDA 

and FDA had tools in place to actually make that statement. 

I have conventional farming friends that also have organic operations. And, yes, they have to use two separate facilities and stuff; 

there is a cost to it. But they make a market play, or it is a personal, philosophical thing that they want to do that at the end of 

the day. And that is good. The consumer benefits from that. 

The most important thing that this bill does, in my opinion, is 

it defines what a genetically engineered substance, organism is. Because right now there is nothing out there. There is the blogs, 

there is this hysteria, there is this—on the other side, the people 

that say everything has been genetically modified over time. To 

some extent, that is probably true. 

For the consumer that has a problem with stuff being done in 

vitro—which, as a scientist, I would argue is probably safer than 

traditional breeding, where you get inadvertent side effects that 

you can’t control, where you can control them by just genetically 

splicing organisms at the end of the day. But those people that are 

concerned about that this gives them some certainty this is what 

this means. It gives the producer some certainly as to what genetically engineered actually means. 

And I think it has been clearly stated here that, to have a patchwork of regulatory framework where it sort of means this or it 

doesn’t mean that, when we have food and produce that not only 

goes across county lines but state lines and now international lines, 

I think some sort of national standard is crystally clear and needed. 

105 

This allows for those that are concerned about GE from a political or philosophical standpoint, not from a food health or safety 

standpoint, to get that stuff labeled and before them in time. 

I think this bill is a great piece of legislation. It doesn’t over-legislate. It gives the consumer the right to know what they need to 

know, but allows American farmers, American food manufacturers 

to still produce the safest, healthiest food in the world that, I would 

point out, has increased yield, reduces tillage, reduces use of pesticides—many things that some of the very same people who are 

against any genetically engineered organism really also want at 

the end of the day. 

So I think this is an excellent compromise and would urge the 

committee to adopt it at the end of the day. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. Thanks to the gentleman. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, 

for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try 

to be quick. 

Mr. Jaffe, you indicated in one of the answers earlier that you 

didn’t—and correct me if I got it wrong—that you didn’t see any 

concerns today about allergens, that none of the foods that are out 

there now that have been genetically engineered have allergen 

problems, but you were concerned about the future. 

Can you get me information on that, if I got that information correct from you originally? Was that correct, what I thought I heard 

you say? 

Mr. JAFFE. Yes. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Can you get me some information after the hearing in regard to concerns or papers about concerns about future allergens? As a father of a 9-year-old who has a lot of food allergies, 

I would be interested in that. Would you do that for me? 

Mr. JAFFE. Sure. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And, Mr. Daloz, industry is concerned about potential for private actions against manufacturers. Under your law, 

I believe the law is maybe unclear on that point. 

Does Vermont’s law block private rights of action against manufacturers and suppliers? I am not going to ask you for an answer 

today because we are short on time. I am going to ask you if you 

would get us something on that. 

And if the answer is no, what do you intend to do to limit liability when a product, the person who manufactured it really didn’t 

intend for it to ever end up in Vermont but somebody puts it on 

the shelf there anyway? 

And if you could get me an answer to that at a later date, I 

would greatly appreciate it. I am trying to make sure that Mr. 

Pompeo gets an opportunity. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. I now recognize Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be shorter than 

5 minutes. 

I want to thank the panel. 

Mr. Jaffe, long time, no see. Thank you for your testimony. 

106 

I confess to you, my head is kind of exploding on this, just trying 

to balance all of these different concerns. So I am still absorbing 

a lot of the information and perspective related to it. 

I take it, Mr. Jaffe, that even though there is a system now 

whereby the FDA, in effect, says that they think things are OK because they issued this letter that says they don’t have any further 

questions, that you don’t view that as an affirmative enough judgment being rendered by the FDA with respect to the safety of the 

item that is subject to the letter. 

Can you just elaborate a little bit more on why you feel that a 

more proactive, affirmative statement or standard or judgment or 

opinion on the part of the FDA would make sense in the context 

of this proposal? 

Mr. JAFFE. Sure. Thank you very much for that question. 

The FDA letter that comes back at the end of these consultations 

says—and I am sort of paraphrasing here but sort of quoting—it 

says, ‘‘The FDA has no further questions at this time about your 

determination that you think the food is safe. You are responsible 

for safe food.’’ So the developers, Monsanto or DuPont, that is what 

the ‘‘you’’ would be referring to in that case. 

So the public looks at that letter and says, FDA is not saying it 

is safe; FDA is saying you have to rely on Monsanto’s determination that this is safe. And so I think that may not be an issue of 

actual safety, but it is an issue of perception of that. So FDA it not 

giving its opinion at all about that safety. 

When you look at—and the Congressman from Oregon mentioned his state had a referendum on mandatory labeling. There 

have been four states that have had those referendums. When you 

ask the consumers—and almost 50 percent voted for those—why 

did they vote for those, they say, ‘‘Because we weren’t sure these 

foods are safe. We want to avoid them because we are not sure 

they are safe.’’ 

So the solution to that is not to label at the back end; the solution is for FDA to confirm to consumers that those foods are safe 

on an individual, case-by-case basis for each individual product. 

And so I think that is what every other country in the world does 

in this area before they approve genetically engineered foods. Their 

food safety authority equivalent to FDA does it. 

And what is ironic about it, in the United States, USDA, you 

can’t plant one of these crops without USDA saying they are safe, 

but we can eat the foods from them without FDA saying they are 

safe. That is not a product of a policy decision. It is a product of 

using old laws and fitting new technology into that. And I 

think—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Right. OK. Well, I appreciate that. My sense is 

you would believe that having that new standard would help address some of the anxiety that people legitimately feel about 

whether there are safety concerns there or not. And, in so doing, 

you might lessen the demand for the kind of labeling that Mr. 

Giddings and others are reluctant to see imposed. 

So I don’t understand why there is a total departure between the 

two of you on this topic, because it seems that one would help the 

other to some degree. 

I am going to switch gears, and I am going to try to wrap up. 

107 

I gather that the Vermont labeling bill is one that would require 

the producer, the manufacturer, whatever the right term is here for 

the person putting the label on there, to indicate that it is partially 

produced or wholly produced by GE, but that a label saying ‘‘may 

contain GE’’ is not an option? Or is it if there is no way to determine the origins? 

Mr. DALOZ. I think that is an important point to make. It is an 

option. And producers can choose to qualify the ‘‘produced with genetic engineering’’ with the term ‘‘may be’’ if they, after reasonable 

inquiry, can’t determine whether their product is produced with genetic engineering. 

Mr. SARBANES. But if they can determine it, they cannot choose 

to say ‘‘may.’’ 

Mr. DALOZ. Precisely. It has to be accurate. 

Mr. SARBANES. That, to me, would be a solution to the entire 

problem in some ways. 

In any event, thank you all for your testimony. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

We are voting on the floor. We have 2-plus minutes left. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. Brooks. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I heard yesterday from Beck’s Hybrids, a family-owned pioneer in the biotech world in seed production, who is in strong support of this bill. 

And I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 

Kansas, Mr. Pompeo. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mrs. Brooks. I appreciate that. 

And I thank you all for being here, as well. 

Mr. Daloz, you said that you trust people to make their own decisions. In fact, we saw Mr. Welch hold up a container that said nonGMO today under the current law. Would that producer still be 

able to produce that container after H.R. 1599 passed? 

Mr. DALOZ. That is not my understanding of H.R. 1599. 

Mr. POMPEO. So, he would. You understand it incorrectly. Because this is exactly what I wanted to address. 

There is nothing in this legislation that denies any food producer 

any ability to market their product as non-GMO as long as that is 

a truthful statement and accurate. That proves my point precisely. 

Chipotle could still sell you a 5,000-calorie burrito that was nonGMO and tell you it was a good idea. As long as it was truthful 

and accurate, they could continue to do that. And this is exactly 

what I wanted to get at. 

So you suggested that somehow H.R. 1599 denies anyone the 

right to know anything. But it doesn’t. Can you tell me where in 

the bill you see that it would prevent someone from doing that? 

Mr. DALOZ. I don’t have the draft directly in front of me. My understanding is that a portion of title 1 of the amendment in the nature of a substitution suggests that it would be misbranding if a 

product were labeled without following some of the procedures laid 

out in title 2. I think it is 291(b) and (c). 

And my understanding of those is, at the point in time that H.R. 

1599 took effect, there would be no state laws that could exist. And 

there would be up to a year, possibly longer, for the regulations to 

come into effect, which would essentially mean that, at the point 

108 

in time H.R. 1599 took effect, it would be a rollback of the status 

quo today and certainly would eliminate—— 

Mr. POMPEO. There would be hundreds of thousands of state 

laws still in effect. There just would be no ability for a state to 

have mandatory labeling. 

There would still be complete freedom for every company in the 

world that wanted to market their products as being something 

that was truthful, including non-GMO—they could continue to do 

so. There is absolutely no denial of anyone’s right to know whether 

that product is there. And someone who only wants to eat nonGMO ice cream can do so today, and they can do so once we get 

H.R. 1599 passed. 

And so, if I am right about that, you will come join me on the 

podium when we celebrate its passage, I assume, and I will look 

forward to that. 

You also talked about there being lots of popularity for this. Has 

this ever passed by referendum in any state in the United States 

of America that you know of? 

Mr. DALOZ. In Vermont, it was passed through the legislature—— 

Mr. POMPEO. My questions was a yes-or-no question. Has it ever 

passed by referenda anywhere? When it has been put to the people, 

have they ever approved what you are proposing? 

Mr. DALOZ. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. So every time it has been on the ballot, the 

American people have rejected it. And I think that is important for 

folks to understand, because there is this idea somehow there is 

this tidal wave of demand and everyone is screaming for it. 

In fact, Mr. Jaffe, a question to you. First of all, I want to say 

thank you. I have appreciated your counsel through this. You have 

been reasonable and rational and thoughtful, and I greatly appreciate that. We differ a little bit on the front end. I am happy to try 

and work with you to get that a little bit better. And I appreciate 

that. 

But you said 7 percent of the people want it. I don’t know exactly 

how many it is. But my bill, in your judgment, it will allow those 

7 percent of the people to continue to eat all non-GMO food if they 

chose and to only purchase products that contained a label that reflected that. Even after this bill came to passage, they could continue to do that, and they could pay the premium that was required, and life would be good for them. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. JAFFE. Yes. If the bill was passed, I do think it is important 

that for foods that are labeled non-GMO, that there is a Federal 

standard for that. Because right now consumers aren’t necessarily 

getting what they are paying for. 

So, again, I would say there is no need for a consumer to want 

to purchase non-GMO food, but there are consumers who want to 

do that. I think you do need a Federal standard for setting what 

that means. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that distinction. 

I just want to clarify one thing to clean up something a little bit. 

Mr. Daloz, you kind of gave an answer that I want to just make 

sure I have right. 

109 

So when the FDA came to testify, Michael Landa testified, he 

said that the FDA was confident that GE foods in the marketplace 

today are as safe as their conventionally bred counterparts. I asked 

Representative Kate Webb, the assistant majority leader in 

Vermont, that question. She said she agreed with it. 

I assume you agree with that statement from the FDA, as well? 

Mr. DALOZ. I do. I don’t have any reason to disagree with it. 

Mr. POMPEO. So you agree with it too. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your consideration 

and your help with this. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

That concludes the questions of the members who are present. 

We will have questions in writing that we will submit to you. We 

ask that you please respond. 

I remind members they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record. And that means they should submit their questions by the close of business on Thursday, July 2. 

Very good hearing. Very important hearing. 

Thank you for your testimony and your expertise. 

Without objection, the subcommittee hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

110 


97704.001
111 


97704.002
112 


97704.003
113 


97704.004
114 


97704.005
115 


97704.006
116 


97704.007
117 


97704.008
118 


97704.009
119 


97704.010
120 


97704.011
121 


97704.012
122 


97704.013
123 


97704.014
124 


97704.015
125 


97704.081
126 


97704.082
127 


97704.083
128 


97704.084
129 


97704.085
130 


97704.086
131 


97704.087
132 


97704.088
133 


97704.089
134 


97704.090
135 


97704.091
136 


97704.092
137 


97704.093
138 


97704.094
139 


97704.095
140 


97704.096
141 


97704.097
142 


97704.098
143 


97704.099
144 

Æ 


97704.100