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

94–347 2015

EXAMINING FDA’S ROLE IN THE REGULATION 

OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD INGREDIENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 10, 2014 

Serial No. 113–186 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

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 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 4 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 6 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 7 

WITNESSES

Michael M. Landa, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ....................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., Cooperative Extension Specialist, Animal 

Genomics and Biotechnology, Department of Animal Science, University 

of California, Davis .............................................................................................. 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

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

Scott Faber, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, Environmental 

Working Group ..................................................................................................... 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 130 

Kate Webb, Assistant Majority Leader, Vermont House of Representatives ..... 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 133 

Stacey Forshee, Fifth District Director, Kansas Farm Bureau ........................... 90 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 136 

Tom Dempsey, President and CEO, Snack Food Association .............................. 97 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 138 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the Corn Refiners Association .......................................................... 122 

(1) 

EXAMINING FDA’S ROLE IN THE REGULATION 

OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD INGREDIENTS 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in room 

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

Members present: Representatives Pitts, Burgess, Shimkus, Murphy, Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Griffith, Bilirakis, Ellmers, 

Pallone, Engel, Capps, Schakowsky, Matheson, Green, Butterfield, 

Barrow, Castor, Sarbanes, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative Pompeo. 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Clay Alspach, 

Chief Counsel, Health; Gary Andres, Staff Director; Leighton 

Brown, Press Analyst; Karen Christian, Chief Counsel, Oversight; 

Noelle Clemente, Press Secretary; Brad Grantz, Policy Coordinator, 

Oversight and Investigations; Sydne Harwick, Legislative Clerk; 

Brittany Havens, Legislative Clerk; Peter Kielty, Deputy General 

Counsel; Carly McWilliams, Professional Staff Member, Health; 

Tim Pataki, Professional Staff Member; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and Economy; Macey Sevcik, Press Assistant; 

Adrianna Simonelli, Clerk; Heidi Stirrup, Health Policy Coordinator; John Stone, Counsel, Health; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Ziky Ababiya, Democratic Staff Assistant; Eric Flamm, 

Democratic FDA Detailee; Debbie Letter, Democratic Staff Assistant; Karen Lightfoot, Democratic Communications Director and 

Senior Policy Advisor; Karen Nelson, Democratic Deputy Committee Staff Director for Health; and Rachel Sher, Democratic Senior Counsel. 

Mr. PITTS. The subcommittee will come to order. Before we begin, 

I would like to take a moment to address the guests in our audience. First of all, thank you all for coming. We think engaged citizens are a welcome and valuable part of the political process, and 

I only wish every hearing drew this much interest. 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine FDA’s role in regulating genetically-modified food ingredients, and it is an opportunity for this committee to ask questions and have a thoughtful 

discussion on this issue. The number of people in this audience and 

in the hallway this morning demonstrates the strong interest in 

2 

this topic, and we welcome that interest and your attendance here 

today. I do want to remind our guests that the chair is obligated, 

under the rules of the House and rules of the committee, to maintain order, preserve decorum in the committee room, and I know 

that we all may not agree on this topic, but I ask that we all abide 

by these rules and be respectful of our audience members, our 

viewers and our witnesses, and the chair appreciates the audience’s 

cooperation in maintaining order as we have a full discussion on 

this important issue this morning. 

The chair will now recognize himself for an opening statement. 

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

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. The 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. A 

number of people have an instinctive distrust of food that has been 

genetically modified, and are asking questions about its safety. 

Others see great promise for better nutrition and the alleviation of 

hunger around the world. 

There are real sensitivities around this issue, and all issues regarding the food we eat and feed our children and our 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, and this hearing provides a great opportunity to 

put rhetoric aside and do just that. 

GMOs have been a part of the U.S. food supply since the mid1990s. In fact, as much as 90 percent of our corn, sugar beet, and 

soybean crops are now genetically engineered, and about 70 percent of processed foods contain such ingredients. The U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration oversees the safety and the labeling of all 

food products from plant sources, including those from geneticallyengineered crops. These products must meet the same safety requirements as foods from traditionally bred crops. The Food and 

Drug Administration 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. 

According to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, FDA has 

‘‘not seen evidence of safety risks associated with genetically-modified foods.’’ Further, FDA has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in any meaningful way, 

and the World Health Organization has stated 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, 

lower reliance on pesticides, cost less, and prove more nutritious. 

Even President Obama has stated that ‘‘advances in the genetic engineering of plants have provided enormous benefits to American 

farmers’’ and that ‘‘investment in enhanced biotechnology is an esVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Sep 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-186 CHRIS
3 

sential component of the solution to some of our planet’s most 

pressing agricultural problems.’’ 

Nonetheless, there have recently been a number of state initiatives calling for the mandatory labeling of food products that contain GMOs, and we will hear today from a number of witnesses 

who can speak to such actions and the impact they would have. 

Food labeling is a matter of interstate commerce and is, therefore, clearly a federal issue that rightfully resides with Congress 

and the FDA. I am concerned that a patchwork of 50 separate 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 

I look forward to learning more about H.R. 4432, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014, and I would seek unanimous consent of the committee that Mr. Pompeo, who is on the full committee but not on the Health Subcommittee, be able to sit with us 

today in this hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

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

I look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS

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. A number of people have an instinctive distrust of food that has 

been genetically modified, and are asking questions about its safety. Others see 

great promise for better nutrition and the alleviation of hunger around the world. 

There are real sensitivities around this issue, 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. This hearing provides a great opportunity to put rhetoric aside and do just 

that. 

GMOs have been a part of the U.S. food supply since the mid-1990s. In fact, as 

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

engineered and about 70 percent of processed foods contain such ingredients. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversees the safety and labeling 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. 

According to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, FDA has ‘‘not seen evidence 

of safety risks associated with genetically modified foods.’’ Further, FDA has no 

basis for concluding that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in any 

meaningful way, and the World Health Organization has stated 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, lower reliance on pesticides, cost 

less and prove more nutritious. 

Even President Obama has stated that ‘‘advances in the genetic engineering of 

plants have provided enormous benefits to American farmers’’ and that ‘‘investment 

in enhanced biotechnology is an essential component of the solution to some of our 

planet’s most pressing agricultural problems.’’ 

4 

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. 

Food labeling is a matter of interstate commerce and is therefore clearly a federal 

issue that rightfully resides with Congress and the FDA. I’m concerned that a 

patchwork of 50 separate 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 H.R. 4432, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014. 

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

to your testimony. 

Mr. PITTS. And at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking 

member for his opening statement. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Pitts. 

Today’s topic is one of thoughtful consideration of this committee. 

Many Americans are interested in the regulation and labeling of 

foods with genetically-modified ingredients, and while it is an emotional issue for many, the facts can lead reasonable people to different conclusions. 

For policymakers, there are a number of considerations involved, 

so I am glad that we are able to convene a panel to share the range 

of perspectives on the issues, and I hope we can engage in an honest and respectful discussion. 

Genetically-modified foods have been in our food supply for decades. In fact, some estimate that over 70 percent of processed foods 

contain GMOs, however, they are not labeled as such. In the wake 

of growing concerns from consumers, the Food and Drug Administration issued a policy statement on its regulatory oversight and labeling policies for GM foods in 1992, and in 2001, issued draft guidance on voluntary industry labeling. 

I fully understand why consumers want to know what goes into 

the food they serve their families. For people to make informed decisions about what they eat, they need information, and that is why 

we required food labels to include nutrition facts, and that is why 

they must use common rather than technical names for ingredients 

whenever possible so that this information is, in fact, useful. It is 

also why several states have enacted their own regulations mandating the labeling of these foods. Three states have put new laws 

on their books, while many more have considered doing so, either 

through ballot initiative or state legislation. None of the state labeling laws have gone into effect yet. 

While such laws give voice to the many who are concerned, I am 

troubled by the net effect of the inconsistent state standards. 

America’s agricultural production and food distribution chains necessarily cross state lines, and conflicting regulations could cause 

difficulties, resulting in higher cost for consumers. 

Like the advances in medical technology that we deal with as a 

subcommittee, innovations in biotechnology have a real potential to 

address current problems and improve the quality of life for people 

5 

across the globe. And as representatives of the American people, we 

must also be sure that the application of these technologies does 

not put consumers at risk, and that information is available to 

those seeking it out. In the end, the science must remain the arbiter of any safety concerns, and our regulations must reflect a rigorous evaluation of the evidence. 

So again, I am glad that we are having this hearing. I look forward to the panel’s testimony. I hope that we can weigh the merits 

of all recommendations presented, and evaluate just how any regulatory approach would best serve the interests of the American people. 

I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Pallone, for yielding. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words, and thank all of you for 

coming today. 

Mr. Chairman, access to safe and affordable food is very important to every consumer in America. I think at least we can agree 

on that fact. I begin this conversation by saying that I represent 

an agricultural district in North Carolina. It is also a low-income 

district, and so I have a very keen interest in this subject. A large 

portion of my North Carolina district is agriculture. Farmers all 

across my state and across my district remind me that North Carolina farmers don’t just grow crops for North Carolinians, they grow 

crops for America. And so the food supply chain is vast. It is interconnected. The work necessary to get an apple or an ear of corn 

to the produce section at the supermarket is absolutely staggering. 

From sea, to farmer, to wholesaler, to processor, to packer, to distributor, even to the store shelf itself, it is easy to appreciate the 

intricate system that feeds America, and I am beginning to learn 

more and more about this. 

But several states have proposed regulations, and that I worry, 

if enacted, would cause significant disruption to the Nation’s food 

supply. It would cause confusion, it would cause uncertainty among 

consumers, and ultimately will result in increased costs at the 

checkout line. Depending on what state regulations mandate, separate supply chains will likely have to be developed, beginning at 

the farm, and at every state—step, all the way to the supermarket. 

The new infrastructure requirements are as daunting as they are 

costly, and you can bet that all of those costs will be passed on to 

the consumer, with studies showing that the average cost topping 

$500 a year. For many of my constituents, that would be impossible. 

So I have worked with my friend, Mr. Pompeo, and others to propose what I believe is a measured approach that gives consumers 

certainty while taking into account the delicate balance and sheer 

size and complexity of the food supply chain that employs many 

Americans. 

The proposal, my friends, is very simple. The FDA, our Nation’s 

foremost food safety authority, should have the authority to require 

labeling on genetically-modified foods, and establish federal standards so that consumers, regardless of where they live or work, will 

clearly understand the options. 

6 

Finally, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I will be the first to say 

that this proposal is not perfect. This proposal is not perfect. It will 

certainly evolve as it progresses. We don’t legislate in a vacuum, 

but I believe a national, a national labeling standard makes the 

most sense for our highly-integrated and interdependent food supply. I am confident that we will take what we learn from today’s 

hearing, as well as the input we are sure to receive, to inform out 

work as we move forward. We need commonsense legislation. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the full committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The people who are going to be harmed the most by the antiGMO activist movement are those who can least fight against it. 

For example, there is a rice, it is called golden rice, which was developed with genetic engineering. One of the benefits to this rice, 

and the reason that it is called golden rice, is that it has a level 

of vitamin A that is not found in other rice. Golden rice has fed 

millions of starving people around the world, and additionally, prevented blindness and death because of the presence of vitamin A. 

The rice has been shown to be safe by multiple tests, and yet the 

anti-GMO activists have opposed its use simply because they do 

not like the idea of genetically-modified food. 

Farmers have genetically modified food for centuries. Farmers 

would breed cattle to get the best traits. Crops were developed 

which are most resistant to drought, pests, and weeds. George 

Washington Carver did research and taught at Tuskegee for over 

40 years. While there, he developed techniques to improve soil, give 

farmers alternative cash crops, improve the nutrition of people living in the south. He did this by experimenting with different varieties of peanuts and sweet potatoes. Of course, different varieties 

are simply products with different genetic makeup. 

To bring reason to this discussion of different varieties of food, 

my colleagues and I have introduced legislation, H.R. 4432, the 

Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014, introduced by Representative Pompeo and myself, along with Representatives Matheson and Whitfield, would prohibit genetically-modified plants intended for food use to be sold without first complying with a safety 

review process at the FDA. Under this Bill, if the FDA were to find 

a difference between the new product and a comparable non-GMO 

food that might affect safety, the FDA would require a label. The 

bill would do the following. Number one, advance food safety. Address the questions that consumers have about the safety of GMO 

food by requiring the FDA to conduct a safety review of all new 

GMO traits before they are introduced to the marketplace. Number 

two, inform consumers. Help consumers make sense of GMO labeling claims and their choices in the marketplace by asking the FDA 

to establish federal standards for companies that want to volunVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Sep 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-186 CHRIS
7 

tarily label their product for the absence of or the presence of GMO 

food ingredients. Number three, provide consistency. Improve food 

labels using the term natural by requiring the FDA to define the 

term for its use on food and beverage products, thus creating a consistent legal framework to guide food labels and inform consumer 

choice. Fourth, eliminate confusion, which is what all good legislation should do, and remove the uncertainty of the 50 state patchwork. 

Thank you for holding the hearing, and at this time, I yield my 

remaining time to Mr. Pompeo. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you for yielding, Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you 

to you and to Mr. Butterfield for being cosponsors of this bill. You 

can see today that we are engaged in a bipartisan effort to get to 

the facts and the science surrounding this incredibly important 

issue. I want to thank all the witnesses for coming. I especially 

want to thank Stacey Forshee, fellow Kansan. It is her second trip 

to Washington to help do good work on behalf of consumers all 

across the country. Thank you for being here today. 

Look, at the end of the day, this is a Bill that is needed to make 

sure that folks all across America can afford food. We in America 

have known for a long time that absent innovation and technology, 

the food prices will rise dramatically. We won’t be able to feed the 

next billion people in the world either, something that I think we 

take great pride in here in America. Studies have shown that absent this legislation, the average family’s food bill will go up by 

$500, and while I know there are some for whom that is not a lot 

of money, there are a lot of folks that I represent for whom that 

it is an awful lot of money, and who are living day-to-day and paycheck to paycheck, and who care deeply to make sure that their 

food prices, one of the things that they have to make hard decisions 

about from time to time, doesn’t get even more difficult in this 

economy that we know is struggling so much. And it is also to help 

folks who are the producers of this food, to make sure that they 

have a way to get this product from their cattle ranch or their 

farm, or wherever it may be, to our store shelves in a way that 

they can do profitably, so that they can continue to invest in their 

products, so that America continues to be the leader in world production of food in an affordable way. 

The science is not debatable here. There has been lots of research, lots of studies. Even those who oppose this bill don’t make 

much of a case about the science. And that is what FDA is all 

about; it is about getting the science right. This bill gives them the 

opportunity to continue to review that, and I think it is really good 

policy and will make our food supply chain enviable all around the 

world. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

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

Waxman, 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

8 

Today’s hearing is on a topic about which many Americans have 

strong feelings. Twenty years ago, the first genetically-engineered 

food, the slow-ripening Flavr Savr tomato, went on the market. 

Today, the vast majority of corn and soybeans and cotton and 

canola and sugar beets and papaya grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered. All of these foods have been assessed by the Food 

and Drug Administration in a voluntary consultation process, and 

FDA has found no significant differences between them and their 

traditionally-bred counterparts. 

Some 70 to 80 percent of packaged foods contain ingredients from 

genetically engineered, or GE, plants. Yet, despite their ubiquity 

and FDA’s OK, many consumers remain uncomfortable with these 

foods and want mandatory labeling so they can avoid them. 

As we consider the questions on GE foods at today’s hearing, I 

will examine them in the context of some important principles I 

have long supported. First, I believe it is critical that our actions 

be based on science. As with so many other matters pertaining to 

products we use and consume every day, we need to rely on the expertise of FDA and other scientific regulatory agencies. Second, 

when we consider requiring labeling on food, that label should provide useful, science-based information to consumers. I certainly believe that food labels should enable consumers to make informed 

choices. I fought hard to pass legislation that gave consumers useful information about the nutritional content of food. Third, unless 

there is a compelling policy reason otherwise, we should maintain 

the ability of states to make a decision that is different from the 

Federal Government. All three of these concepts are at play here 

today, and I think we should examine each carefully. 

On the first concept, what does the science tell us about GE 

foods? From what I understand, genetic engineering is not an inherently dangerous technology. Certainly, when it is used to give 

new properties to plants, we need to make sure those new properties don’t affect the safety or nutrition of food from those plants, 

but if FDA has done that and finds that GE food does not differ 

in any significant way from traditional food, why should there be 

a label that marks it as different? If there are safety questions 

about a food, then it shouldn’t be allowed on the market at all. 

I look forward to hearing more from FDA and other witnesses on 

this today. Nevertheless, I understand that people may still want 

information about how their foods are produced. So let us look at 

the second concept of whether there is a way to give them meaningful and useful science-based information. On the one hand, I am 

concerned that people have the information they want or need. On 

the other hand, I am concerned that mandatory GE labeling could 

be inherently misleading. Mandatory labeling could lead consumers 

to believe that if the government is requiring a GE label, it must 

mean that GE foods are riskier or somehow fundamentally different from non-GE foods, and to date, scientists have concluded 

that they are not. 

Furthermore, given that up to 80 percent of packaged foods contain GE ingredients, if we require labels, most food on the shelves 

would have a label declaring the presence of GE ingredients. I am 

not sure what good that does us. Under our current system, if consumers want to avoid GE foods, they can. They can buy organic 

9 

foods which, by law, cannot contain GE ingredients. Or they can 

search out the foods that manufacturers have certified and labeled 

as non-GE. That more targeted information may, in fact, be more 

useable, and I would like to hear what our witnesses think about 

that. 

Now let us turn to the third principle of preserving the ability 

of states to make decisions that are right for their citizens, absent 

a compelling policy reason to the contrary. Even if there is not a 

compelling reason to require GE labeling at the federal level, that 

doesn’t necessarily mean Congress should tell Vermont and other 

states that they cannot require such labeling. I have always believed states should have the right to act in the best interests of 

their residents. And I want to hear from our industry witnesses 

why the Vermont legislation, and potentially similar legislation in 

other states, is so harmful to some legitimate public interest that 

Congress should override them. Absent a compelling reason otherwise, I support letting states make their own laws and govern 

themselves. 

I remain open to hearing the view of all of our witnesses today 

on these three points, and any other points pertaining to this issue. 

I think today’s hearing will be very interesting and informative, 

and I thank the chairman for holding it. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

That concludes the opening statements of the Members. As always, the written opening statements of the Members will be made 

a part of the record. 

I have a unanimous consent request here, a statement from the 

Corn Refiners Association, to enter into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

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

Mr. PITTS. We have two panels today, and I would like to call 

our first panel, and I will introduce him at this time. We have Mr. 

Michael Landa, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Thank you for 

coming today. You will have 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. Your written testimony will be placed into the record. 

So at this point, Mr. Landa, you are recognized for 5 minutes for 

your summary. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL M. LANDA, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, U.S. FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) 

Mr. LANDA. Good morning, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member 

Pallone, and members of the subcommittee. I am Michael M. 

Landa, Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss FDA’s regulatory program for 

genetically engineered, or GE, foods. 

Over the last 20 years, FDA has reviewed data and information 

on more than 150 plant-derived GE foods. These range from herbicide-tolerant soybeans to canola oil with a modified fatty acid profile. Based on our evaluations, we are confident that the GE foods 

in the U.S. marketplace today are as safe as their conventionallyVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Sep 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-186 CHRIS
10 

bred counterparts. The selection and genetic improvement of plants 

for agricultural use has been going on for thousands of years. 

Mr. PITTS. Could you pull the mic a little closer to you please? 

Mr. LANDA. Sorry. 

Mr. PITTS. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. LANDA. That better? 

Mr. PITTS. That is better, thank you. 

Mr. LANDA. Typically, plant breeding has involved cross-breeding 

and hybridization. Many of the foods that are already common in 

our diet, such as hybrid corn or nectarines, are obtained from plant 

varieties that were developed using such conventional genetic techniques, but during the breeding process, undesirable traits, such as 

poor yield or poor disease resistance, may appear. These unwanted 

traits can often be eliminated through additional breeding and selective reproduction, but the process is painstaking and time-consuming. 

Today, by inserting one or more specific genes into a plant, scientists are able to produce a plant with new, advantageous characteristics. These techniques give scientists the ability to isolate specific genes of interest, and introduce them and their corresponding 

traits into plants without introducing undesirable genes or traits. 

This important improvement over traditional plant breeding can 

reduce the time needed to develop a new variety, and expand the 

range of new proteins and other substances that can be introduced 

into plants. 

Any of these genetic modification techniques has the potential to 

change the composition of food in a manner relevant to food safety. 

FDA, however, has well-established scientific procedures for evaluating the safety of new foods, including any new substances in food, 

and our guidelines help developers address any safety concerns 

prior to marketing. 

FDA regulates the safety of all foods, including those derived 

from GE plants, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 

to be called the Food and Drug Act. Foods developed from genetically-engineered plant varieties, such as fruits, vegetables, grains 

and their byproducts, are subject to the same safety requirements 

as foods derived from non-GE plants. The Agency relies primarily 

on two sections of the Food and Drug Act to ensure the safety of 

food and food ingredients produced by genetic engineering—the 

adulteration provisions in Section 402 of the Act, and the food additive provisions in Section 409. 

Food growers, manufacturers, and distributors are responsible 

for taking the steps necessary to ensure that their food products 

are safe. The law places primary responsibility for ensuring safety 

of food on industry. To help developers of food derived from GE 

plants comply with their obligations under the Food and Drug Act, 

and FDA’s regulations, the Agency encourages them to participate 

in a voluntary consultation process prior to commercial distribution. Since the process was created, developers of GE plants have 

completed the process more than 100 times as they sought to introduce plants into the U.S. market. Typically, the consultation begins 

early in development when the Agency advises the company on 

what tests would be appropriate to assess the safety of the new 

food. After the studies are completed, a summary of the data reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Sep 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-186 CHRIS
11 

flecting safety and nutritional assessment are provided to FDA for 

its review. FDA expects developers of GE foods to analyze the composition of the foods from their new crop varieties to ensure that 

any changes compared to the foods’ conventionally-derived counterpart are appropriately considered and addressed before marketing 

such foods. As part of our review and analysis, we consider whether any newly-introduced protein is likely to be allergenic or toxic, 

and whether levels of important nutrients or anti-nutrients have 

been changed in a way that is important to food safety or nutrition. 

We also consider whether any newly-introduced protein requires 

premarket approval as a food additive. 

Examples of the information evaluated by FDA include the name 

of the food and the crop from which it is derived, the source, identities, functions and stability of introduced genetic material, the purpose of the modification and its expected effect on the composition 

and characteristics of the food, the identity and function of any new 

substances introduced by the genetic material, a comparison of the 

composition and characteristics of the GE food to that of food derived from the parental variety, and information on whether the 

genetic modification altered the allergenic or toxic potential of the 

food. 

Let me just speak for a minute or so about FDA regulation of labeling. We regulate labeling including labeling of GE foods under 

the Food and Drug Act and our regulations. The Act establishes 

that a food is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in 

any particular. The Act also provides that labeling is misleading if 

it, one, fails to reveal facts that are material with respect to representations made or suggested in the labeling, or two, fails to reveal facts that are material with respect to consequences that may 

result from use of the food, whether that is a labeled use or a customary use. 

Historically, FDA has taken the position that the use of genetic 

engineering in the development of food is normally not, by itself, 

material information within the meaning of the Food and Drug Act. 

Federal courts have held that absent a material fact or a difference 

in food derived from a GE source, the Act does not require labeling 

indicating that the food has been developed through genetic engineering. 

In closing, let me reiterate that the consultation process for foods 

derived from GE plants is working well, and provides for a rigorous 

food safety evaluation of such foods. The Agency will continue to 

be vigilant, ensuring the safety and integrity of the food supply. 

And with that, I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Landa follows:] 

12 


94347.004
13 


94347.005
14 


94347.006
15 


94347.007
16 


94347.008
17 


94347.009
18 


94347.010
19 


94347.011
20 


94347.012
21 


94347.013
22 


94347.014
23 


94347.015
24 


94347.016
25 


94347.017
26 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

We will now begin questioning. I will recognize myself 5 minutes 

for that purpose. 

Mr. Landa, you state in your testimony that FDA has reviewed 

and evaluated data and information on over 150 genetically-engineered foods. Based on these reviews and the data that has been 

compiled over the past 20 years, is the Agency more or less confident today in the safety of the underlying technology? 

Mr. LANDA. I think its confidence remains strong. It has been 

and remains strong. 

Mr. PITTS. How do you know that genetically-engineered foods 

are no different in terms of safety than their conventional counterparts? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, we know this based on the reviews we conduct. 

We are looking at the genetic material, we are looking at products 

of that material, new proteins, for example, at their safety. We look 

at potential toxicity and allergenicity. We look at chemical composition to see whether it is different from the conventional counterpart. We look at the safety of the whole food, if you will, and we 

look to see whether there are any differences in the nutrients that 

might require disclosure, for example. 

Mr. PITTS. And how long, typically, does your evaluation take? 

Mr. LANDA. I will have to get back to you with detailed information, if I may. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. Are there any material differences between 

genetically-engineered ingredients and those derived from traditionally-bred crops? 

Mr. LANDA. In general, no. We have found that there have not 

been such differences. 

Mr. PITTS. Does the FDA support the various state, legislative 

and ballot measures that would require the labeling of geneticallyengineered foods, or would these initiatives interfere with FDA’s 

authority over food production or labeling? 

Mr. LANDA. We haven’t reviewed the initiatives. We don’t have 

any view about them and, therefore, we don’t know whether they 

would interfere or not. 

Mr. PITTS. Would state-specific labeling requirements change 

anything as far as your evaluation is concerned? 

Mr. LANDA. I do not believe so. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. Let me ask if there currently is a lack of 

consensus about the validity of the research and science behind the 

safety of foods derived from genetically-engineered plant varieties. 

Mr. LANDA. I think there is not. That is, I think there is a consensus. 

Mr. PITTS. There is a consensus—— 

Mr. LANDA. Yes. 

Mr. PITTS [continuing]. In the scientific community? 

All right, at this time, I will recognize Mr. Pallone 5 minutes for 

his questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Landa, some who oppose mandatory GE labeling argue that 

such labeling would be inherently misleading. They argue that 

such a requirement would easily be taken to imply that the government considered food from GE plants to be so fundamentally difVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Sep 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-186 CHRIS
27 

ferent from food from non-GE plants as to warrant a special designation. And I guess I agree that if the GE designation had to look 

like a warning, it would be misleading. However, in the next panel, 

Mr. Faber testifies that his organization is not asking for anything 

like a warning label, but rather a modest disclosure on the back 

of the package. And I guess I would like to get your view based on 

your experience with food labeling whether it would be possible to 

design the size and wording of a mandatory GE designation in such 

a way as to be innocuous, in other words, those who look for it 

could find it, those who don’t care about genetic engineering would 

have no reason to pay attention to it. I am not asking whether FDA 

could require such a label, nor whether you think any form of mandatory GE labeling would be appropriate from a scientific perspective, just that if Congress were to decide that the best way to avoid 

multiple state GE labeling requirements would be to impose a federal GE labeling requirement, do you think it would be possible to 

do so in a way that would be neutral and would not tarnish the 

product. And also as part of your answer, if you could describe the 

FDA’s experience with irradiation labeling and whether we could 

learn from that experience. 

Mr. LANDA. I certainly have not thought about the question you 

posed with respect to the nature of a statement about GE labeling. 

I don’t think the Agency has considered that question because our 

focus has been on whether there is a difference—— 

Mr. PALLONE. The material. The material definition. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Allowing us to require disclosure. I 

think one way of looking at that question is whether there are data 

on similar efforts, or whether one could design a study to answer 

that question so that people would look at different formulations of 

labeling, and you would learn what they would take away from 

those different formulations. 

Mr. PALLONE. I mean I—the reason I asked the question, I know 

you—I guess you don’t really feel you can answer it at this point, 

is because, you know, a lot of people that approach me that would 

like the labeling requirement don’t necessarily make the argument 

that there is a scientific difference, but just that they should—or 

that it is bad, but just that they should know. 

Mr. LANDA. No, I understand, but one might, for example—again, 

I think maybe one could develop different formulations and do experimental studies surrounding them, the types of studies that are 

typically done over the internet with panels that are set up, they 

are large numbers, to see what people would take away from a different mock label. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Now, I know you say that the FDA’s consultation process is—right now is obviously voluntary, but what does 

that mean in practice? In other words, if it is voluntary why would 

companies choose to use it? Do you have an estimate of how many 

manufacturers choose not to use it? In other words, what are the 

pros and cons of this voluntary approach? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, we think for people intending to commercialize 

product, we think those people do come to us for several reasons. 

One, there is the basic statutory requirement on companies to market food that is safe. Another is that we learn a great deal from 

EPA and from APHIS and from others about what is going on in 

28 

this area, which is another incentive for people also to come to us. 

And finally, we think that growers are going to be reluctant to use 

seeds where there isn’t a no-questions letter from us because if, at 

the end of that growing season, they have a crop that turns out to 

be either unlawful or unmarketable because questions have arisen, 

better to start with a product that has been through the consultation process. So we think there are lots of drivers that make the 

voluntary process one that people do subscribe to, at least people 

who are intending to commercialize. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, you say that you—the FDA hasn’t required 

the genetically-engineered label because they don’t believe the information is material. Does the FDA have the authority under the 

Act to change its assessment that information is not material? Do 

you think you have the authority to do that? 

Mr. LANDA. Yes, certainly in a given case. And let me also say, 

the policy I have been describing and we have been discussing, it 

has been in place for roughly 20 years, but we have been asked to 

change it. We have before us several citizen petitions asking to 

change our view on the law with respect to materiality, and asking 

us to change our view with respect, in some cases I think, to the 

facts. And we are considering those petitions. We haven’t responded yet, but we certainly have the authority to change a position as long as the change is appropriately grounded in the science 

and interpretation of the law. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the vice chairman of the full committee, Mrs. 

Blackburn, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Landa, thank you so much for your time. I have to tell you, 

I find this an absolutely fascinating debate, and am so appreciative 

that you would take the time and the FDA would take the time to 

talk with us on it. 

I grew up in south Mississippi with a grandmother who, when 

she went to college at the turn of the century, the 19th century, 

chose to audit agriculture classes. So then buying a farm and with 

her savings from being a teacher, and married, she has five boys 

from—and then my mother, five more boys. Big farm. During the 

Depression, she helps feed our hometown. So being someone who 

enjoys growing things, as I was, and very active in 4H club, which 

I was, and going on to be a part of a crop judging team, I learned 

to appreciate what goes into having good-looking food, because we 

eat with our eyes. I also grew to appreciate yield per acre, that I 

would learn from my grandmother, and having foods that would be 

more drought-resistant, that would take less chemicals, that would 

take less pesticides, things of that nature, and the importance of 

that so that you had a good-looking and good-tasting food product 

that did not, as readily and easily, spoil. 

So I come to this debate from that background, and today even 

in my district, I visited a lot of the farmers’ markets, and every 

once in a while someone will come up and talk about geneticallyengineered food or genetically-modified food, and I enjoy asking 

them what that means to them. And I have found it so fascinating 

29 

that it means something different to nearly everyone that I talk to, 

because we don’t have that federal standard, if you will. And I hope 

that you all at the FDA are going to be able to work with us on 

this. Basically, everything we eat is genetically-modified, whether 

it is corn or wheat or any variety of tomatoes, which were mentioned earlier, it all has been genetically modified. If you want to 

go back and eat original wheat or barley, it is not going to give you 

very much of a yield, and it is not going to be the desirable product 

that you are looking for today. So we have to realize that as a part 

of this debate. 

So moving forward, let us go back to Mr. Pallone’s question on 

the labeling. I would love to hear from you what you all at the 

FDA, what your team thinks should be conveyed in those labels to 

the consumer, what should be there about health, about safety, and 

about nutritional content of those products? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, the statute tells us as a general matter that 

labeling is not to be false or misleading. That is sort of the basic 

proposition. And since then, there have been many changes to the 

law, including NLEA, which has directed us to write the nutrition 

facts label or nutrition facts panel, which has information about 

macronutrients and micronutrients. And, in fact, we are in the 

process now of updating that label. We proposed earlier this year 

to do that, and we are reviewing comments on it. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And when do you anticipate having those recommendations? 

Mr. LANDA. I would certainly hope that the Agency could issue 

final rules updating nutrition facts by 2016. It is a complicated— 

it is called informal rulemaking, which is less difficult than formal 

rulemaking, but it is still a—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Very resource-intensive process. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I am about to run out of time. I want to get 

to a couple of other things. I am certain you all go through reams 

of information on analyzing data on the GE foods, and I wonder 

how often do your FDA analysts go back in and request additional 

information when you have a submission? 

Mr. LANDA. I don’t know. I can’t answer that, but we will get 

that information for you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Does the FDA distinguish foods based on 

the method of breeding or the material composition of the food? 

Mr. LANDA. Not for labeling purposes, unless there is a material 

fact. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Are you satisfied that your agency is capable of understanding genetic engineering and determining whether 

or not a plant is safe? 

Mr. LANDA. Yes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

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

Waxman, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Landa, in many of the articles on GE foods, people claim 

that the science is unsettled, controversial or new, with the impliVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Sep 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-186 CHRIS
30 

cation that there may be unknown risks and, therefore, consumers 

are justified in being uneasy with GE foods. And yet from your testimony, we get a different impression. However, while you point 

out that genetic engineering is just one of many techniques used 

in plant breeding, I don’t think FDA has a consultation process for 

any of the others. 

How new is the science behind GE foods, and what are the risks 

from them, and if genetic engineering is not especially risky, why 

do you encourage companies to go through your consultation process prior to marketing foods from GE plants? 

Mr. LANDA. I think it is largely that there certainly is some possibility, for example, of a material difference. I think we identified 

one with a product where there wasn’t a safety issue, but there was 

a difference in how the food performed in the consumer’s hands. I 

think it had to do with friability. And we have completed over 100 

consultations. There have been a handful that have not gone to 

completion where we were asked to stop the review, or the submitter withdrew. I think in general, the process, which has been 

in place for some time, was one that enabled us to learn and also 

to build confidence, and we would hope to transmit some confidence 

in this technology. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Is this a new area of science? 

Mr. LANDA. No. Certainly, it is decades old. 

Mr. WAXMAN. As you know, many consumers believe they have 

a right to know whether a food was manufactured using genetically-engineered ingredients, irrespective of all the science in the 

world showing them to be no different from non-GE ingredients. I 

would like to understand more about such a requirement and how 

it would fit in with FDA’s traditional stance toward labeling requirements if Congress were to respond to this consumer demand 

and pass a law requiring the label—labeling of genetically-engineered foods. 

How would mandatory labeling of genetically-engineered foods 

compare with existing labeling requirements, such as to reveal the 

presence of allergens in a food, or that a food has been irradiated? 

Would FDA be concerned about a new law that requires the labeling of GE foods, and if so, why? 

Mr. LANDA. There isn’t any administration position on such legislation. It would be obviously new for us. We would implement it 

as best we could. I suppose the question it would raise would be 

what is sort of the limiting principle. If what animates this is right 

to know, the question then becomes what is it that people do not 

have a right to know on the food label, and I am not sure how one 

answers that question. 

Mr. WAXMAN. There are just some foods that are irradiated. Why 

would anybody irradiate their food? Why would a manufacturer 

want to irradiate food? 

Mr. LANDA. For safety reasons. 

Mr. WAXMAN. To keep the food from spoiling? 

Mr. LANDA. Spices. Spices are irradiated, for example. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Now, is there any harm from that? Any—— 

Mr. LANDA. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Consequences that are problematic? 

Mr. LANDA. No. 

31 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yet, we require labeling. Why do we require labeling on foods that have been irradiated? 

Mr. LANDA. It has been thought that irradiation could as a process change some properties of the food and so that was the thinking behind that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But there is no evidence of that? 

Mr. LANDA. I would have to go look at what we said at the time 

we issued the labeling requirement. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Now, why is this any different? You don’t think 

there is a problem. You said there may be a problem but you don’t 

know of a problem. What is the difference between informing people that their spices have been irradiated if they want to know that 

information, even though you don’t think it is particularly helpful 

for them to know it? 

Mr. LANDA. I think at the time with irradiation, we thought that 

there was a possibility of a change in characteristics of the food 

which people would not know about. We do not think that is the 

case with genetic engineering. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you think we should remove the labels from irradiated foods? 

Mr. LANDA. The Agency has issued a proposal to do that. It has 

not finalized that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. I—a question I have is, I understand 

the state debate, but does—do you know of any state that has the 

capability to do the research and the findings to the same standard 

as the FDA? 

Mr. LANDA. I don’t, but I wouldn’t have any reason to know that 

one way or another. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. I can tell you I am from a big state of Illinois, 

and we can’t do it. There may be one—maybe—well, maybe California has some capability, but my guess is smaller states, they 

don’t have nearly the ability to do the research that you all do. And 

I think that is part of this whole should states be able to have their 

own labeling restrictions and requirements because, as we have 

found, it is really based upon emotion and not based upon a scientific evaluation. 

Let me ask about—do you distinguish foods based upon the 

method of breeding, or the material composition of the food? 

Mr. LANDA. We don’t require labeling based on method of production alone. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Why not? 

Mr. LANDA. Because we have found that it is not material to 

safety or nutritional composition. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and I appreciate that. Let me—in the case of 

sugar, right, we—sugar processors require to label whether refined 

table sugar comes from—I am—I guess the questions is, are sugar 

processors required to label whether refined table sugar comes 

from a certain species or plant? 

Mr. LANDA. I am sorry, I don’t—— 

32 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So if you have—are we—you don’t require fine 

table sugar to label whether it comes from sugar beets or from 

cane. 

Mr. LANDA. No. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Why? 

Mr. LANDA. Again, I think it is a question of materiality, to safety or nutrition. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So if we were—would the consumers be any— 

would they get any benefit if that labeling requirement for fine 

table sugar also had a requirement, well, this is beet-produced fine 

table sugar or sugar cane fine table sugar. 

Mr. LANDA. Again, what we focus on is the attribute of the food 

as the consumer would—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And—— 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Would eat it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. For the genetically-engineered ingredients in foods today, is there any evidence that they vary in their 

objective characteristics in any meaningful or uniform way? 

Mr. LANDA. No, not as a class. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Can you explain why FDA’s regulatory focus is on 

the food or food product as opposed to the process in which it was 

grown? 

Mr. LANDA. Because, of course, in the end, it is the food that we 

eat. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. Yes, and I appreciate—I think you are going 

to keep getting the same questions from members here on trying 

to understand—you are Food and Drug Administration, you all 

come before us on a lot of different aspects. You are our trusted advisors. We respect the job that you do. I know this is a very difficult and emotional debate for some folks on both sides because it 

deals with some individual consumers, it deals with the agricultural community that many of us represent. We have to have an 

impartial, you know, observer based upon health and safety effects 

to the consuming public. We appreciate the work you do. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Landa, for your appearance here with us today, and your testimony. 

I understand that FDA’s position that under the Food, Drug and 

Cosmetic Act, the breeding methods by which a plant was developed is not material information about food from that plant. However, in their testimony, Mr. Faber and Representative Webb point 

out that many consumers do believe that foods labeled as natural— 

in quotes, ‘‘natural’’, are not genetically engineered, and sometimes 

buy such foods because of that belief. They also say that many such 

foods do contain GE ingredients. 

I can understand FDA’s reluctance to wade into the argument as 

to what constitutes natural, but if many consumers believe that the 

term natural implies non-GE, and are making purchasing choices 

based on that belief, shouldn’t the use of that term on a food label 

be considered a representation that the food is, in fact, non-GE? I 

33 

know that is kind of a packed question, and I am going to continue 

just for a little bit more to give you plenty to deal with. This is my 

only question, actually. And if so, wouldn’t the use of the term natural on a food containing GE ingredients be, as the statute says, 

failing to reveal facts and material in light of such representation 

if it does not state that it contains GE ingredients? Gets convoluted. In other words, and this is the question, even though the 

use of genetic engineering may not be material information, per se, 

doesn’t it become material information in those circumstances in 

which the rest of the labeling of the GE food implies that the food 

does not contain GE ingredients? 

If you can sort that out, kudos to you, but this is the topic I wish 

to hear from you. And take your time because for the next few minutes. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. There is a short answer to this, which 

is that we have pending several citizen petitions related to the 

question of what is natural, including one going to the very question I think you are getting at which is, is the food that contains 

a genetically-engineered ingredient, or ingredient derived from a 

genetically-engineered plant, a food that may properly be labeled 

as natural. There is a big debate about that. We have been petitioned to say yes. I am sure we have been petitioned to say no. We 

have been petitioned to establish a definition for natural, and we 

are considering those petitions. That is really all I can say at the 

moment. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Is there any—can you shed any light on this topic 

for the sake of our constituents as to where you are going in your— 

I mean I agree, it is very confusing. 

Mr. LAND. One possibility, and we have not committed to this, 

but to take you back a little bit, the Agency embarked on an effort 

to define natural years ago. That did not result in a codified definition. It resulted in a statement and a preamble that natural can’t 

be either added or synthetic, I think was the language. We have 

been asked on many occasions to develop a definition. I personally 

have been asked on many occasions. I have always said that we 

really don’t have the resources to do that. 

We now have petitions before us. I think if we decide to reconsider this issue, it will necessarily have to be a public process. 

Whether we would embark on rulemaking, which has to be a public 

process, or guidance, there will be some public process if we decide 

to revisit this. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, I actually applaud that. I think the public is 

already engaged, I believe that, and would be welcoming—this is 

my opinion now, but from what my constituents are telling me, 

that they are already engaged, and a signal from FDA that—maybe 

you don’t have black-and-white kind of answers to give, that you 

are seriously considering this, and maybe that we can carry on this 

kind of conversation throughout the country. It appears to me the 

consumers are clearly confused by the current labeling system. I 

mean we can perhaps all agree on that; it is complicated today. 

And they are making purchasing decisions based on, sometimes I 

believe, misleading or unclear labeling. And I am not blaming, necessarily, here, but it leads to a state of confusion. And I hope that 

you can find the resources in FDA to take a broader look at what 

34 

is happening with respect to consumers’ experiences so that they 

can have confidence in this system that we have and work with you 

to strengthen the labeling system to reduce the kind of confusion 

that we are talking about. 

With that, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. LANDA. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentlelady, and now recognizes the 

gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OK, I eat a fair number of odd foods, and a number of those are 

labeled non-GMO. Is there a distinction between genetically modified and genetically engineered? 

Mr. LANDA. I think as a technical matter, GMO refers to an organism, as opposed to genetic engineering which we think of as having to do with sort of modern biotechnology. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. In that regard, one of the concerns that I 

have, and I want to know if it is a concern for you, is that I come 

from a family where just about half of us have some kind of food 

allergy. If you are changing proteins around and you have things 

that are, for the general public, generally recognized as safe, are 

you able in what you all do to be able to distinguish if a protein 

that someone may be allergic to has been added to a product which 

they may not know that protein has just been included? 

Mr. LANDA. That is part of the evaluation process, and if there 

were to be an addition that might prompt an allergic reaction that 

one would not expect, we would require a label disclosure. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So you would pick out those things which people 

arehighly allergic to, or which there is a significant percentage of 

folks that have a problem with, and you say, OK, you can’t put the 

strawberry ingredient into this tea? 

Mr. LANDA. Or we would require disclosure. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Or disclosure. 

Mr. LANDA. Most likely would be the—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I apologize if I missed this in one of your earlier answers, are you all looking at the possibility of—for those people who may be concerned, saying or labeling a product as something that is, in fact, as opposed to saying it is genetically engineered or genetically modified in some way, having those companies that want to, obviously you pay more for it, but have some 

process where they can actually say we have used all products that 

are not genetically engineered or modified? 

Mr. LANDA. We have had draft guidance since about 2001 on voluntary labeling. So there isn’t any prohibition on a voluntary label 

that your food does not contain—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. GE ingredients. So the basic requirement is that statement not be false or misleading. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. And I appreciate that. You indicated earlier 

that it was pretty much a consensus that this was not something 

that was dangerous, if I understood your testimony correctly, and 

yet I know there are a number of countries around the world that 

have concerns about products, and sometimes will ban our exports 

if they think that there has been some crosspollination or something. Can you explain why they are concerned? 

35 

Mr. LANDA. I think different countries have different regulatory 

systems. There are obviously different cultures with different attitudes towards different aspects of foods, from production to consumption to preparation and everything else. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Other than culture, have any of those countries 

had studies that indicated there was some danger to the general 

human—— 

Mr. LANDA. Not to my knowledge, no. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I appreciate that. And I think you said 

earlier you are looking at finalizing some guidance by 2016? 

Mr. LANDA. The nutrition facts? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LANDA. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. And I am going to switch just briefly, because I have a little bit of time left, into a different subject but it 

is tangentially related, and that is, what do you do about the grocery stores that are fixing food and selling things, and they have 

to do nutrition facts, and then you get into the whole allergens and 

then the GE or GMO foods? How do you deal with all of that as 

a part for grocery stores that fix the food—— 

Mr. LANDA. The processed food is subject to nutrition facts. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Right. 

Mr. LANDA. What we have called restaurant-type food made and 

sold in a grocery store is now subject, or will be when it becomes 

effective, to menu labeling requirements. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I will just tell you, I think that even though I am 

concerned about it, and I might not eat the food if I didn’t know 

what was in it, I am not sure how a grocery store is going to be 

able to comply with that when they may be using all kinds of different ingredients, and somebody walks up and says can I have X, 

Y or Z, it may be easier for—like a McDonald’s where they have 

certain ingredients and every one of them has a label, a grocery 

store may not have that capability. 

Mr. LANDA. Well, we are talking about standard menu items. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Standard menu items, so if it is some kind of specialty item they would have an exemption? 

Mr. LANDA. Right. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Again, the requirement is 20 or more establishments, a restaurant and similar retail establishments is the 

language in the statute, and it is standard menu items. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right, I appreciate that. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman, Mr. Butterfield, 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just remark on the statement made by Mrs. Blackburn 

a few minutes ago about this being a fascinating debate. Mr. Chairman, this is certainly a fascinating debate by any measure. 

In my former life, I served as a trial judge down in North Carolina, and every day for 15 years I had to look at the evidence and 

had to decide the facts. That was my job description, and I did it 

for 15 years. And I have tried to do that in this debate. And I have 

36 

read large amounts of well-informed publications over the last several months, and I for one, I am just convinced that GE plants are 

as safe as any other foods. 

But, Mr. Landa, I need to interpose this question to you. Do you 

have any evidence that foods derived from GE plants are as safe 

as other foods? I have heard you mention it throughout your testimony, but is there any scintilla of evidence that would suggest that 

these foods are unsafe? 

Mr. LAND. I I heard you correctly. Is there any evidence that 

suggeswant to make surets that these foods are unsafe? 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes. Yes. That GE foods are unsafe. 

Mr. LANDA. Not to our knowledge, no. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. And how long does your agency, and 

how large is the division that handles this task? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, the office that handles that task has maybe 

135 or 140 people, but those people also handle a variety of tasks 

related to food additives, generally recognized as safe substances. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. But these are not politicians, these are career 

employees at your agency? 

Mr. LANDA. Correct. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes. Have you encountered anyone, anyone 

who advocates a 50-state approach to mandatory labeling? 

Mr. LANDA. I am not sure I—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. You have talked to a lot of people, both formally and informally, about this, and—— 

Mr. LANDA. Anyone who advocates—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Who advocates a—— 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. That we have 50 separate—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Fifty separate sets—— 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Sets of requirements? 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD [continuing]. Of regulations, plus the District 

of Columbia. 

Mr. LANDA. I have not. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I happen to find it to be—— 

Mr. LANDA. I don’t know that I have a reason to encounter such 

a person, but no. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. It seems to me illogical and irrational and I 

am wrong from time to time, but I don’t see how that would ever 

work, even in California. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, 5 

minutes for questions. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am trying to sort out the science here. I have lots of passionate 

constituents who are very concerned about GE products. I have experts that we will hear on the next panel who have great scientific 

credentials themselves, who will argue about consumer information 

being provided about GE products. 

I want to follow up on another word. Mrs. Capps was talking 

about natural, I want to ask you about material difference. And 

you said that the FDA could change its view that GE status of food 

is not material, which it is—that is the position right now, there 

is no material difference, and that the Agency is evaluating citiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Sep 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-186 CHRIS
37 

zens’ petitions that report to do that. So can you elaborate on why 

the FDA has not believed this is a material difference, and have 

the courts said anything about it, what kind of different information might change your mind? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, we haven’t found any differences in relation to 

safety or nutritional composition. Again, considering these foods as 

a class, any differences in safety or nutritional composition, or any 

other attribute of the food. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Can I ask you one thing? What about food allergies? Since we are putting in a—into the DNA something from 

perhaps a peanut into something else. 

Mr. LANDA. In that case we would require disclosure. That would 

be material. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And would that prevent, in this consultation 

process, from that particular formulation going to market? 

Mr. LANDA. No. What would happen is there would be a disclosure of the allergic potential of the food. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I see. 

Mr. LANDA. That would be a material fact. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK, and a seed that—I know Mr. Pitts said 

you can use less pesticide. That is sometimes true, although the 

FDA has just approved use of a seed that would make it more tolerant of a lot more pesticide. Does the FDA have any concerns 

about that? 

Mr. LANDA. I am not familiar with that matter, I am sorry. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. 2.4–D and Glyphosate. Anyway, OK. So in material, meaning even in the peanut issue, then a disclosure would 

be required because of safety? 

Mr. LANDA. Typically, with respect to allergens, yes. First of all, 

there is a 2004 statute that requires disclosure of what we call the 

big eight allergens, but if you were to find another allergen, typically, we would require disclosure of it rather than ban the food. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And who does the research? I have to tell you, 

my constituents who are against GMOs will say Monsanto, DuPont, and can we really trust these companies that benefit so 

much? 

Mr. LANDA. The data that are supplied to us are supplied by the 

companies doing the consulting, and sometimes they will do the 

studies, sometimes they will pay to have the studies done. I will 

say that is true across all FDA-regulated products. FDA does research, but it does not do research on the scale that would be required to support voluntary submissions, much less marketing applications. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask one more question. Does the Food 

and Drug Administration have the authority to implement a mandatory premarket approval process of any food to ensure that it is 

safe for consumers? 

Mr. LANDA. We proposed a number of years ago a mandatory notification program for the types of products we have been talking 

about this morning. That proposed rule is still in existence. We 

have not found the need to finalize it, given what we think is how 

well the voluntary program works, but that proposal necessarily 

maintained that we had the authority to establish a mandatory 

program. 

38 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield back. I can put some more questions 

in writing. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Just for clarification, when you say it requires disclosure, does 

that mean on a label? 

Mr. LANDA. On a label. I am sorry, yes. Thank you for that question. Yes. 

Mr. PITTS. Yes. OK. Thank you. 

Gentleman, Mr. Matheson, is recognized 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Landa, I appreciate you coming here today. 

You just said this with Mr. Butterfield, but I just want to be 

clear, from the FDA perspective to date, you have found no scientific evidence that there is a health and safety issue with genetically-engineered foods? 

Mr. LANDA. That is correct. 

Mr. MATHESON. OK. I appreciate that. If there is this consumer 

demand for wanting to know, if there is a producer of a non-GMO 

food in the organic industry, they can label their product as such 

that it is non-GMO, is that correct? 

Mr. LANDA. So long as the labeling is not false or misleading, 

that is correct. 

Mr. MATHESON. So if the marketplace wants this, there is a private sector opportunity for the organic food industry to provide that 

information to consumers if they so choose? 

Mr. LANDA. That is correct. 

Mr. MATHESON. Does the FDA have any regulatory authority 

over that type of labeling? 

Mr. LANDA. It is the general authority that labeling must not be 

false or misleading. 

Mr. MATHESON. How long has the FDA been involved in managing food labeling? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, the false or misleading provision dates from either 1906 or 1938. 

Mr. MATHESON. Long time. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. I am not sure which. 

Mr. MATHESON. We will stipulate it is a long time. And how is 

the FDA’s role in terms of, if I am in the food industry, and there 

are a lot of different people in it, how does the FDA’s role give signals to the food industry for how they do labeling? They look to you 

for guidance, they look to you for consistency, is that correct? 

Mr. LAND. Correct. They look to the statute, they look to regulations we issue, they look to guidance we issue, and they certainly, 

when they have particular questions, companies will call our experts in labeling. 

Mr. MATHESON. So how do your guidances work? How do you 

come up with those labeling guidances and how do they work? 

Mr. LANDA. Typically, on a significant issue, we would issue 

what is called a draft guidance. We would call for comment on it. 

We would analyze the comments we receive, and issue it in final, 

with or without changes, or perhaps decide not to issue it at all, 

or to reissue it with substantial changes and calling for more comment. 

39 

Mr. MATHESON. And the food industry relies on that. That is 

where they get their direction for how they do labeling is from your 

guidances? 

Mr. LANDA. First the statute, then the regulations—— 

Mr. MATHESON. Got you. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. And then guidance, yes. 

Mr. MATHESON. How do food manufacturers—I want to address 

this issue about a national system versus a 50-state patchwork system. How do food manufacturers, from the big guys to the little 

guys, how do they benefit from a national system? 

Mr. LANDA. There is a benefit to uniformity, but I think the answer is that they are in a better position to tell you how much of 

a benefit that is to them than I am. 

Mr. MATHESON. How do consumers benefit from a national system compared to 50 different sets of rules around our country? 

Mr. LANDA. You see the same labeling for the same product—— 

Mr. MATHESON. There you go. People do cross state lines, don’t 

they? 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Wherever you purchase it. 

Mr. MATHESON. Yes. Yes. Funny how that works. I go 2,000 

miles every week back and forth. Yes, so I think that I would suggest, not to answer for you, that you are going to confuse consumers if you have 50 different standards. That would be my suggestion. 

Let me ask you a question. How do you in the FDA resolve a situation if a product is mislabeled? What do you do if some manufacturer mislabels a product? 

Mr. LANDA. Typically, we might call the manufacturer, we might 

issue what is called a warning letter—— 

Mr. MATHESON. Yes. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Depending on how serious we thought 

the infraction was. If the label were not corrected, ultimately we 

can, through the United States Department of Justice, seize the 

product that is misbranded because of a misleading label—— 

Mr. MATHESON. Right, so you have just—— 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. And we can enjoin further distribution. 

Mr. MATHESON. You have just defined, as the regulator in this 

industry for food labeling, you have just defined you have the tools 

in the toolbox you have to address situations or mislabeled, that is 

what I would suggest. 

There have been claims by some consumer groups that the FDA 

is too closely aligned with the industry and it can’t be trusted. How 

would you respond to that criticism? 

Mr. LANDA. I have been at FDA for almost 30 years. I work with 

people who have been there much longer, by the way. I believe, and 

my colleagues believe, that we are civil servants, that we are engaged in an honorable professional and an honorable activity. It 

does not mean we get every decision right any more than anyone 

on the planet gets every decision right, but we try to make decisions to the best of our ability based on what the science tells us, 

and based on the law and the regulations and sound policy. 

Mr. MATHESON. Well, Mr. Landa, I appreciate that answer, and 

I thank you for your civil service. I think there are a lot of folks 

40 

in the agencies who are trying to do the right thing, and appreciate 

your forthrightness in these questions today. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 5 minutes 

for questions. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Pallone for having the hearing today, and our witness for being 

here. 

Ensuring the safety of my constituents has always continued to 

be the top priority as a member of Congress, and I hope that your 

testimony today, we can come to a greater understanding of the 

vital role that bioengineering plays in our food supply and the 

economy. 

Mr. Landa, thank you for taking your time to be here, and like 

my colleagues, we appreciate your 30 years of service to the FDA. 

I find this issue, as heated as it is, often leads to passionate claims, 

and I hope your years of experience at FDA can shed some light 

on the science of genetically modified organisms, and the safety 

process behind their approval. 

How many new plants are reviewed by the FDA each year, and 

how much time does it take to conduct those reviews? 

Mr. LANDA. We will have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Mr. LANDA. The number of completed reviews is about now, I 

think, 103. I think in five cases submissions were withdrawn or 

people asked us to cease the review. We will get back to you on—— 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Yearly figures and average times. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Do you believe changing from the voluntary reviews to mandatory reviews would change the number of reviews 

performed by the FDA each year? 

Mr. LANDA. I don’t know, but I don’t see why it would. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. A coordinated frame work was developed by the 

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to leverage 

the regulatory safety expertise present in the Federal Government 

agencies like the FDA. In the 30 years that the Agency has been 

part of this, are you satisfied that your agency is capable of understanding genetic engineering and determining whether or not a 

plant is safe? 

Mr. LANDA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you feel the FDA has the staff and capabilities 

to be the voice of authority when it comes to GMO safety? 

Mr. LANDA. In connection with foods in my center, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Food safety. Do you feel that the coordinated frame 

work requires adequate safeguards for consumer health and safety, 

and gives companies the regulatory certainty they need to develop 

new products? 

Mr. LANDA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Has a GMO plant been deemed unsafe in the past 

voluntary review process? 

Mr. LANDA. I am sorry, I didn’t—— 

Mr. GREEN. Has a GMO plant been deemed unsafe in the past 

voluntary review processes? 

41 

Mr. LANDA. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Was a safety issue due—if it did, and it hasn’t 

been, but is it due to the genetic engineering or is other factors 

that you look for when you are inspecting them? 

Mr. LANDA. Again, I am not aware of any consultation that has 

resulted in a finding of lack of safety. The ones we have completed, 

we obviously have concluded we don’t have any questions. There 

were a handful that did not go to completion. They were either 

withdrawn or we were asked to stop the review, and I simply don’t 

know the details of the reasons. 

Mr. GREEN. What happens when you are asked to stop the review? 

Mr. LANDA. We stop the review and the products do not go to 

market. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. So by just stopping your review, they don’t go 

to market, OK. So effectively, you are doing what a regulator is 

supposed to do. 

Was the frame work rooted in congressional enactments like the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Federal Meat Inspection 

Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and do 

you feel that these statutes all, to some extent, preempt state requirements? 

Mr. LANDA. It varies enormously across statutes. I simply can’t 

answer that question. 

Mr. GREEN. And have each of these statutes, including the one 

from 1906, been instrumental in consumer protection? 

Mr. LANDA. I can speak to the Food and Drug Act. I think the 

answer to the question is yes. It dates from 1906, was amended in 

1938. Multiple, multiple times since then. I think in order to protect and promote the public health. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you have any suggestions on how we might look 

at some of these Acts and make your job more effective? You can 

get back to us if you want because I know—because that is our job 

is, if you don’t have—— 

Mr. LANDA. We are certainly happy to—— 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. The tools to do it—— 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Provide technical assistance whenever 

you ask us to do that. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Landa. This is kind of a random question, just 

picking up on your allergy discussion. Presumably, I mean now you 

were suggesting that most ingredients, to which there is an allergy 

of any significance, you require that that be disclosed, right? 

Mr. LANDA. Congress required it in 2004. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK, but FDA would determine at some point that 

if the number of people affected by that ingredient, in terms of an 

allergy, reached a certain percentage of the population or something, then it would flip into a banning of the ingredient? Like sort 

of where is that line? Just—— 

42 

Mr. LANDA. No, it is not banning, it is a disclosure requirement. 

Disclosure in the labeling, as the chairman was reminding me earlier, so that if we were to conclude that a food ingredient that is 

not on the list in the 2004 statute, that—met a certain threshold, 

and I can’t answer what that threshold is in terms of percentage 

of population, we would require a disclosure of it on the label. 

Mr. SARBANES. So you are talking about meeting a certain 

threshold in terms of requiring disclosure. I am asking you whether 

there is a threshold that one might meet that would suggest 

that—— 

Mr. LANDA. That we would ban it? 

Mr. SARBANES [continuing]. You just ban it. I mean if 95 percent 

of the population is allergic to a certain ingredient—— 

Mr. LANDA. Of course. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. 

Mr. LANDA. Let me give you an example. The oldest adulteration 

provision in the law says, among other things, if a food bears or 

contains a substance that renders the food ordinarily injurious to 

health, the food is adulterated. And if it is adulterated, it is prohibited from interstate commerce. So sure, of course, if there was an 

ingredient that caused illness in 90 percent of the population, people who ate the food containing the ingredient, we would ban the 

ingredient. 

Mr. SARBANES. All right. 

Mr. LANDA. I am sorry. I thought you were sort of—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Right. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Trying to get at the disclosure question. 

Mr. SARBANES. I got you. So let me switch. I am curious about 

when the industry has to go change labels in response to, say, some 

consultation exercise where everybody realizes that that is the 

right thing to do, or something more prescriptive that you require—well, first of all, is it the case that these labels get created 

and they are sort of static for extended periods of time, or in your 

experience, is labeling constantly being revised and updated, both 

with respect to content potentially, but also just in terms of the 

form of it, the way it looks on packaging and all of this? 

Mr. LANDA. I really don’t know. 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

Mr. LANDA. I am just not familiar enough with industry practice—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Can you—— 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. To answer that question. 

Mr. SARBANES. In your 30 years, when was the last time that you 

can remember that something the FDA did, or some realization 

that the food industry came to, resulted in a significant, across-theboard change in labeling? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, the one that comes immediately to mind is nutrition facts—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Which is a regulation that the heart of 

which is now I guess about 20 years old. We required disclosure of 

trans fat, 8, 9—— 

Mr. SARBANES. So that was pretty significant. 

43 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Eight, 9, 10 years ago, as I mentioned 

earlier—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. With the revising of nutrition facts. 

Mr. SARBANES. So if you revise what is required in the nutrition 

fact panel in this rulemaking period between now and 2016, or 

whatever it was and you decide there are some additional things 

that ought to be in there, then that would cut across the entire food 

industry in a significant way in terms of revising its labels, right? 

Mr. LANDA. Correct. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes gentleman, Mr. Pompeo, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Landa, for being here today. Thanks for your 30 

years of service. I understand you are closer to the end of your 

service than the beginning at this point, and—— 

Mr. LANDA. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. And thank you for your good work. 

Thanks for your testimony this morning too. It has been interesting 

to watch. I think lots of folks watching this hearing this morning 

have been surprised by the certainty you are expressing around the 

science. You used the word initially that there is a consensus. I 

thought I would try and parse into that just a little bit more. 

So when you—I have heard consensus, and that can be 70/30 or 

80/20 or 90/10, where—tell me how much science there is that 

would refute your position with respect to the materiality of genetically engineered foods being safe. 

Mr. LANDA. We do not believe, again, as a class that there is any 

question about safety, based on the reviews we have done. 

Mr. POMPEO. And that would include just—go ahead. 

Mr. LANDA. There are obviously people, scientists, who differ 

with that point of view. I don’t know how many of them there are. 

Mr. POMPEO. But it is a tiny fraction. 

Mr. LANDA. It certainly is. 

Mr. POMPEO. And not folks that the FDA, at least, gives significant credit to, certainly enough that you would change your view 

with respect to the safety of this food. You all have been very decisive. 

Mr. LANDA. To date, we have seen nothing to change the view 

that we have had for a number of years now. 

Mr. POMPEO. And that would include—there were questions 

about what other countries have done—— 

Mr. LANDA. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. And how their regulatory practice 

would include studies performed all across the world as well. 

Mr. LANDA. That is correct. 

Mr. POMPEO. I have heard some of my colleagues talk about a 

patchwork of 50 sets of rules and what that might do. Just so we 

are all clear, it wouldn’t just be 50 sets of rules, it is potentially 

thousands of sets of rules; cities, counties, townships, neighborhood 

associations. One—the mind reels with respect to folks who might 

want to confirm their theory of a right to know through some sort 

44 

of statutory or municipal rule. Tell me what you think that complexity would do the safety of the food supply chain. 

Mr. LANDA. I don’t know that it would have an effect on safety. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right the confusion consumers—we were talking 

about this, Mr. Matheson, he said he had to go 2,000 miles. You 

might only have to go 2 miles to pass into a city that had a different set of rules. I think there would be massive confusion, and 

the impact that that would have on consumers’ ability to understand what they were consuming would be pretty significant. 

Mr. LANDA. I suppose it could be. My point was that the underlying safety of the food would not be—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Wouldn’t change. Absolutely. 

You have talked a bit about your premarket consultation process. 

Today you said that most of the folks are—entering this into commercial service have provided that for you. You said you have gone 

through 100. A few have been withdrawn. I want to make sure, no 

one has run through the stop sign today where FDA has said, hey, 

we have a question or a concern, and they have said, good for you, 

we still want to introduce this product to the marketplace. 

Mr. LANDA. That is correct. 

Mr. POMPEO. No one has run through the stop sign. It is—— 

Mr. LANDA. That is correct. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Not your expectation that anyone ever 

would because it would be very difficult for a commercialized food 

product to have run through an FDA letter that says, hey, we think 

we have a health or safety issue. 

Mr. LANDA. That is our view, yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. You talked about petitions for—and actually, we 

are going to give you another one if I get this Bill passed into law, 

this law contains a provision which would require the FDA, within 

24 months, to propose a regulation with respect to natural. I agree 

with some of my colleagues, frankly, on both sides of the aisle that 

I think we ought to clear that up so that consumers have a good 

idea what that really means. I understand the difficulty of that 

task and why you all have not come to fruition on that yet, but 

know that if we are successful in getting this particular Bill 

passed, you will get to be successful in your endeavor as well. 

So there have been proposals in some cities and some states 

about labeling for genetically-engineered products. Have any of 

those folks come to you or to the FDA to ask for your wisdom about 

what that label ought to look like, or about the safety or science 

behind genetically-engineered foods? 

Mr. LANDA. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. POMPEO. So to the best of your knowledge, none of the states 

have come to you to say, hey, what do you—what does the FDA 

think about this? 

Mr. LANDA. Not that I am aware of. It is certainly conceivable 

that someone from—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Sure. 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. A state would have come somewhere in 

the agency, but not that I am aware of. 

Mr. POMPEO. And I guess my last question is, this Bill proposes 

that we would make the review process at FDA mandatory as opposed to voluntary. Assuming that we provide the resources to the 

45 

FDA, such that they can handle all of the requests for review, do 

you think that is an improvement, that is, do you think it is the 

case that each of these products ought to be submitted for FDA review before commercialization? 

Mr. LANDA. Yes, and we think that is happening now. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

That concludes the questions of the members who are present. I 

am sure we will have follow-up questions, other questions from 

members. We will submit those to you in writing. We ask that you 

please respond promptly. Thank you very much for coming this 

morning. 

We are going to take, while the staff sets up the second panel, 

a 3-minute recess. The subcommittee is in recess. 

[Recess] 

Mr. PITTS. The subcommittee will come to order. We will ask our 

guests to please take their seats, and I will introduce the second 

panel at this time. 

First of all, Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam, Cooperative Extension 

Specialist in Animal Genomics and Biotechnology, Department of 

Animal Science, from the University of California Davis. Secondly, 

Mr. Scott Faber, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for 

the Environmental Working Group. Representative Kate Webb, Assistant Majority Leader in the Vermont House of Representatives. 

Ms. Stacey Forshee, the Fifth District Director of the Kansas Farm 

Bureau. And finally, Mr. Tom Dempsey, President and CEO of the 

Snack Food Association. 

Thank you all for coming. We appreciate your patience. You will 

each have 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. Your written 

testimony will be made a part of the record. 

So, Dr. Van Eenennaam, I think is the way you pronounce your 

name, right? I am sorry for the mispronunciation. We will start 

with you. You are recognized for 5 minutes for your summary. 

STATEMENTS OF ALISON VAN EENENNAAM, PH.D., COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SPECIALIST, ANIMAL GENOMICS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS; SCOTT FABER, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL 

WORKING GROUP; REPRESENTATIVE KATE WEBB, ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER, VERMONT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STACEY FORSHEE, FIFTH DISTRICT DIRECTOR, KANSAS FARM BUREAU; AND TOM DEMPSEY, PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, SNACK FOOD ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF ALISON VAN EENENNAAM, PH.D. 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. All right. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

and members of the subcommittee. My name is Alison Van 

Eenennaam, and I am a biotechnology and genomics cooperative 

extension specialist at the University of California in Davis, and I 

appreciate the opportunity to speak on this topic here today. 

I work in the public sector as a scientist performing research and 

education on biotechnology, and one of the reasons I am testifying 

46 

here today is that I was the taskforce chair and the lead author 

of the CAST Issue Paper number 54, entitled, The Potential Impacts and—of Mandatory Labeling for Genetically-Engineered Food 

in the United States, that was released in April of this year, and 

it is included as an attachment to this testimony. And it basically 

explores the scientific, legal and economic aspects of requiring food 

labeling in the United States, based on the use of a breeding method, that is, genetic engineering, rather than on some specific attribute of the food product itself. And it also looks at the implications of state versus national labeling laws, and the potential economic impacts, and so I think it is very germane to today’s discussion. 

As a scientist speaking here today, I do want to clarify that GE 

food, commonly, but less precisely, referred to as genetically-modified food, is food derived from crops produced using a breeding 

method, based on the movement of useful genes from one species 

into another using recombinant DNA technology. This method is 

used routinely in medicine, and many pharmaceuticals such as insulin and food processing aids, such as renin used in cheese production, have been made by GE microbes. 

Although most commercialized crops that have been developed 

using GE thus far have been made to resist insects or herbicides, 

this breeding method can be used for many purposes. And public 

sector scientists in Hawaii and New York, for example, use GE to 

produce a virus-resistant papaya, a papaya that virtually saved the 

Hawaiian papaya industry. Other introductions include droughttolerant corn, virus-resistant squash, and consumer traits like a 

non-browning apple, a low-acrylamide potato, and crops that 

produce improved oils for nutrition. 

Land grant university researches in California, Florida, and 

Texas are working to use genetic engineering to develop oranges 

that are resistant to Citrus Greening Disease, something that is 

devastating the Florida orange industry, and grape varieties that 

are resistant to Pierce’s Disease. 

In New York, researchers are using a wheat gene to develop an 

American chestnut tree that is resistant to the imported chestnut 

blight. These disease-resistant GE applications focus on controlling 

disease with genetics rather than with chemicals, and importantly, 

they don’t involve the use of chemical pesticides, an issue that 

often gets conflated with GE as a breeding method. 

In 2013, genetically-engineered crops were cultivated worldwide 

by 18 million farmers, and in the United States, GE varieties were 

planted on 95 percent of sugar beet acreage, 93 percent of soy, and 

over 90 percent of both cotton and corn acreage. 

What has been the impact of this widespread adoption? As a scientist, I look to the peer reviewed independent literature, especially 

meta-analyses and review articles that present a summary of many 

independent studies. In 2014, German university professors published a comprehensive analysis of 147 studies that have assessed 

the impact of the adoption of genetically-engineered crops. They 

found the benefits were significant and, in summary, on average, 

GE technology adoption reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent, and increased farmer 

47 

profits by 68 percent. This would explain their widespread adoption 

by farmers globally. 

As a result of this widespread use in American agriculture, many 

food products in the United States include ingredients that might 

be from corn oil or sugar that have been derived from GE crop varieties. And it has been said before, it has been estimated 70 to 80 

percent of processed foods likely contain such ingredients. 

Importantly, many highly-processed ingredients, such as sugar 

and oil, contain no detectable traces of DNA or protein, and hence, 

there is no way to test these refined products to determine their 

genetic origin; meaning, labeling of these products would require 

entire supply chain tracking and segregation to keep track of the 

products derived from genetically-engineered crops, a very expensive and complicated proposition. 

There is a broad scientific consensus about the safety of food produced from GE crop varieties, and solid data to support that consensus. A 2013 review article, written by independent Italian public sector scientists, reviewed over 1,700 safety records of GE crop 

safety published this past decade, and concluded that the scientific 

research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards 

directly connected with the use of GE crops. 

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the 

world’s largest and most prestigious scientific society, stated in 

2012 the science is quite clear; crop improvement by the modern 

molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. The World Health 

Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National 

Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other 

major scientific body and regulatory agency in the world that has 

examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion. 

To date, no material differences in composition or safety of commercialized crops developed using GE has been identified that 

would justify a label based on the use of GE as a breeding method 

in the development of that crop variety. While this conclusion will 

not satisfy those who consider the insertion or manipulation of 

genes in a laboratory a material difference, per se, the science of 

food safety does not support mandatory process-based labeling of 

GE food and, by extension, is not required by the Food and Drug 

Administration. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here this morning, and 

I would be pleased to take questions from the subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Van Eenennaam follows:] 

48 


94347.018
49 


94347.019
50 


94347.020
51 


94347.021
52 


94347.022
53 


94347.023
54 


94347.024
55 


94347.066
56 


94347.067
57 


94347.068
58 


94347.069
59 


94347.070
60 


94347.071
61 


94347.072
62 


94347.073
63 


94347.074
64 


94347.075
65 


94347.076
66 


94347.077
67 


94347.078
68 


94347.079
69 


94347.080
70 


94347.081
71 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Now recognize Mr. Faber 5 minutes for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT FABER 

Mr. FABER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Pallone, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. First, let me thank you for the tremendous 

work you and your staff performed on the Sunscreen Innovation 

Act. We greatly appreciate your work on that important piece of 

legislation. And let me thank you for dedicating your time to this 

important issue. As you can tell, people are incredibly passionate 

about their food. 

Consumers simply want the right to know what is in their food 

and how it is produced. More than 90 percent of consumers, regardless of age, gender, income, or even party affiliation, routinely tell 

pollsters that they want—simply want the right to know what is 

in their food. But this isn’t simply a question of right to know. It 

is also a question of consumer confusion. As Mrs. Capps mentioned 

earlier, misleading claims like natural claims have led to significant consumer confusion. Roughly 60 percent of consumers, when 

buying a package with a natural claim, believe that all natural 

foods are GMO-free. And we believe that a factual, informative, 

nonjudgmental disclosure on the back of the package would help 

address this confusion. 

Now, let me be very, very clear. We are not seeking a warning 

of any kind; we are simply seeking a factual, nonjudgmental disclosure on the back of the package, and we are confident, as Mr. 

Pallone suggested earlier, that food companies, farmers, FDA, consumer groups can work together to craft a disclosure that provides 

consumers basic information without rendering a judgment on the 

technology. 

And fortunately, FDA has the authority to require such a disclosure, and as Mr. Waxman alluded to earlier, has used this authority in the past. And that is fortunate because we would greatly, 

greatly prefer a national GMO labeling solution. But in the absence 

of leadership from FDA, we believe that states should and can act 

or require a mandatory disclosure. Congress has long recognized a 

role for the states, a leading role for the states, in food labeling, 

and that is why the NLEA was carefully crafted to not preempt 

state labeling laws, such as the GMO disclosure laws that have 

been passed by states like Vermont. 

Now, you have certainly heard arguments made today, and will 

hear more arguments made by this panel, that GMO labeling will 

increase food prices, but you don’t have to work for the Grocery 

Manufacturers Association or work for the food industry to know 

that food companies change their labels all the time to highlight 

new claims or new innovations. 

You will also hear today that GMO labeling will create costly 

new farm and food—the need for costly new farm and food segregation systems, but those systems have been in place for decades, to 

address allergens and to meet growing demand for non-GMO and 

organic choices, all the way from the farm to the elevator, to the 

processor, to the retailer. In fact, the snack food industry has 

72 

launched more non-GMO project offerings in the last decade than 

any other segment of the food industry. 

You will also hear—and also have heard, and will hear again, 

that we need GMO crops to feed the world. First, let me say, no 

one, no one is seeking a ban on GMO crops, and let me point out 

also that many farm groups, including the National Farmers 

Union, support mandatory GMO labeling. But it is also worth noting that we have run the experiment for the last 20 years, and so 

far yields of conventional crops have kept pace with yields of GE 

crops. 

Now, I agree with testimony you will hear from Ms. Forshee that 

farmers should have choices, but so should consumers. We need a 

national GMO labeling system that works for farmers, that works 

for food companies, but that also works for consumers. Unfortunately, H.R. 4432 does not provide a national mandatory labeling 

system. In fact, H.R. 4432 narrows FDA’s ability to work with us, 

to work with farmers, to work with the food industry to craft such 

a system. It fails to restrict the misleading natural claims that 

have fueled so much consumer confusion, and it preempts state 

laws that are ultimately designed to protect consumers from this 

confusion. 

Mr. Chairman, people simply want to know what is in their food, 

they want to be able to make choices for their families, and I hope 

that you will work with us to give consumers the right to know 

whether or not their food contains genetically-modified food ingredients. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faber follows:] 

73 


94347.025
74 


94347.026
75 


94347.027
76 


94347.028
77 


94347.029
78 


94347.030
79 


94347.031
80 


94347.032
81 


94347.033
82 


94347.034
83 


94347.035
84 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize Representative Webb 5 minutes for opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF KATE WEBB 

Ms. WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee. My name is 

Kate Webb. I am a Representative and Assistant Majority Leader 

from the good state of Vermont, and I was the lead sponsor on Act 

120, a law that simply gives consumers the right to know if the 

food they purchase in Vermont is genetically engineered. The law 

is at risk should H.R. 4322 become law. Because Vermont is involved in litigation regarding this very issue, I want to be clear 

that I am not a lawyer, not a scientist, and not here as a representative of my state or my government. I am here as a Vermont citizen to tell you of the importance of this right to the citizens of my 

state, and other states whose citizens seek this simple request for 

transparency. 

Vermont’s Act 120, an act relating to the labeling of foods produced with genetic engineering, was signed into law this May to 

great fanfare and celebration on our State House steps. This Bill 

grew from grassroot efforts of tens of thousands of Vermonters 

seeking to have a right to make an informed choice about the food 

they purchase. This desire was not limited to a handful of 

Vermonters. Survey upon survey has shown that more than 75 percent of Vermonters were in favor of such labeling. 

I personally became involved in this legislation in 2012, and over 

the next 3 years, we developed draft legislation to gain the fundamental right to know how our food is produced; drafts that traveled 

through six legislative committees who received testimony from 

over 100 people, including scientists, lawyers, academics, consumers, manufacturers, and food producers on both sides of the 

issue. Act 120, in its final form, is the result of many hours, weeks 

and years of work, and it passed the Senate, I want you to hear 

this, the Senate on a vote of 28 to 2. It passed the House on a vote 

of 114 to 30. These are large numbers. 

Why is it that Vermont wants this right? It is about transparency and truth in labeling. Even though the World Health Organization defines genetically-modified food as foods derived from 

organisms whose genetic material has been modified in a way that 

does not occur naturally. And Monsanto defines genetically-engineered organisms as plants or animals that have had their genetic 

makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs. However, many genetically-engineered products continue to carry the 

word natural, or variations of this word, on their labels. I believe 

this is misleading, and Act 120 would prohibit the use of this term 

for products produced or partially produced with genetic engineering. 

Because GE is a relatively new and evolving science, consumers 

concerned about unintentional environmental and health effects 

want the right to exercise this precaution. 

And finally, we heard testimony that without labeling, members 

of many religious communities could not tell if products they purchased violated their faith’s dietary prohibitions. There is nothing 

in our law that restricts anyone from producing or selling genetiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Sep 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-186 CHRIS
85 

cally-engineered products. There is nothing in our law that says 

that it is good or bad. Business and farming will go on as business 

and farming does. 

One of the great strengths of a capitalist democracy is not only 

do we cast a vote at the polls, we also do by—so by selecting the 

products we purchase. Transparency allows us to see how things 

work, be it government, financial institutions or the food we eat. 

This transparency allows us to make informed decisions, and ultimately build trust. 

States have historically, and continue today, to lead the way on 

food labeling. Forty-one states regulated the use of sell-by and useby data on—dates on food labels. Before Congress mandated our 

current federal county of origin—country of origin label, which also 

doesn’t state whether it is good or bad, nor does our Bill, these requirements existed in Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, who required labeling disclosure about the source and production of catfish. And many states regulate the labeling of cottage foods. I believe Tennessee and Mississippi do this. And many states are already regulating the labeling of bottled water before the FDA set 

standards of identity. 

While the USDA and AMS issue voluntary grading standards for 

some agricultural products, many states also issue these grading 

labels. Vermont’s legislature did so with maple syrup this year. 

Mr. Chairman, our state is already involved in litigation with the 

Grocery Manufacturers Association, among others, and if this will 

help to answer if Vermont and any other state has the constitutional right to label. 

I urge you to defeat H.R. 4432 and promote federal labeling. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Webb follows:] 

86 


94347.036
87 


94347.037
88 


94347.038
89 


94347.039
90 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Ms. Forshee, you are recognized 5 minutes for your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF STACEY FORSHEE 

Ms. FORSHEE. Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Pallone, and 

all the other committee members, it is an honor and privilege to 

sit in front of you today. My name is Stacey Forshee. My husband, 

David, and I are fifth generations to farm in Cloud County, Kansas, in north central Kansas. We live in—near the small community of Delphos, and just to put it in perspective, I am 20 miles 

away from my nearest grocery store. 

I am a member of the Cloud County Farm Bureau Association. 

I serve on the Board of Directors for Kansas Farm Bureau for a 

10-county area. I am also a part of the Cloud County Community 

College Ag Advisory Board, CloudCorp Board of Directors, and I 

also sit on my Concordia High School Booster Club Board. But my 

most important job is as wife of my husband, David, for 24 years, 

who I farm right alongside, as well as my—our children, Kendra, 

Lauren and Wyatt. But raising our children on our farm hasn’t always exactly been easy, but we are very proud of what we have accomplished. 

Today, we farm approximately 2,000 acres that we grow corn, 

soybeans, alfalfa, wheat and other feed crops for our cattle. We operate a feed cow calf operation that has about 700 cows, that my 

husband is home finishing calving for me right now, but the majority of them will calf in the spring. 

We also operate a small feed lot that enables us to feed our own 

cattle, and actually, much of what we grow, sometimes we are able 

to feed them. We also custom feed other producers’ cattle. We have 

a custom hay-grinding operation where we grind area cattlemen’s 

hay for them, and we also buy and sell quality alfalfa and we have 

supplied dairies and feedlots throughout Kansas. 

But first, and most importantly, I am a mom and I am a consumer, and a farmer, so I would never want my children to eat 

anything, or anybody else’s children to consume something that 

was bad for them, that was unsafe. And as a farmer, my family 

would never want anything to enter the food supply that we raised 

or that we grew that would be proven to be unsafe. And there has 

been, very many—all the credible studies have shown that genetically-modified ingredients and products are safe. 

On our farm, we use this biotechnology to be able to conserve 

moisture. We also have found that by using this technology, up to 

40 percent we can save on fuel, on fertilizer and on pesticides. We 

have seen that drop over the last 24 years. We also are stewards 

of the land. The environment is very important to us, so the less 

we use of all of these things are very important, and we owe that 

to biotechnology. 

Labeling a safe product, to me as a consumer, just does not make 

any sense. So I just feel that this, making a mandatory label is 

going to mislead consumers into thinking that it is unsafe, which 

we have heard today that that is wrong. 

With the future projections of our growing world, farmers and 

ranchers around the world are going to have to double their food 

91 

production to meet those growing demands, and on my farm, biotechnology is a way that we feel like we can make this happen. 

On our farm, we also have the ability to store more than 20,000 

bushels of grain. So when we harvest our crops, we store that grain 

in different bins. Due to crop insurance regulations, there are certain things that we need to abide by, but we can store all one kind 

of grain in one bin. And the same is true for my local elevators and 

all our rural communities. For us, we do this so that we can market that crop later, or feed it to our livestock, but it would cost billions of dollars in infrastructure and new technology to be able to 

just absolutely trace a biological trait from my farm to the consumer’s table. 

As a mother and a farmer, I urge Congress to pass this H.R. 

4432, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. For me to be able 

to continue to farm like I do, and to meet the growing future’s 

needs, I really urge you to do this. 

And I really thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Forshee follows:] 

92 


94347.040
93 


94347.041
94 


94347.042
95 


94347.043
96 


94347.044
97 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentlelady, and now recognizes Mr. 

Dempsey 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF TOM DEMPSEY 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Thank you. First, I would like to thank the subcommittee, Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Pallone, for holding this hearing to provide a balanced review of one of the most 

critical issues facing the food industry today, the labeling of genetically-modified organisms, or GMOs. 

My name is Tom Dempsey. I have served as the President and 

Chief Executive Officer of the Snack Food Association, the SFA, 

since 2013. Prior to joining SFA, I was the President of one of the 

largest privately owned snack food brands in the United States. 

Today at SFA, I represent over 400 companies who produce 

snacks ranging from potato chips to granola bars. My members include both billion dollar, multi-category companies, and small, family-owned businesses in the second and third generation of management. More than half of SFA members have sales of less than $100 

million a year, and many are the primary employers in their community. 

While voters have rejected ballot initiatives calling for mandatory GMO labeling in 4 states, the state of Vermont recently approved the Nation’s first mandatory labeling law. Mandatory GMO 

labeling at the state level would impact nearly every aspect of my 

members’ business, upping costs by requiring increased product inventory, added complexity for packaging and distribution processes, 

and extensive new regulatory and training requirements. 

Absent a federal solution, manufacturers will have essentially 

three options to comply with a state GMO: redesign their packaging, reformulate products so that no labeling is required, or halt 

sales to that state. Each option is difficult, costly, time-intensive, 

and at worst, could eliminate jobs and consumer choice in the marketplace. Smaller companies may not have these options at all. A 

patchwork of GMO labeling laws would pose significant burdens on 

the manufacturing process itself. They would require separate storage for GMO and non-GMO products throughout the entire supply 

chain, beginning with the farmer, and extending through various 

states of production and distribution. Aside from new administrative and recordkeeping burdens, snack makers will be forced to 

clean and boil the sheeting, baking, frying, and seasoning lines between GMO and non-GMO production to ensure there is no contamination. This could take up to 2 hours, and would lead into a 

loss in valuable production time. Duplicative food labeling for the 

same stock keeping unit, or SKU, assigned to each product line is 

also a problem. Film, which is our industry’s term for snack packaging, would need to be changed mid-production, and 2 separate inventories of the same finished product must be kept. Significant 

lead times and costs would go into bag changes. The cost in plate 

charges, new film, administrative oversight could be more than 

$750,000 for 800 SKUs, and the process could take 20 to 26 weeks. 

GMO and non-GMO products must continue to be segregated 

from the factory to the grocery store, resulting in increased distribution costs and heightened opportunity for mistakes. 

98 

To be clear, the hardest hit by this will be the one plant operators with a single line of production. These costs could put familyowned businesses out of business, thereby increasing consolidation 

in the industry. While it is sometimes assumed that companies 

could remove the GMO ingredients from their products, this is unrealistic because the availability of non-GMO crops is limited. Over 

80 percent, although I heard today 90 percent, of the corn, cotton, 

and soybean crops in the United States are produced with biotechnology, all products which are staple items in the snack production. Our members will not have the opportunity to increase 

their contract with farmers or mills for non-GMO corn for a minimum of 2 years. Transitioning to GMO-free production will not 

happen overnight. 

Some manufacturers may choose to end distribution in states 

that require GMO labeling, resulting in fewer product options for 

consumers, and causing a ripple effect in the grocery industry. 

Even if manufacturers notify grocers of their intent to stop selling 

in a state, manufacturers could run the risk of being fined if retailers do not comply or if mistakes happen in the distribution process. 

Fewer players in the aisle could mean less incentive to keep quality 

high and prices low. Fewer products could disproportionately cause 

job losses for some in the distribution chain. Ultimately, a patchwork of state GMO laws will hit consumers the hardest, and would 

result in either increased costs at the grocery store, or less availability of products in their stores. 

In addition, it is important to note that consumers already have 

options to purchase non-GMO foods, and these options continue to 

expand. For over a decade, both the USDA’s natural organic program and the independent non-GMO project have certified foods 

that are organic and GMO-free respectively. The process to gain 

these certification seals is not only rigorous but expensive. Many 

SFA members have already made the significant investment to display these voluntary labels. Forcing companies to re-label more 

than 80 percent of the products does nothing but add cost, confusion and may limit choices to consumers. 

SFA does not have a single member company that manufactures, 

distributes, and sells in just one state, which makes state labeling 

law incredibly complex. Multiply these challenges by 5, 10, or even 

25 states, and an insurmountable burden is placed on the supply 

chain. SFA supports the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, 

which eliminates the proposed patchwork of state laws by creating 

one federal GMO standard, and provides much-needed consistency 

for manufacturers and consumers alike. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dempsey follows:] 

99 


94347.045
100 


94347.046
101 


94347.047
102 


94347.048
103 


94347.049
104 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks all of our witnesses for your testimony. 

I will begin the questioning. Recognize myself 5 minutes for that 

purpose. 

Dr. Van Eenennaam, is there currently a lack of consensus about 

the validity of research and science behind the safety of foods and 

ingredients derived from genetically-engineered crops? 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. Well, as I stated in my testimony, there 

is clear consensus among all of the leading scientific organizations 

throughout the world, and the meta-analysis of over 1,700 studies, 

about 1⁄3 of which are done by the public sector that do not have 

any industry funding, somewhere in that vicinity, have all come to 

the same conclusion that there are no unique risks posed by the 

use of this particular breeding method in the production of genetically-engineered crops. 

Consensus doesn’t mean unanimity, so there are scientists that 

you will hear that say that that is not true, but to your question 

earlier, it is as strong of a consensus, it is probably stronger than 

on global warming, it is 99 to 1, or something in that vicinity. And 

I think if you get consensus of all of the major scientific societies 

in the world, then that is a pretty strong consensus. 

Mr. PITTS. The first generation of biotechnology products has 

brought tremendous benefits to farmers, as we have heard. What 

do you see as the potential for a consumer facing benefits of the 

next generation of biotechnology products? 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. So certainly, and I might argue the consumer has had some benefit from the first generation also because 

of the decreased insecticide use associated with Bt crops, for example, has knock on benefits for the environment and the consumer, 

and also costs. But there are direct benefit traits being developed 

for consumers. For example, altered nutritional profiles of crops for 

improved human health, and particularly in developing nations, 

there are efforts to bio-fortify crops to improve the nutritional profile of staple crops of the world’s poor to improve their nutrition. 

And so there is a huge interest amongst public sector scientists and 

also public-private partnerships to try to use this technology to improve foodstuffs and improve the nutritional composition of crops 

for both developed and developing countries. 

Mr. PITTS. As a scientist, could you put in laymen’s terms, you 

said this requires use of less pesticides. How does that occur, how 

do they make that occur? 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. Well, for example, the insect-protected 

crops have a protein in them that basically targets Lepidoptera caterpillars so that when they eat the crop, they perish, but it is safe 

for humans. And so it basically enables farmers not to have to put 

insecticide on that crop. And so, for example, especially in the developing world, there has been a dramatic production in insecticides, over 1⁄2—they have doubled—decreased their insecticide use 

by over 1⁄2, and they have doubled their yields as a result of protecting the crops from the insects, and not having to use more dangerous insecticides to protect those crops. And so it is kind of 

breeding the crop to be protected from insects and, therefore, you 

can decrease your insecticide use. 

And even in the U.S., it has decreased the use of insecticides on 

Bt corn over tenfold since the adoption of this technology. 

105 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Mr. Faber, how would you describe or define natural? 

Mr. FABER. Yes, that is a great question, Mr. Chairman. I think 

commonsense definition of natural for an ordinary consumer would 

not include genetically-modified ingredients. In fact, one of the 

major providers of the technology, Monsanto, itself does not define 

biotech traits to be something that should be described by natural. 

And I think you are getting it right at the heart of the matter, 

which is that consumers go to the store, they see an all-natural or 

natural disclosure, and roughly 60 percent, depending on its study, 

58 percent, 64 percent in others, believe that that food is GMOfree. 

What is important here is that we want consumers to be using 

their buying power to shape their lives and the world around them. 

If they are confused about what they are buying, they are not able 

to use their buying power to really make good, informed choices. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Representative Webb, when would your law become effective? Is 

it effective now? 

Ms. WEBB. We are involved in rulemaking now. Rules should be 

out July 2015 and in effect July 2016. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. Ms. Forshee or Mr. Dempsey, how would 

this labeling requirement affect your snack food companies if they 

did not wish to comply? 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Well, as I said, there are three options. They can 

reformulate, they could label, or they could cease sales within 

Vermont. And I think each individual company is going to have to 

make that decision based upon the number of businesses and SKUs 

that have to be relabeled. 

Mr. PITTS. And finally, Ms. Forshee, has biotechnology impacted 

the way you farm, say, in the past decade? 

Ms. FORSHEE. Well, I would say that we are able—with that kind 

of technology, we are able to use a practice of no-till which allows 

us to conserve moisture and not spray the crops nearly as much 

as—I mean there is a whole notion of—that farmers just dump pesticides and herbicides on their crops, but we don’t. It is very costly 

to do that kind of an application, spray any kind of an application, 

and so we are very—what I want to say, we use GPS to do that 

so that there is just the right amount put on the crop and no more. 

And so the less we can do that, the more it is going to help our 

bottom dollar too for yield. So we have seen higher yields as well 

on our farm in the last 24 years—— 

Mr. PITTS. And with—— 

Ms. FORSHEE [continuing]. As a result of that. 

Mr. PITTS. With no-till, less run-off—water run-off? 

Ms. FORSHEE. That is correct. And also though the biotechnology 

traits in our crops, it all comes together as one. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. My time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Faber and Representative Webb, you both believe that industry should be required to label all foods that contain GE ingredients, and you both also characterize such labeling requirements as 

106 

a modest disclosure or a simple request. And, Mr. Faber, you also 

state that food companies frequently change their labels to make 

new claims or to highlight new innovations. And I think an accurate summary of your position on this is that it simply is not a big 

deal for companies who use GE ingredients to label their products 

as such. Now, Mr. Dempsey, on the other hand, makes the argument that mandatory labeling for GE foods would dramatically increase the cost of the food because it would require manufacturers 

to segregate the food or use multiple labeling films, a number of 

things. 

I guess in my view, on the one hand, if it is truly not that burdensome for industry to label their food, then why shouldn’t they 

be required to do so. On the other hand, if the labeling requirement 

could result in higher food costs, maybe that is not a risk that we 

want to take. 

So let me just ask you these questions in light of that. First, Mr. 

Faber or Representative Webb, can you elaborate on why you believe a mandatory labeling requirement is simple for industry, and 

how do you respond to the assertion by Mr. Dempsey and others 

in industry that complying with that requirement would be an 

elaborate and expensive prospect? Briefly if you can—— 

Mr. FABER. Right. 

Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. Because I want to ask him a question 

too. 

Mr. FABER. Absolutely. So very briefly, so we have heard reference from Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Butterfield to this $500 cost associated with food labeling. That study assumes two things, and one 

thing in particular is that disclosure would ultimately equal disparagement, that consumers would see a disclosure, they would stop 

eating food made with genetically-modified food ingredients, and 

that would cause costly supply change disruptions or force consumers to buy organic. What we know about how consumers use 

labels is they tend to look for certain attributes. You may look for 

fiber, I may look for calories. We tend not to read the whole package. We use that information to make particular decisions about 

our food choices. So the notion that American consumers are going 

to broadly reject foods with a modest, nonjudgmental disclosure I 

think is unfounded. We know that in part because we have labeling 

in 64 other countries, including countries like Brazil, where there 

has been a disclosure for—since 2001, and consumers more or less 

eat the way they have for the last 13 years. So I think we can all 

be confident that if we craft the disclosure in the right way, to your 

earlier point, Mr. Pallone, that we can give consumers information 

without rendering a judgment that ultimately leads to significant 

changes in buying behavior. 

The other thing I will just quickly say again is that companies 

are already finding ways to make both non-GMO and GMO foods. 

We have segregation throughout the supply chain. We preserve 

identity of these grains throughout the supply chain, in part because the marketing needs, but also because of quality and allergen 

needs. So there is already an infrastructure in place that allows us 

to segregate non-GMO and GMO, and other kinds of grains and 

oils. 

107 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. I am going to go to Mr. Dempsey now 

because I want you to respond to those claims and specifically respond to the assertion that food companies are changing their labels so they can easily do this. What do you—how do you respond 

to what—— 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Well—— 

Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. Mr. Faber was saying? 

Mr. DEMPSEY [continuing]. Certainly, food companies change 

their labels but not on a wholesale banner, and do all of them all 

at the same time. So you run into a big situation of X number of 

SKUs that have to be done all at the same time to comply with a 

law that goes into effect in 2016. Small businesses would be hit 

very hard because of that. They have historically been ones who 

change their labels very seldomly. And in central Pennsylvania, I 

can probably think of five or six companies that are using the same 

graphics, same bags that they have had for many years; the only 

changes, those being mandated by the FDA. So I think the real 

burden comes on the small family-owned, small operators who have 

SKUs that are genetically modified and have to label them, and 

rather than using what the market has now, and that is the option 

of a non-GMO or GMO-free certification, to notify and give consumers transparency, which gives the manufacturer the option of 

doing it. 

Mr. FABER. Can I add just one quick thing? 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, maybe I will ask Representative Webb, we 

have 40 seconds—— 

Ms. WEBB. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. If you want to say something. 

Ms. WEBB. I would say that we are in rulemaking process now. 

We have manufacturers that are weighing in on how that label will 

be written. We are hoping that our labeling will be something that 

other states can use. The standards between Maine, Connecticut 

and Vermont, the legislation is similar. We are also a small state. 

We have 630,000 people in our entire state. People already drive 

to New Hampshire to avoid the sales tax, so if the industry chooses 

not to sell in Vermont, I am sure that we can get our Doritos over 

the state lines. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

Mr. FABER. And I would like just to add, that not only do companies change their packaging all the time, the average lifespan of a 

label is about a year, we ask companies to change their disclosures. 

We ask them to change them for trans fat, we ask them to change 

them for allergen labeling, and we are about to ask them to change 

their labels as part of a refresh of the nutrition facts panel. So 

there are periods in the history of labeling where we ask companies 

to disclose a little bit more about what is in the food. This is the 

perfect time, since we are in the midst of an NFP rulemaking, to 

think about how can we make this disclosure in a way that is 

nonjudgmental. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, 5 minutes for questions. 

108 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, and I would have to say that from listening 

to the testimony today, that I am convinced we have to have a national policy. And we can argue, Representative Webb, about what 

that policy ought to be, and, Mr. Faber, we can argue about what 

that policy ought to be but I think it needs to be national. It may 

be relatively easy for Vermonters to cross the stateliness to get 

their Doritos, but I would have to submit that in parts of my district, and I represent the southwestern portion of Virginia, the Allegheny Highlands of Virginia, and Southside Virginia. It is a large 

district, it may be larger than Vermont, certainly has more people 

in it, but there are parts of that where, if you wanted to go and 

get some other product, you would have to drive several hours. 

There are other parts where you just walk across the street, and 

so if you had a grocer on one side of the street, and you looked at 

the labeling in that state and on Tennessee on State Street, and 

you said, I don’t know about this genetic engineering, and you walk 

across the street, it might be the very same product but it might 

not have that label on in Virginia. So I am convinced we have to 

have a national label. 

And just a few miles up the road from State Street, where you 

literally are on the main street of the town, and you are one state 

on one side and in another state on the other side of the street, is 

probably one of your members, Mr. Dempsey, Shearer Foods has a 

potato chip facility there and they obviously ship to a number of 

states from that Bristol, Virginia, plant. 

Mr. DEMPSEY. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And so that concerns me that they would have to 

have different labels for all the states that they operate in, but I 

am particular concerned about if we don’t have a national policy, 

concerned that the consumer gets confused into what is it I am 

buying. Well, if I buy it in Virginia, it is a different product than 

what I am buying in Tennessee. I don’t know whether you have 

any towns like that in Vermont that straddle the state line, but I 

have a number of them. Bristol, Virginia/Tennessee, Bluefield, Virginia/West Virginia, the Martinsville area has towns if you didn’t 

know where you were, you would be out of Henry County and into 

North Carolina in a heartbeat traveling down 220. And so I think 

we have to be very, very concerned about that, and I do think it 

is important. 

And then the other thing is your rulemaking process, I know 

your Attorney General is in charge of that, but what experience 

does Vermont have, Representative Webb, in food labeling? I mean 

is this something that they have done before in some kind of a 

large way, and what are they doing in that process to try to label 

these foods? 

Ms. WEBB. Well, as I previously stated, we did make some 

changes to our maple syrup labeling. 

Mr. PITTS. Can you poke your—— 

Ms. WEBB. I am not on? 

Mr. PITTS. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. You did say that about maple syrup, and 

what was the difference? I just assumed it was a parochial difference. 

109 

Ms. WEBB. Our labeling had been grade A, grade B. We chose to 

go with the standards that they are using in Quebec because they 

are a larger producer than our brave little state. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And grade A, grade B, what do they use in Quebec? 

Ms. WEBB. Goodness. I am not—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Because I have to tell you the truth—— 

Ms. WEBB. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. My wife disagrees with me—— 

Ms. WEBB. Total difference. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. I can’t tell the difference between A 

and B—— 

Ms. WEBB. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. So I always buy B because it is cheaper. 

Ms. WEBB. Yes. I like B too. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. But what is the Quebec standard so I will 

know what I am looking at when I go to—— 

Ms. WEBB. I—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. The store? 

Ms. WEBB. I would have to look it up. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. You would have to look it up. All right, I appreciate that. That was—— 

Ms. WEBB. We just recently—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. That was not fair to ask you today anyway—— 

Ms. WEBB. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. I apologize. I do think it is complicated, and I would ask folks who are here today, or who are 

watching at home, if you have suggestions on how you might make 

some reasonable changes to Mr. Pompeo’s Bill, he may or may not 

accept them, but I would ask that you submit those to the committee so that we can take a look at those changes because I am 

convinced we have to have a national standard. And I would like 

to know, if I am buying something that is labeled natural, and I 

do that on a fairly regular basis, I would like to know that there 

is something standard about it, and so I would like to see us move 

in that direction as well. 

Mr. FABER. And, Mr. Griffith, we would be thrilled to work with 

you and with our colleagues in the food industry, and to craft a national disclosure that is mandatory, that works for the consumer, 

but that also works for food manufacturers who have to operate in 

50 states, I think if people of goodwill could find a way to develop 

a disclosure that is truly nonjudgmental, and I would welcome the 

opportunity to do that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, and I appreciate that. I will tell you that in 

thinking about this over the years, as you may have heard earlier, 

I do read labels fairly carefully—— 

Mr. FABER. Yes, I know. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. And I am convinced now that genetically-modified or genetically-engineered foods are so prevalent that 

we probably need to go the other way, and for those of us that may 

want to purchase something, that the labeling requirement ought 

to be on those who can certify that their food, in fact, does not have 

this product in it, as opposed to the reverse. 

110 

Mr. FABER. That is right. And you and I may agree or disagree 

about whether or not there are more herbicides or fewer herbicides, 

or—I think the bottom line here is that consumers want to be able 

to make those choices themselves. And it ultimately boils down not 

just to an issue of transparency, but an issue of trust. If we give 

parents, consumers the basic information, we should trust them to 

do their homework and make those choices for themselves. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate that. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up and yield 

back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to our 

witnesses, thank you for being at this hearing and your testimony. 

I think we are finding ourselves in general agreement that a 

good federal standard for GE labeling is preferable to a confusing 

patchwork of state labeling rules, which it appears that we have 

today, but there still is disagreement about what exactly that 

standard should be. I want to be clear, I don’t believe this is even 

a debate about whether or not GE foods are safe, it is a debate 

about whether or not consumers have the right to know what is in 

their food, and I think I am just echoing what some of you just 

have said. I firmly believe that consumers do have the right to 

make informed decisions about the food they eat, and I believe we 

pretty much all agree on this point. 

Just to get it on the record, however, what about now a simple 

yes or no question so we can get this on the record. And I will start 

with Dr. Van Eenennaam, and right down the line, yes or no, do 

you think consumers should have the right to know what is in their 

food? 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. I can’t give you a yes-or-no answer to that. 

Mrs. CAPPS. You can’t say yes or no? 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. No, because I don’t think the labeling is 

about what is in the food, it is about the process used to make the 

food, and that is a really subtle difference. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I hear you. 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. So sugar from genetically-engineered 

sugar beet is the same as sugar from non-genetically-engineered 

sugar cane sugar. 

Mrs. CAPPS. All right, I wanted to go faster than that, but we 

will give you—— 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. Well, I mean because I think we are not 

discussing about a label of what is in the food—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. But—— 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM [continuing]. We are talking about a label 

of how it was produced. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, I think that could be under the umbrella, but 

that, yes, we do need to do this and we also need to talk about how 

to do it and what should be in it. But I will just go right along. 

Mr. FABER. Yes, of course consumers should have the right to 

know what is in their food. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. 

Ms. WEBB. Absolutely. 

111 

Ms. FORSHEE. Yes. 

Mr. DEMPSEY. It depends on how easy it is to give them the right 

to know. I think that is a too simple—a yes/no is too simple of a 

response. 

Mrs. CAPPS. All right, I got an answer. Unfortunately, consumers 

currently do not have access to all the information they are looking 

for when it comes to GE foods, and consumers are often further 

confused, confused enough by not knowing what is in it, and then 

confused by what the information that they find on the packaging. 

So I will now zero in on you, Mr. Faber. Why do you think there 

is currently so much consumer confusion when it comes to GE labels? 

Mr. FABER. Well, consumers have been deluged with misleading 

claims for many, many years, especially claims like natural. They 

perceive those claims, natural, all-natural, to mean something that 

they don’t. They perceive those claims to mean GMO-free, and they 

are using their buying power in a way that they think is improving 

the world around them, when it is actually not. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And it is not. So you agree that the current voluntary system is not working? 

Mr. FABER. And the voluntary system isn’t serving consumers 

and codifying the voluntary system as H.R. 4432 would just continue to create more and more consumer confusion. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That was my next question, so I can just let you underscore it again. One of the arguments in favor of H.R. 4432 is 

that it will reduce this confusion. You disagree? 

Mr. FABER. We strongly disagree. I think if we lived in a world 

where consumers perfectly understood what natural, non-GMO, organic and other claims meant, then a voluntary system might 

make sense, but we don’t live in that world. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. 

Mr. FABER. We live in a world where consumers are extraordinarily confused about what they are buying at the point of sale. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, I think we would also agree that this is certainly a complicated topic, and any labeling system must be implemented carefully and in close consultation with the industry, actually with all the stakeholders, but the current system, I believe and 

I think there is some agreement here, is not working for consumers. So I am concerned that the bill we have before us, I guess 

I agree with you, Mr. Faber, that it just largely codifies the inadequate rules that we now have. 

But I have 50 seconds left to ask you, and you agree that consumers are making decisions with their wallets, and they choose to 

avoid GE products, not because of food safety concerns, I want to 

bring up and let you respond to, but because of their environmental 

impact as well. So that is a further aspect, at least for many of my 

constituents. What are some of the environmental concerns that 

consumers are now having with the GE crops? 

Mr. FABER. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Capps. There are many 

reasons that people want the right to know what is in their food. 

One is that the widespread adoption of GE corn and GE soybeans 

in the U.S. has increased the amount of herbicides that we use, 

and as those herbicides have become less effective due to weed reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Sep 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-186 CHRIS
112 

sistance, has forced farmers to turn to even more toxic herbicides 

like 2.4–D—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. I got you. 

Mr. FABER [continuing]. Mentioned by Ms. Schakowsky earlier. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And so, again, you think consumers should be able 

to take this kind of information into account as well when making 

food choices? 

Mr. FABER. Consumers overwhelmingly tell you, tell us, tell consumer attitudes experts, they simply want to have that information 

so they can make those choices for themselves. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it so very 

much, and thank you for holding this hearing. 

I have a couple of questions. Dr. Eenennaam, can you describe 

the current issue with Citrus Greening, affecting orange trees 

throughout the country? What is the role of GM technology in helping to fight this devastating disease? 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. Well, Florida industry in particular is 

being hit by this particular disease, and as plant breeders looking 

for options as to how we might go about trying to solve the issue, 

and there are several land grant universities, I am aware of Florida and Texas and California, all looking at both conventional 

breeding if that is an option, but also genetic engineering options. 

And I think that is the power of the technology is you can bring 

in a gene from another species to enable those trees to be resistant 

to the Citrus Greening Disease, and that is really, I think, the opportunity that exists to utilize this technology to develop diseaseresistant plants that are able to withstand devastating diseases 

like Citrus Greening Disease or Pierce’s Disease. And I think many 

public sector scientists see this as a real opportunity to develop 

plants that are healthier, don’t require any pesticidal inputs or 

anything, it is just basically breeding, to make those trees healthier 

and able to withstand that disease. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. I think that is a really important—depending what the application of the genetically-engineered crop is 

depends on the environmental impacts. For example, the diseaseresistant papaya doesn’t require any inputs, and it enables those 

crops to grow. And so I think that you have to look at the application as to whether or not it has an increased or decreased effect 

on pesticide use. And it is application-specific and location-specific 

and country-specific. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you so much, doctor. And I am from the 

State of Florida, so I have a real interest. 

Ms. Forshee, how much fuel does it take to plant and harvest 

your field? I know you talked about this a little bit, you alluded to 

it in your statement. 

Ms. FORSHEE. How much what? I am—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. How much fuel does it take to plant and harvest 

your field? 

113 

Ms. FORSHEE. Well, I would say that—from planting to harvesting? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, approximately. 

Ms. FORSHEE. Right. I would say right now on my farm, we are 

not tilling the land. We are no-till farming. So we use fuel in our 

tractor when we plant the crop, which probably for a couple of 

hours of planting, you know, maybe like on an 80-acre farm would 

maybe consume about—I would say maybe 1⁄4 of a tank of fuel to 

maybe 1⁄2 a tractor tank of fuel. So maybe 75 to 100 gallons there. 

And then we harvest the crop. I mean, you know, sometimes there 

does need to be an application if there is a weed problem, so I 

would say total, from planting to harvesting, maybe a couple hundred gallon, where before, if we were having to work the ground 

and, you know, really, you know, put strain on our tractors and 

equipment, it would double if not, you know, triple that fuel consumption. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. FORSHEE. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Mr. Faber, if genetic modification 

were the only way to fight a particular disease, would the Environmental Working Group still oppose this type of technology? 

Mr. FABER. Thank you for the question. We do not oppose genetic 

engineering, genetically-modified food ingredients. We think there 

are actually many promising applications of genetically-modified 

food ingredients. Dr. Van Eenennaam mentioned several of them. 

This isn’t a question about the technology, this is a question of 

whether or not to require labeling; it is really a question of transparency, should people have this information to make their own 

choices for their own families. I am an optimist. I am optimistic 

that the promises that were made by the providers of this technology will ultimately be realized that will have traits that produce 

more nutritious food, that will see significant yield increases. All of 

those promises haven’t yet been realized, but that is not what is 

at stake here in this question of whether or not to preempt Act 

120, or whether or not to craft a national disclosure system. The 

real issue is should people have the right to decide for themselves, 

and does FDA have the authority now, I believe they do, to work 

with us to craft some kind of informative, fact-based, 

nonjudgmental disclosure on the back of the package. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK, thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Matheson 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dempsey, in your industry when people manufacture, makes 

the product, perhaps someone else is a distributor, perhaps someone else is the grocery store owner, if you have a product that was 

supposed to be made for the state of Maine, and it accidently went 

by a truck to Vermont and got put on a shelf, and Vermont charges 

$1,000 a day fine, who is going to pay the fine out of the manufacturer, the distributor or the grocery store owner? 

Mr. DEMPSEY. My understanding with the Vermont law the way 

it is currently crafted is the manufacturer is responsible for that 

on $1,000 a day per SKU. 

114 

Mr. MATHESON. Even if the distributor may be a separate thirdparty entity that—— 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Yes. 

Mr. MATHESON [continuing]. Mistakenly went blunder? 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Yes, in fact, the way I understand the law, the retailer is absolutely exempt from that fine. 

Mr. MATHESON. Representative Webb, do you think that is a correct interpretation of the law? 

Ms. WEBB. Is that to me? The retailer would be responsible if the 

product was an agricultural product such as corn that was—— 

Mr. MATHESON. I am talking about a pack of potato chips that 

got made some place else, and accidentally the distributor took it 

across state lines. 

Ms. WEBB. I would have to check on that. 

Mr. MATHESON. OK. 

Ms. WEBB. I am happy to get back to you. 

Mr. MATHESON. Seems to me in this hearing we are talking 

about this consumer right to know. I find it interesting, this is on 

an issue where everyone has acknowledged there is no health or 

safety risk here. I find this—it is the old clich AE1e, a solution in 

search of a problem. Now, we do have a problem with mislabeling 

where people say something is natural, and no one can decide what 

natural is. And I think that Mr. Pompeo’s legislation rightly encourages the FDA to move forward on that issue, and give clarity 

that issue, and I think that is important. I think that is something 

we have consensus across the board here, but whether or not we 

should be doing labeling on a component of food that has no demonstrated health or safety risk, that is a tougher one for some of 

us to swallow, I think. 

Mr. FABER. Mr. Matheson, could I? 

Mr. MATHESON. No, I am going to ask you a question instead. I 

only have 5 minutes. You have indicated you think we should have 

a natural—national labeling system, but in addition to being a lobbyist for the Environmental Working Group, you are the executive 

director of Just Label It campaign. 

Mr. FABER. That is correct. 

Mr. MATHESON. And the Just Label It campaign has spent a lot 

of money in a lot of states pushing state-based initiatives to set up 

individual state systems. Do you want state systems or do you 

want a national system, and why are you encouraging this effort 

at the state level? 

Mr. FABER. Yes, and as I testified—and thank you for the question, as I testified, we would greatly prefer a national solution. We 

believe that FDA has the authority to craft a national solution. 

FDA has used that authority to require disclosures unrelated to 

safety and health, to your earlier point. When food is unsafe in the 

United States, at least since 1906, we don’t label it, we take it off 

the shelves. 

Mr. MATHESON. We also make sure that—— 

Mr. FABER. But we—— 

Mr. MATHESON. But why are you pursuing it in each state? Tell 

me—what is the agenda here? 

Mr. FABER. In the absence—— 

Mr. MATHESON. If I hear there is another agenda here—— 

115 

Mr. FABER. There is no agenda here, except to—— 

Mr. MATHESON [continuing]. But pursuing it at the state level. 

Mr. FABER [continuing]. Protect consumers. I wish that the Administration today would work with us to craft a national solution. 

In the absence of that leadership, we think it is appropriate for 

states to step in and help protect consumers from—— 

Mr. MATHESON. See, I appreciate that that is your statement. I 

tend to question the logic of that. I think if you want a national 

standard, going out and stirring things up in every state to do a 

patchwork system that everyone around here said is a bad idea—— 

Mr. FABER. Well—— 

Mr. MATHESON [continuing]. Doesn’t make much sense to me. 

Mr. FABER. Let—— 

Mr. MATHESON. I don’t want to get in a debate with you, but I 

don’t see the consistency in that, and I think there may be other 

agendas involved in terms of pursuing it at the state level. 

Congress can help this as well if you want to engage Congress. 

This committee is holding hearings. I think we would have a conversation if there ought to be some national standard or not, and 

I welcome this hearing. I welcome Chairman Pitts scheduling this 

because I think this is an issue that deserves a lot of discussion, 

but there is another effort going on and, boy, a lot of effort and resources being spent in these different states on state ballot initiatives, and I question what the motivation is, and if that really gets 

us to where anybody in this room really wants to be, maybe some 

people want to be there with that patchwork of 50 stats, 50 different rules, or as Mr. Pompeo said, maybe we shouldn’t limit it to 

states. It could be counties, it could be cities, it could be a lot more 

than 50. I think we ought to figure out what we are really trying 

to do here, and what the agendas are. And I think we ought to look 

for a national standard, at best, and I would suggest a national 

standard ought to be on science-based decision making about 

health and safety risks to consumers, to the integrity of our food 

supply chain, and that is what I encourage this—I think most people on a bipartisan basis would agree, that is the motivation for 

this committee in looking at this issue. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Mr. Faber, do you know if the Nutritional Fact Panel that is now 

required for products, did the FDA conclude that needed to be 

there for safety reasons, or was that something that the Congress 

just decided, in response to the demand they heard from the public, 

ought to be on products? 

Mr. FABER. That is a terrific question. So the basis for the Nutrition Facts Panel was to try to promote nutrition and health. 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

Mr. FABER. The NLEA clearly preempted states from changing 

the NFP, the Nutrition Facts Panel, from adding things to the ingredient line, or from regulating certain kinds of claims like health 

claims, but the NLEA was also carefully crafted to preserve for the 

116 

states other roles in food labeling, and states have already stepped 

into that role in many ways. And Mrs. Webb talked about this, 

whether it is grading butter and cheese in Wisconsin, or use-by and 

sell-by dates in 41 different states. I am not arguing for a patchwork quilt, but I think we should recognize that Congress, more 

than 20 years ago, explicitly recognized—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

Mr. FABER [continuing]. The longstanding role that states have 

played in food labeling, especially with regards to addressing consumer deception, and helping consumers understand what they are 

buying. 

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Dempsey, if the choice were between a situation where there were 50 different labeling regimes, or 1 uniform 

labeling requirement, but that requirement was that you had to indicate whether there was genetically-engineered ingredients included, which would be the better one from your standpoint? 

Mr. DEMPSEY. We would want a federal standard that would 

place the FDA as a mandatory resource for determining what was 

genetically modified and what was not genetically modified, and we 

would want the labeling to be voluntary, similar to what we already have with organic. If someone wants an organic product, 

they go through an organic certification by the USDA, and we put 

organic on that. We do not put non-organic on the balance of the 

products. So it seems to me that forcing a mandatory labeling law 

onto products that are the predominant ones on the supermarket 

shelf goes against commonsense, and goes against convention and 

practice that we already have in the food industry. 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, leaving this side of the debate about whether it makes commonsense or not, would it be preferable to having 

50 different labeling—— 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Certainly preferable. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK. Now, if there was such a label, could it be 

as simple as some would say, may contain genetically-engineered 

ingredients? And I don’t know what the Vermont one says, but 

could you envision a national, Ms. Webb, standard that would essentially say something like that? 

Ms. WEBB. We do allow for may—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

Ms. WEBB [continuing]. Contain. 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. Because as I am thinking about the disruption to the supply chain, it would seem to me that the burden, 

frankly, would end up being on those who want to be able to establish that their product is completely free of GE, to sort of police 

that supply chain. So just from a pricing standpoint, the genetically-engineered products, even if they had whatever extra cost you 

might attribute to that requirement added in, would end up being 

a lot less expensive potentially than the others. I am not asking a 

question, I am just kind of musing here about it. 

So I guess what I am trying to sort out is, I don’t think the 

public’s reaction to knowing that something is genetically engineered is going to create some huge distortion in the current nature of demand out there. I think many will say, maybe genetically 

engineered, I get that. They will do price comparisons. They will 

look at fiber, they will look at other things and they will make a 

117 

decision on buying a product. And I am not also convinced that the 

industry can’t handle the supply chain issues in a way that is significantly less expensive than the numbers that are being invoked, 

but it is a very complicated issue. I come from the perspective that 

there should be a right to know there, but within the context of 

that, I am ready to explore how industry can manage that right to 

know as efficiently and manageably as possible. Yes, you just want 

to—— 

Mr. DEMPSEY. It seems to me there is a right to know—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

Mr. DEMPSEY [continuing]. And the right to know is to look and 

shop for, as an organic shopper or a GMO shopper, for those seals 

that go through a certified and rigorous—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. 

Mr. DEMPSEY [continuing]. Certification process. That is the lack 

of transparency, if you ask me. It is also from our members’ perspective gives a marketing advantage to it, and in most cases, 

these products are more expensive than the, if you will, conventional products that are on the shelf. So I mean there is information out there if the intelligent, educated consumer wants to find 

that product. 

Mr. FABER. And unfortunately, consumers are looking at those 

claims, natural and organic, and many of them are getting it exactly backwards. They are thinking the natural claim that might 

be on a multigrain tortilla snack chip is the one that is GMO-free, 

and they look at the organic certification and they don’t quite know 

what that means. And so that is why we think addressing the use 

of the word natural, and having a modest, nonjudgmental disclosure would help cure that consumer confusion. Consumers are extraordinarily busy, they are looking for a simple way to know what 

they are buying so they can use their buying power to shape the 

market. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. WEBB. May I add also that in deference to Mr. Dempsey’s 

concern for smaller businesses, the cost for a small business to go 

through the non-GMO project is prohibitive for them, which is why 

we were looking at the expense to go to the larger industry, rather 

than for people trying to get—— 

Mr. PITTS. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Coming from Texas though, when you say it is a multigrain tortilla chip, you know, corn is corn, but I know my daughter keeps 

telling me multigrain chips are much better. 

Mr. Dempsey, can you elaborate on how you feel the Vermont Act 

120 would lead to a consolidation in the industry and many small 

businesses force to close, and also are the multi-category, multinational players the only companies that can currently have the capability to change their supply chain and bear these type of costs? 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Smaller companies, the ones I would define as 

smaller companies, are companies with one plant, one line. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

118 

Mr. DEMPSEY. And as I said in my statements, closing those lines 

takes significant time out of the production process that would not 

be able to go right from non-GMO to GMO product. So then the 

companies have to decide whether they participate in the non-GMO 

labeling or the GMO labeling as it is in Vermont. They will have 

to make a decision on what products qualify to go into Vermont 

without labeling, and which ones don’t. And a lot of those will determine both the distribution networks, some of those are DSD, 

some of those are warehouse, how do you leave open your, if you 

will, your company to fines if the wrong product gets into Vermont. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Faber, according to the non-GMO foods, the 

U.S. market perspective, GMO foods are expected to account for up 

to 40 percent of the market by 2017, representing a value of about 

$264 billion. You state that consumers deserve a choice of knowing 

what is in their food, but isn’t the market already voluntarily moving in that direction? 

Mr. FABER. Well, today, only about 3 percent of SKUs are certified as GMO-free by the non-GMO project, and so consumers are 

much likely today to see a natural claim on their multigrain tortilla 

chip—— 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Mr. FABER [continuing]. Than to see the little butterfly that 

means it has been a non-GMO certified multigrain tortilla chip. So 

consumers are much more likely today, and in the near future, to 

think that they are using their buying power to avoid GMOs, if 

that is what they choose to do, than they would if they are relying 

on that certification. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you think there are any costs shifted to consumers due to the mandatory labeling laws and how they might 

change the operation of our food supply? 

Mr. FABER. I don’t believe that they will—even if we had a modest informational GMO disclosure tomorrow, that you would see 

dramatic change in buying behavior, and we know because we have 

GMO labeling in some form or another in 64 other countries, including countries where people eat more or less like us. Brazil is 

a great example where they have had a GMO disclosure since 

2001, and where consumers have conferred a benefit to the GMO 

disclosure, and that is why they have not seen any significant 

change in buying behavior. So I am confident that if we had a 

GMO disclosure tomorrow, that the food industry would take all 

the money they have been spending to fight these ballot initiatives, 

which is now more than $100 million, and invest it into a topnotch 

consumer education campaign to persuade consumers that GMOs 

have all the benefits that we have heard about during this hearing. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I guess that is my concern that, we heard 

from the FDA and, with their resources and, of course, we decide 

their resources to do the inspections, but there has been no proof 

that GMOs are actually bad to consume, and we also know, and I 

assume we will have testimony, but this is not the Ag Committee, 

but some of the GMOs have actually expanded our possibilities for 

food production, not only in our own country, because obviously we 

eat very well, but in parts of the world where starvation is an 

issue, whether it be the GMO rice product that you can, and those 

119 

have been shown that they they don’t harm humans, but it does 

help the nutrition issues. 

Mr. FABER. And as I said earlier, no one is arguing that farmers 

should be prohibited from planting GMOs, and GMO traits may indeed provide benefits to farmers or nutritional benefits someday. I 

think the real question here is whether or not people should be 

able to decide for themselves, and whether or not FDA has the authority to do so. As Mr. Waxman was talking about earlier, FDA 

has compelled disclosures simply because of consumer interest, and 

up until 1992, for the years between 1938 and 1992, understood 

that word material that we talked about earlier really to mean relevant. Was it information that a consumer would want to have in 

order to make an educated choice. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chairman. I know 

I ran over time a little bit. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now recognize Mr. Pompeo 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Forshee, thank you again for traveling out here to be here. 

You talked about the costs that would increase your small business 

to operate. I assume you wouldn’t just eat those costs, you would 

attempt to pass them on as best you could to your customers? 

Ms. FORSHEE. Yes, just like any small business. I think I left off 

the fact that we have one full-time hired man as well, so, not only 

do we farm, but farming is a business—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Ms. FORSHEE [continuing]. And that is exactly right, that would 

have to be passed down. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. I have a lot of ground, I want to 

try and get some yes-or-no answers. We haven’t been successful so 

far today. I am confident I will be the first to do so. 

Earlier today, we had an FDA witness testify, a very senior FDA 

official testify. He said that GE foods in the U.S. marketplace today 

are safe as their conventional counterparts. We will start on my 

left, your right, and tell me if you agree, yes or no, with that statement. 

Ms. VAN EENENNAAM. Yes. 

Mr. FABER. I believe so. 

Mr. POMPEO. That is a yes, for the record. 

Ms. WEBB. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Just yes, yes. 

Ms. FORSHEE. Yes. 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. We have total unanimity. That is fantastic. 

That is one of the first times in this committee we have had that 

in my 4 years here, so that is all good news. 

And, Mr. Faber, you were talking about misinformation out 

there. I can tell you you are part of the problem. Your organization 

is part of the problem. Mr. Matheson asked you about it. You say 

you don’t want a patchwork. You have spent millions of dollars 

stirring up trouble to create just that patchwork of regulation, and 

you are continuing to do so today. I am confident that the phones 

are ringing in my office as a result of your efforts to stir up this 

very challenge. And so I would just urge you to work to get to the 

120 

right place. This piece of legislation requires the FDA to define natural, the very thing that you spent so much time in your testimony 

speaking to. So I am with you. 

Mr. FABER. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. I want that to occur. But when you put up things 

and you call this piece of legislation the dark act, saying we are 

denying consumers the right to know, there is nothing in this legislation that denies any consumer any capacity to know precisely 

what it is they are eating. If any willing provider deems it appropriate, and finds customer demand to provide information to their 

customers about the nature of that product, no one’s right to know 

is being impinged today, nor would it be if this bill became law. 

So as you are out there working to defeat this legislation, I hope 

you will be honest in the way you talk to America about this because it is very important that folks have the right to know. This 

Bill would never impinge on that. So I am sure today you will go 

out and issue something that says that this is not the dark act. I 

look forward to reading that on my Web site. 

Mr. Dempsey, you were talking about this. One to 10 on a scale, 

how does this impact the businesses that you represent if we fail 

to get this law put into place and a patchwork of rules becomes the 

norm in America? 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Ten being the most difficult scenario? 

Mr. POMPEO. Sure. 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Ten for sure. 

Mr. POMPEO. And so if it is a 10, what is it for the smallest businesses in America? 

Mr. DEMPSEY. Multiply that times 10. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. 

Ms. Webb, how many FDA-level quality scientists are employed 

by the state of Vermont today that are reviewing these sets of food 

rules? 

Ms. WEBB. I have no idea. 

Mr. POMPEO. So you—— 

Ms. WEBB. We are not trying to compete with the FDA or be the 

FDA. 

Mr. POMPEO. So are there any folks that are experts in food safety applied today by the state of Vermont that is trying to put forth 

a set of rules that I promise you the citizens you represent think 

have something to do with food safety? 

Ms. WEBB. I would have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. POMPEO. You don’t know. I would appreciate you getting 

back with the committee and answering that question. 

I want to come back to choice, Ms. Forshee, and this really comes 

to you. You are both the producer and the consumer. Today, if you 

decided, for whatever reason, because you had some personal preference with respect to non-GMO foods, do you think you could walk 

into a store somewhere, I guess not near you, 20 miles, but somewhere in Kansas and find that set of products on the shelves, or 

if you didn’t, contact the providers of those foods and say I want 

you to label that? Do you think you could pull that off? 

Ms. FORSHEE. No. I mean—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Ms. FORSHEE [continuing]. I don’t believe so. 

121 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Ms. FORSHEE. I really don’t. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Ms. FORSHEE. I mean I feel that it is safe—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Ms. FORSHEE [continuing]. And that is what I care about is 

knowing that it is safe, but no. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. All right, the chair thanks the gentleman. 

That concludes the questions of the members present. I am sure 

we will have follow-up questions. We will send them to you in writing. We ask that you please respond promptly. 

And members will have 10 business days to submit questions for 

the records. That means they should submit their questions by the 

close of business on Monday, December 29. 

Thank you very much for your testimony, for your willingness to 

come today, in a very important and informative hearing. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

122 


94347.001
123 


94347.002
124 


94347.003
125 


94347.050
126 


94347.051
127 


94347.052
128 


94347.053
129 


94347.054
130 


94347.055
131 


94347.056
132 


94347.057
133 


94347.058
134 


94347.059
135 


94347.060
136 


94347.061
137 


94347.062
138 


94347.063
139 


94347.064
140 

Æ 


94347.065