Food Quality & Safety
  • Home
  • About
    Us
    • Food Quality & Safety‘s Mission
    • Contact Us
    • Authors
    • Manage Subscription
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Copyright
    • Privacy Policy
  • On the
    Farm
  • Safety & Sanitation
    • Environmental Monitoring
    • Hygiene
    • Pest Control
    • Clean In Place
    • Allergens
    • Sanitizing
    • Training
  • Quality
    • Authenticity
    • Textures & Flavors
    • Labeling
    • Shelf Life
    • Outsourcing
    • Auditing/Validation
    • Supplier Programs
  • Testing
    • Seafood
    • Dairy
    • Hormones/Antibiotics
    • Produce
    • Ingredients
    • Beverages
    • Meat & Poultry
    • Animal Food
  • In the
    Lab
    • Lab Software
    • Pathogen Control
    • Physical Properties
    • Contaminants
    • Measurement
    • Sampling
  • Manufacturing & Distribution
    • Information Technology
    • Plant Design
    • Foreign Object Control
    • Temperature/Humidity
    • Packaging
    • Transportation
    • Tracking & Traceability
  • Food Service & Retail
    • Cleaning & Sanitizing
    • Stock Management
    • Hygiene
    • Food Preparation
    • Allergens
    • Education
    • Temperature Monitoring
  • Regulatory
    • FSMA
    • Guidelines & Regulations
    • Recalls
  • Resources
    • Whitepaper
    • Webinars
    • Video
    • Events
    • Food Library
    • Jobs
  • FQ&S
    Award
  • Search

Aftermath of the Bioengineered Food Labeling Public Comment Period

August 23, 2018 • By August Horvath

  • Tweet
Print-Friendly Version

Some comments from the food industry were more mixed in their assessments of the standards. Generally, producers of specific kinds of foods, or representatives of specific steps in the supply chain such as retailers and restaurants, sought to minimize the impact of the rule on their sectors. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, for example, opposed the proposed exemption for highly refined products that contain no genetic material, but supported the exemption for animal products whose feed may have been bioengineered, and suggested extending the exemption to fish, insects, and microorganisms (Comment AMS-TM-0050-13014). The United Egg Producers also supported this exemption (Comment AMS-TM-0050-10841). The American Soybean Association was especially concerned that refined products derived from bioengineered organisms, but not containing them, be exempt (Comment AMS-TM-0050-12226), as were the Enzyme Technical Association (Comment AMS-TM-0050-12952), the New York Farm Bureau (Comment AMS-TM-0050-12968), the American Farm Bureau Federation (Comment AMS-TM-0050-11003), and the Corn Refiners Association (Comment AMS-TM-0050-13196). The Washington Legal Foundation went as far as to argue that requiring refined products with no rDNA content to disclose themselves as bioengineered would violate the Agricultural Marketing Act and even the First Amendment (Comment AMS-TM-0050-11790).

You Might Also Like
  • USDA Releases Final National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Rule
  • Quest to Label GMOs Marches on in Washington
  • GMO Labels Getting Closer
Explore This Issue
October/November 2018
ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

What Is Next for USDA?

The Bioengineered Foods Disclosure Standards Act set an ambitious deadline of July 29, 2018, which ended up being less than a month after the end of the public comment period, for USDA to issue final regulations for genetically engineered food disclosures. Not surprisingly, USDA missed this deadline. Advocacy groups sued the agency on August 1, seeking an order finding the USDA in violation of the Act and requiring it to issue the final rules “as soon as reasonable practicable.” The suit is something of a stunt, and it remains to be seen whether it will have any real impact on the agency’s timing.

USDA must now be review the comments and take possible revisions as it formulates its final rule. Given the number of optional choices in the proposed rule, it may not be out of the question that USDA will again float its final rule for public comment after it makes decisions as to these options; several commenters suggested this strategy. One of the things USDA is likely considering, in view of its prevalence among the comments, is to offer additional symbols and wording that use the terms “genetically engineered” or “GMO” and contain less natural and happy symbolism, at least as an optional means of disclosure. Other issues, such as the question of whether disclosure should be required for refined products containing no rDNA, but derived from genetically engineered sources, clearly have created a profound split among industry players and experts, and USDA will be hard pressed to resolve these to general satisfaction.


Horvath is partner at Foley Hoag’s Advertising & Marketing practice. Reach him at ahorvath@foleyhoag.com.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Filed Under: Guidelines & Regulations, Regulatory Tagged With: bioengineered food, food labeling, Food Quality, Food Safety, gmo labeling, LabelingIssue: October/November 2018

You Might Also Like:
  • USDA Releases Final National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Rule
  • Quest to Label GMOs Marches on in Washington
  • GMO Labels Getting Closer
  • What Constitutes ‘Healthy’ Claims for Foods?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Current Issue

October/November 2019

  • Issue Articles »
  • Current Issue PDF »
  • Subscribe »
  • Follow Us:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Food Quality & Safety Blog  

Managing Change as a Food Safety Professional

… [Read More]

Previous posts »

Paid Partner Content

Avoiding Overwhelming Product Recall Costs

Innovative food safety inspection systems are being developed in Germany. Learn more about the latest technologies from Bizerba and benefit from our free guidelines ensuring consistent food production safety.

  • Recall News
  • Industry News
    • Cay Thi Queentrees Food USA Recalls Poultry Products
    • Padrino Foods, LLC Recalls Beef Tamales
    • Simmons Prepared Foods, Inc. Recalls Poultry Products
    • Rastelli Bros., Inc. Recalls Meat Products
    View more »
    • Researchers Uncover Science Behind Using UV Light to Disarm Pathogens
    • In Memoriam: Daniel Y. C. Fung, PhD
    • E. coli Illness Linked to Romaine Lettuce Expands
    • Salmonella Outbreak and Ground Beef Recall Stir Transparency Debate
    • FDA Extends Deadline for Supply-Chain Approval
    View more »

Polls

How interested is your company in cannabis testing for its food/beverage products?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Whitepapers

  • Food Authenticity Testing with Agilent 6546 LC/Q-TOF and MassHunter Classifier

View More Whitepapers »

On-Demand Webinars

  • Reduce Non-Recyclable Materials
  • Why a Food Safety Culture Is Critical to Your Business

View More Webinars »

Food Quality & Safety (formerly Food Quality) is the established authority in delivering strategic and tactical approaches necessary for quality assurance, safety, and security in the food and beverage industry.

Advertise / Targeted list rental/3rd Party emails / Subscribe / Contact Us / Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

ASBPE Award Winner

Copyright © 2000–2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., a Wiley Company. All rights reserved. ISSN 2399-1399

Wiley

This site uses cookies: Find out more.