Government Relations

By: Leslie G. Sarasin, President and CEO, Food Marketing Institute

While I thought 2015 would go down as the “year of the label,” it appears that labeling will continue to be the center of our attention for months to come. In a world of multi-channel communication, many of us question the efficaciousness of labels, especially when they attempt to convey too much information within the confines of limited packaging real estate, but still labels appear to be the duct tape of the legislative world – the solution that will fix all ills. This begins to beg the question, “Is labeling the best means of achieving transparency and offering consumers the information they want?” FMI is presently deeply engaged in advocacy action surrounding two labeling issues of crucial importance to the food retail industry.

Menu Labeling

Last Friday, to our delight, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Common Sense Nutrition Labeling Act with strong bipartisan support (266 in favor, 144 opposed and 1 abstention). FMI supported this legislation for its effort to bring some degree of reason and rationality to tenets of the menu labeling legislation. From the very beginning we have expressed our support for sharing with grocery store customers the information they want, need and deserve, but we have argued against making grocery stores responsible for complying with a law that was designed and intended for a restaurant setting—a bit like asking Hulk Hogan to wear an outfit designed for Lady Gaga. Members of the House recognized that aspects of the menu labeling law just didn’t fit and supported the revisions provided by the Common Sense Nutrition Labeling Act. Many thanks to those of you who lent your support and influence to the efforts that have resulted in this victory.  While we are one step closer to sanity on this matter, we still have miles to go. Now, our work is focused on getting the Senate to take up its version of the bill.

GMO Labeling

Key elements of FMI positioning on the issue of GMO labeling have remained constant. First and foremost, we support for the sake of consistency, clarity and expediency the establishment of a national standard and agreed-upon definitions of such terms as “GMO-free,” “Non-GMO,” etc. Conflicting definitions and battling standards on the state level will simply add to consumer confusion on an issue in which misunderstanding and misperception already reigns.

Secondly, and related to the first, we stand opposed to a state-by-state patchwork approach to GMO labeling. As we march toward the July 1 implementation deadline of Vermont’s GMO labeling legislation, the dangers, drawbacks and downsides of a state-by-state approach are becoming even more obvious, real and pressing. Both manufacturers and retailers with private brands operating in Vermont are being forced to make some very difficult decisions: having to weigh whether the size of the Vermont market for their product(s) offsets the cost required to make and monitor their labels specifically for Vermont compliance, OR redesign all the labels on their nationwide products to be Vermont compliant. The most significant challenge with the latter solution is what happens when other states enact GMO labeling legislation that differs from that of Vermont—like Connecticut and Maine have already done and New Hampshire and New York (among others) are considering? These legislative variations are set to go into effect when neighboring states also pass legislation and then we are back to the logistical impossibility of a state-specific distribution plan.

FMI is working hand in hand with the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the agriculture community to support efforts of U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts to introduce a bill that would create a national standard and pre-empt state GMO labeling laws.

Because it is logical due to the volume of GMO-containing products available in our stores and because doing so would provide better guidance to customers seeking non-GMO containing products, it remains our preference labeling occur on products that do not contain ingredients produced using GM technology.  However, we remain open to the prospect of a federal policy that would result in required disclosure of “contains,” “may contain” or “non-GMO,” with the disclosure being accomplished via a variety of communications means that best meet the needs of the community, customer or company.

We have asked your support in this effort and a link to a letter you and your associates may send to your legislators through the Food Action Network, can be found here.

Your help, support and engagement on these labeling matters is imperative, and much-appreciated.