GMO food-labeling foes to meet in D.C.

WASHINGTON — The food industry, consumer groups and other stakeholders in the debate over how to label products containing genetically modified ingredients are expected to be summoned to the Agriculture Department early next month to try to resolve the contentious issue.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said there is growing urgency to reach a compromise with Vermont’s law that would require labels on foods that contain genetically modified organisms expected to take effect in July. If Vermont's initiative withstands a legal challenge, proponents say it could give momentum to similar measures being considered in more than a dozen other states.

“I’m going to challenge them to get this thing fixed. I would like to avoid making food more expensive,” Vilsack said in an interview from his spacious office overlooking the National Mall. He did not specify who would be invited to the meeting.

The former Iowa governor said he is concerned about "chaos in the market" if more states implement labeling laws with differing provisions. “That will cost the industry a substantial amount of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, and it will ultimately end up costing the consumer” through higher prices, Vilsack said.

The labeling argument has pitted consumer groups against major food and agribusiness companies. Both sides agree on the need for labeling of genetically engineered foods, but they have failed to agree how, and whether it should be mandatory or voluntary.

Chad Hart, an Iowa State University agricultural economist, said it is promising that both sides are willing to talk but cautioned that a deal is unlikely to come together quickly.

“When you look at the gap between where the sides are it’s quite large,” Hart said. “Both sides want to keep this discussion going even though they are going to have a hard time finding common ground.”

As much as 80 percent of packaged foods contain ingredients that have been genetically modified, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Biotech crops are popular in rural America, too, with more than 90 percent of corn and soybeans coming from the popular seeds.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food and beverage companies including Kellogg and PepsiCo, and other groups have favored congressional legislation calling for voluntary GMO labeling. They argue state-by-state labeling is confusing and implies the ingredients are in some way unsafe.

Efforts to include a ban on state labeling laws failed this week with some lawmakers hoping to include it in a $1.1 trillion spending package passed by Congress.

Pamela Bailey, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, called it a missed opportunity by Congress, while expressing optimism over the meeting next month.

“Food manufacturers will face exponentially increasing costs totaling hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with Vermont’s GMO labeling mandate,” said Bailey. “Given there is so much common ground, we welcome Secretary Vilsack’s willingness to bring parties together in January to forge a compromise that Congress could pass as soon as possible.”

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been mulling genetically modified labeling legislation for years, but the bills have failed to gain much traction.

A few House and Senate Republicans have pledged to focus again next year on legislation preventing states from enacting labeling laws.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said he understands that while state's with different standards could be problematic for the food industry, a voluntary program where a company can decide whether to label probably wouldn't work.

'This is about consumer choice. This is about consumer knowledge," Tester said. 'If I'm a company that doesn't want to do it, I won't. I just don't think it will work if it is voluntary."

Scott Faber, executive director of Just Label it, declined to comment on the USDA meeting but said the group is willing to sit down with members of the food industry. Faber remained steadfast that any solution must be mandatory, and he would favor a uniform nationwide label rather than a gradual state-by-state rollout.

“To be effective, any disclosure has to be mandatory,” Faber said. “I remain hopeful that the industry will simply give the consumers what they want. It’s time to work together to craft a national solution that gives consumers what they want.”

Contact Christopher Doering at cdoering@usatoday.com or reach him at Twitter: @cdoering