>> i can tell you, i'm from the big state of illinois, and we can't do it. there may be one, maybe california has some ) dlrcapabi but my guess is, smaller stateír they don't have nearly the ability to do the research that you all do, and i think that's part of this whole, should states be ableuáb=s to have then labeling restrictions and requirements because as we found, it's really based upon emotions and not based upon a scientific evaluation. distension western foods based upon the method of> we don't require labeling based on method of production alone. >> why not?

>> because we have found that it is not material to safety or nutritional composition. >> and appreciate that. let me, in the case of sugar. right? we, sugar processors require to label whether refined table sugar comes from, i guess the question is, are sugarw km processors required to label whether refined table sugar comes from a certain species or plant? ? i'm sorry, i don't -- >> you don't require fine table sugar to label whether it comes from sugar beets or from cane. >> no. >> why? >> again, i think it's a question of materiality.

>> would consumers be rkykçany,d they get any benefit if that labeling requirement for fine table sugar also had a requirement, well, tiie is beet produced fine table sugar or sugar cane fine table sugar? >> again, what we focus on is the attribute of the food at consumer we think would eat it. >> 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? >> no. not as a class. >> can you explain why fda's regulatory focus is on the food or food product as opposed to the process in which itqoñ was grown. >> of course, in the end, it's >> right. yeah, and i appreciate it.

i think you're going to keep getting the same questions from members here on trying to understand, you are, food and drug administration you all come d on a lot of different aspects. you are our trusted advisers. we respect the job that you do. l difficult, emotional dou moegmo some folks on both sides, because it deals with individual consumers, the agricultural 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. >> the chair now recognizes the gentle lady. >> thank you for your appearance here 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 is developed is not material information about food d mr. faber and representative webb pointed out that many consumers do believe that foods labeled as natural, end quote, natural are not genetically engineered and sometimes buy such foods because of that belief. they also say that many such ay. i can understand fda's reluctance to wade into the argument into what constitutes natural. but if many consumers are led to believe that natural means non-ge and tp÷28 make purchases on that belief, shouldn't the use of that term on a food label represent that the food is non-ge?

i'm going to continue for a little bit more. give you plenty to deal with. that's my only question, actually. and if so, wouldn't the term of the use natural on a food containing ge ingredients be, as reveal facts material in lightt of such misrepresentation if it does not state that it contains ge ingredients? it 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 notuu contain ge ingredients? if you can sort that out, kudos to you. this is a topic in which i wish to hear from you. and take your time. >> there is a short answer to this. which is thatú=4c we have pend several citizen petitions related ip= the question of wha

is natural, including one going to the very question i think 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's a debate about that. we have been petitioned tom,:o yes. i'm surelb,.p we've been petiti to say no. we've been petitioned to establish a definition for natural, and we are considering those, those petitions. it's really all i can say at the moment. >> is there any, can you shed any light on this topic for the sake of our constituents as to where you]hfr are going in you mean, i agree, it's very confusing. >> well, i, one possibility we

have not committed to this, but to take you back a9f; little bi the agency embarked on an effort to define natural years ago that did not result in a codified definition. it resulted in a statement yn÷u the preamble that natural can't be either aided or sen syntheti think was the definition. we've always said we don't have the resources to do that. i think, if we decide to reconsider this issue, it will, it will necessarily have to be a public process. whether we would embark on rule making, which has to be a public process or guidance, there will be some public process if we decide to revisyk,l this. >> i actually applaud that.t,ñ i think the public is already engaged. i believe that, and would be a welcoming, this is pie opinion now, but from what my constituents are telling he, that they are already engaged

and single from fda, that maybe you don't have plaqblack and wh answers to give, that you are considering this and maybe we afthroughout the country. añ÷ appears to me the c are confused by the current labeling system. we can all agree on that. it's complicated today. and they're making purchasing decisions sometimes on unclear labelivs"3o cf1 o confusion. and i hope that you can find th÷ resources in fda to take a broader look at what is happening with respect to&y.ñ 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're talking about. with that, i'll yield back. thank you. you. >> the chair thanks the gentle lady. >> i eat a number of odd foods, and a number of them are labeled non-g non-gmo. is there a difference? >> i think as a technical matter, gmo refers to anq]ye ge organism as opposed to genetic engineering which we think of having to do with modern biotechnology. >> i come from a family where just about half of us have some kind of food allergy. if you're changing pro deeps around and you have things that

recognized as safe, generally recognized as safe, are you able in what you allz&ñq do to be abo distinguish a protein that someone may be allergic to has been added to)ñ&=ñ a product wh they may not know that protein's just &a2included. >> that is part of the evaluation process. and if there were to be an addition, it might prompt an allergic reaction that one would not expect, we would require a label disclosure. >> so you'd pick out those things which people are highly allergic to or which there's a significant percentage of folks it. you'd say okay, you can't put the strawberry ingredient into this. >> or we would require a >> disclosure. >> most likely would be the -- >> and i apologize if i missed answers. are you all looking at the possibility of, for those people

who may be concerned, saying or labelling a product as something that is in fact, as opposed tom saying it is genetically engineered or genetically those companies that want to, obviously you pay more for it, but have some process where they can actually say, we've used all products that are not jen et ceteraically engineered or modified? >> we've had draft guidance sense about 2001 on voluntary labeling. so there aren't any prohibition on a volumen tevoluntary label food does not contain ge ingredients, not to be false or misleading. >> appreciate that. you indicated earlier that this was a consensus that this was not something dangerous ifb] i understand your testimony correctly, and yet i know there are a number of countries around the world who have concerns about products and will ban our

products if they think there's been cross-pollination or something. concerned? >> i think d)wpvuju countries have different regulatory systems. different cultures with different attitudes towards different aspects of foods, from production to consumption to preparation and everything else. >> other than culture, have any of those countries had studies that indicated there was some danger to the human? >> not tojs÷ himy knowledge, no. >> appreciate that. and i think you said earlier you're looking at finalizing tñ by 2016? >> the nutrition facts. >> yes, sir. >> yes. >> and i'm going to switch briefly because we have a little bit of time left, to a different subject, and that is what do you do about the grocery stores fixing food and doing things and nu

facts, and then you get into the whole allergens and then the ge or gmo foods? how do you deal with that as a part for grocery stores?óz >> the processed food is subject to nutrition facts. what we have called restaurant-type food made and sold in a grossry store is now subject to or will be when it becomescí$ effective, to labeli requirements. >> i think i would just tell you, i think that even though i'm concerned about it and i might not eat the food ifsifs i didn't know what was in it, i'm not sure how a grocery store's going to be able to comply with that when they may be using all kinds of ingredient and somebodo walks up and says, can i have x, y, or z. the grocery store may not have that capability. ÷n(u items. >> so if it's some kind of

specialty item they would have an exemption? the requie3hzt is 20 or more retail establishments and it's >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> recognize the gentleman, mr. butterfield for five]x minutes questions. >> let me just, the statement by ms. blackman about this being a fascinating debate. in my former life, i served as a trial judge in north carolina. and every day for 15 years,ly 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've tried to do that in this debate, and i've read harm amounts of well-informed publications over the last several months. and i, for one, i'm just convinced that ge plants are as

safe as any other foods. but mr. landa, i need to ents pose this question to you. do your6:yr have any evidence t foods derived from ge plants are i've heard you mention it throughout your testimony, but is there any:ywsáilla of evidence that would suggest that these foods are unsafe? >> i want to make sure i heard you correctly. is there any evidence that suggests that these foods are unsafe? >> yes, yes. that ge foods are unsafe. >> not to our knowledge, no. >> and how large ii(s your age? how large is the division that handles this task? >> well, the office that handles that task has maybe 135 or 140 people. but certainly it is recognized as safe substances.

>> these are not politicians. these are career employees at your agency. >> correct. anyone who advocates a 50-state >> not sure i -- >> i mean, you've talked to a informally about this. >> any one who advocates that we have 50 separate -- >> 50 sets of regulations, plus the district of columbia? >> i have not had reason to encounter such a person. wr sometimes, but i don't see how that would work even in california. i yield f]h >> chair thanks the nazqgentlem. the chair recognizes the jeptsle lady from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i'm trying to sort out the science here.)g i have lots of passionate constituents who are very concerned about ge products. i have experts that we'll 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, ms. caps was talking about i want to ask you about material difference. and you said that the fda could change the view that ge status of food is not material, which it is, that's the position[çd&pt now, there's no material difference. and that the agency is evaluating citizens' petitions that report to do that.?t so, can you elaborate on why the

fda has not believed this is a material difference and what, has the court said anything about it? what kind of different information might change your mind? to composition or, again, as it, considering these foods as a class, any differences in safety or nutritional composition or any other attribute of the food. ? c >> can i ask you one thing? what about food allergies. accept we're putting into the dna, perhaps from a peanut into something else. >> in that case, we would require a disclosure. that would be material. >> and would that prevent, in this consultation process, from that particular formulation ñ to market? >> no. what would happen is therel"& d be a disclosure of the allergic

potential of the food. that would be a material fact. >> okay. and i know mr. pitts said youvj ypesticide, that'srp6pbtr(t&háh% sometimes true. although the fda has approved use of a seed that would make it a lot more tolerant of pesticides. does the fda have any concerns about that? >> i'm not familiar with that matter. >> 24 d and glies fate. okay. so material>o4@ meaning, even e peanut issue, then a disclosure would be required because of #nm/vñ >> typically, with respect to allergens, yes, that's, first of all, there's a statute, 2004

statute requires disclosure of the, sort of we call theú2ñç5(p% eight allergens. but if you were to find another allergen, typically, we would require a disclosure of it rather than ban the food. >> and who does the research? i have to tell you, my constituents who are against gmos will say monsanto, dupont and, you know, can we really trust these companies thatncvpñ benefit so much? >> the data that are supplied to us are supplied to us by the companies doing the consulting. and they will do, sometimes they will do the studies. sometimes they will pay to have the studies done. i will say that is true across ñfda-regulated products. fda does research, but it

much less marketing applications. >> let he ask one, one more question. does the food and drug administration have the authority to implement a!aay mandatory pre-market approval process to, of any food, to ensure that it's safe for consumers? >> we proposed a number of years >> we propos÷ a number of years program for the typesnhñ of products we've 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 but that proposal necessarily maintained that we had the authority to establish a >> and in the, i'll yield back.

i can put some more questions in writing. thank you. >> chair, just for >> chair, just ft requires disclosure, does that mean -- on the label? >> on the label. yes. (@xó>> thank you.t question. mr. madison is recognized for five minutes for questions. >> thanks, mr. chair-and mr. landa, appreciate you coming here today. you just said this with mr. butterfield, but i want to be clear. from the fda perspective, to date, you've found no scientific evidence that there's a health and safety issue with genetically engineered foods. >> that is correct. >> thank you. appreciate that. if there is this consumer demand for wanting to know, if there is a producer of a non-gch much o food? the organic industry they can label their product as such that it's non-gmo, correct? >> so long as the labelling is

not false or misleading, that's correct. >> so if the marketplace wants this, there is a way for natural foods to do >> that is correct. >> does the fda regulatory have any authority over that type of labelling? >> it's the general authority that labeling must not be false or misleading. >> how long has the fda been involved in managing food labelling? >> "máwell, the provision, th false or misleading provision dates from either 1936 or ''i,eñ >> we'll stipulate it's a long time. and how is the fda's role in terms of, if i'm 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 in how to do labelling? they look to you for guidance

and consistency, is that correct? >> correct. they look to guidance we issue, and they certainly, when they have particular questions, companies will call our experts in labeling. >> so how do your guidances work? how do you come up with those labeling guidances, and how do >> typically. on a significant issue we would issue what's called the draft guidance. we would call for comments on t we would analyze the comments we receive and issue it in+d÷t5c&@ with or without changes or perhaps decide not to issue it at all. >> and the food industry relies on that. that's where they get their direction for how they do labeling is through your guidances. >> first the statute, then the regulations, and then guidance, yes. >> how do food manufacturers -- about a national system versus a

50-state patchwork system. how do food manufacturers from the big guys to the little guys, how dohr!jítk benefit from a national system? >> there's a benefit to uniformity, i think the answer is they will, they're better positioned to tell you how much of a benefit that is to them. >> how do consumers benefit from a national system compared to 50 dig6wq't sets of rules around our country? >> i -- you see the same labeling for the seam product. >> there you go. people do cross state lines, don't they? i go 2,000 miles every week back and áq10ñforth. so i think i would suggest -- not to answer for you -- that you're going to confuse consumers if you have 50 different standards. that would be my suggestion.

let me ask you a question. how, how would a, how do you and the fda resolve a situation if t product is mislabeled. what do÷n6ir you do if some manufacturer mislabels a product? >> typically, we would, we might call the manufacturer. we might issue what's called a warning letter. >> mm-hm. i4 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's misbranded because of a misleading label. we can enjoin further distributi distribution. >> you just defined the tools in the toolbox you have to address situations that are mislabeled. that's what i would suggest. you have been, the fda, there

consumer groups that the 6clfuf too closely aligned with the industry and it can't be trusted. how would you respond to that criticism? >> i've been in fda for almost 30 years. i work with people who have been i think, i believe and my colleagues believe that we are civil servants. but that we are engaged in an honorable profession in an honorable activity. that does not mean we get every decision right any more than r(t&háhp &hc% 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 regulations and sound policy. >> mr. landa, appreciate the answer, and i thank you for your civil service. i think there are a lot of folks engaged in these that are trying to do the right things. appreciate your forthrightness.

>> chair recognizes mr. green for five minutes of questions. >> thankç!,r you, mr. chair and our ensuring the health and safety of my constituents is always a top priority. and we hope™"'z to understand t in our economy. thank you for taking the time to be here, and we appreciate your 30 years of service to the fda. ilmb find this issue often leado passionate claims. i6 hope your years at the fda n shed some light on the genetically modified organisms. how many plants are reviewed by the fda each year and how much team does it take to conduct those reviews? weu on that. weu $á is about now, i think 103.

i think in five cases submissions were withdrawn or people asked us to cease the review. but we'll have to get back to you on yearly figures and average times. >> do you believe changing from mandatory reviews would change the number of reviews performed by the fda each year? >> i don't know, but i don't see why it would. >> a coordinated framework was developed by the white house science and technology. the federal 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 genet eck engineering in determining whether or not a plant is safe? >> yes. >> dolk you feel the fda has t staff and capabilities to be4age voice of authority when it comes to gmo safety? >> in connection with foods in my center, yes.

>> food safety. do you feel that the coordinated framework provides adequate safeguards for consumer safety and gives companies the confidence they need to develop new products? ? yes. safe. >> i'm sorry? gmo unsafe in the past volumen terry review processes? ñ aware of. >> was a safety issue, if itdz was, if it, it hasn't been, but is it due to the genetic engineering or is it other factors that you look for when you're inspecting. >> again, i'm not aware of any consultation that has resulted in a finding of lack of safety. wäphave, 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 óvz reason. >> what happens when you're asked to stop the review? >> we stop the review, and the products do not go to market. >> okay. so just by stopping the review they don't go to >> so effectively you're doing what a regulator is supposed to do. was with the it rooted in enactments, like the federal fungicide and rodenticide act, and do you think these preempt state requirements? >> it varies enormously across statut statutes.#rn i can't answer that question. from 1906, been instrumental in consumer protection? >> i can speak to the food and

drug act. i think the answer to the question is yes. it dates from '06, was amended in '38, multiple, multiple times since then, i think7-21v to pro and protect the public health. >> do you have any suggestions in 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 foe, because hdnt, because i foe, because tools -- >> we're certainly happy to do that. t%4>- you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back my time. >> thank you. we'll recognize the gentleman, mr. sarbanes for five minutes for questions. >> thank you. random questions picking up on your allergy discussion. presumably, i mean, now you're suggesting that most ingredients to which there's an allergy of

any significance, you require that that be disclosed. >> congress required it in 2004. >> okay. and but fda would determine at some point that if the number of people affected by that dwroents in terms of an allergy reached a certain percentage of the would flip into a banning ofso:e ingredient, like, where's that lean? >> no. it's not banning.j it's 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, i can't answer what that threshold is. in terms of percentage of

population, we would require a disclosure of it on the label. >> so you're talking about it meeting a certain threshold in terms of requiring disclosure. i'm asking you whether there's a i'm askihat you would there's a just ban it? i mean, if 95% of the population's allergic to something -- >> of course. the, let me give you an z the oldest adulteration provision in the law says among contains a substance that renders the food ordinarily injurious to health, the food's adulterated. and if it's adulterated it's prohibited from interstate commerce. of course, if there was an ingredient that caused an illness in 98% of the population

and people ate the food and got the ingredient, we would ban the ingredient. i'm sorry. i thought you were trying to get to the disclosure. >> i'm curious about when r(t&háhp &hc% labels. in response to, say, somegmhj consultation exercise where everybody realizesxñ that that' 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're 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 in terms of the form of it, the9.$u(v it looks onb> i really don't know. just not familiar enoughí2xñ wi

industry practice. you, in your 30 years, when was the last time8jd that you can remember that something fda did or some realization that the food significant, across-the-board change in labeling? >> well, the one that comes immediately to mind is nutrition facts. >>÷(fñ y:u6mm-hm. >> which is now the basic, heart of it is now, i guess, about 20 years old. we required the0á&?í disclosure tra transfat. >> so that -- >> eight, nine, ten years ago, whereas16y i mentioned earlier we were revising nutrition

facts. >> so is if you revise8xiv whatn the nutrition panel, and you decide there's some additional themes that ought to be in !jn there, then that would cut across the entire food industry in a significant way, in terms of revising its labels, correct? >> yes.b$9ñnyg >> thank you. >> time'sjñ the chair recognizes five minutes. >> thanks for your 30 years of service. i understand you're closer to beginning at this point. ay thank you for your good work. it's been interesting to watch. i think lots of folks=bv watch this hearing this morning have been surprised by the certainty you're expressing around the!7n science. you used the word consensus.tí&z

i'll try to parse into that a little more. that can be 80/20 or 90/10. tell me how much science there is that would refute your position with respect to the materiality of genetically engineering food being safe? ípr(t&háhp &hc% again, as a class, that there's any question about safety. based on the row eviews we have done. >> go ahead. >> there are obviously scientists who differ with that point of view. i don't know how many of them there >> but it's a tiny fraction? >> it is. >> and not enough that it would change your view with respect to the safety of this food. >> to date, we have seen nothing to change the view that we have had for a number of years now. >> and that would include, there were questions about what other countries have done. this would include studies performed all across the world.

>> that is correct. >> i've heard some of my patchwork of 50 sets of rules and what that might do. just so we're all clear, it's potentially thousands of sets of rules, cities, counties,p&j" mind reels with the number of folks who might want to confirm their theory of rightv,2xñ to k through some sort of statutory or municipal rule. tell me what you thinkzññ that complexity would do to the safety of the food supply chain. >> i don't know that it would have an effect on safety. >> the confusion in consumers we were talking about. he said he had to go 2,000 miles. you might only have to go 2 miles to pass into a city that had different rules. be to understand what they were consuming it would be pretty significant. >> i suppose it=j

my concern is that the underlying safety of the food -- >> wouldn't change.txv$[r(t&háh% you talked about your pre-marketing consultation lya$% today. you said most of these folks have providedtúr that to you. you said you've gotten about a hundred, a few of them have gotten withdrawn. i want to make sure. no one's run through the stop sign today where someone said we have a question ord3t concern a you said good for you, we still want to introduce this to the marketplace. >> that is correct. >> it would be difficult to run through an fda light that says hey, we think we've got a health or safety issue. >>s that true. >> this law contains a provision which would require them0 fda within 24 months to propose legislation, i think we ought to clear it up so the 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're successful in8csr getting this passed you'll get to be successful in youru6ññ endeavor well. has anyone, so there have been proposals from some cities and states about labeling for john t have any of those folks come to you or the fda to ask for your wisdom about what that label ñ safety andba science behind genetically engineeredl$1çfoods? >> to the best of my knowledge.ç no. not that i'm aware of. it's conceivable it could have come somewhere fro7úcdj the age >> 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, the fda cank handle all the requests for review, do you think that is ang4 improvement? that is, do you think it's the case that each of these products ought to be submitted for fda review beforeu%fq commercializ? >> yes, and we think that is happening now. >> thank you. i yield b9hdz; mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. that concludes the questions of the members that are present. i'm sure we will have follow up questions, other questions from members. we'll submit those to you in writing. pl promptly. thank you very much for coming this morning. we're going to é->rtake, while staff sets up this second panel, a r(!hñthree-minute recess.

the sub committel$:w will c to order. we ask the guests to please takl their seats, and i'll introduce

the second panel. at this time, first of bt$zall alson van em.fd department of animal science from the department of &çd. secondly, mr. scott faber,a!#" senior vice president of government affairs for the &h group. representative kate webb, assistant majority leader in the vermont house of t]ñ representatives. ms. stacy forshe of the kansas the snack food association. thank you all for coming. we appreciate your patience. minutes to summarize your testimony. your written testimony will be

of the record.4@a so(@m dr. van eminem. we'll start with you. you're recognized for five minutes for your summary. >> good morning.v1xm my name is alson van eminem. and i'mce= accace specialist a university ofe california davi. i work in biotechnology. and one of the reasons i'm testifying here today is i was the task force chair and the lead author of the paper number 54 entitled the potential impacts of mandatory labeling for genetically engineered food in the united states. it was published in april of this year. and it basically explores the scientific legal and economic aspects of labeling in the united states, based on theamp of a breeding me odd rather than

on some specific attribute of the food itself. and it also looks at the implications of the economic impacts. so i think.

papaya. other uses also include a non-browning apple. land grant university researchers in california, florida and texas are working to use genetic engineering to develop oranges that are resistant to disease, something that's devastating the florida orange industry, and grapezox these z8qsdisease-resistant ge applications focus on using genetics versus chemicals. in 2013, genetically engineered crops were cultivated worldwide by 18 million farmers. and in the united states,

fy cotton and corn. iílcñ look to literature and r articles that present a summary of many independent studies. in 2014, german professors had an analysis of 147 studies that have a sessessed the impact. ge technology++ii adoption redu chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22% and 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, including gradients that might be from corn oil or sugar

beet sugar that have been derived fromxbpn ge croj ! var. it's been estimated 70% to 80% of processed foods likely contain such groentss. and oil contain noñ detectab detectbék ge. it would require tracking to keep track of the productproduc. a

research conducted so far has not detected any significant with the use of ge crops. the american association for the advancement of science, the world's largest and most prestigious scientific community stated in 2012, the science is quite clear, the modern technology is safe. the world health organization, association, the u.s.h?ñ nation academy of sciences, the british royal society, and every other 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 cropsdyfwç devel using ge have justified the use of a label. while thisg:n conclusion will satisfy those, the science of

food safety does notnhbt require food and drug administration. i would beb:f"ç pleased to take questions from the sub committee. >> chair thanks the gentle lady and now recognizes mr. faeber. >> thank you mr. chairman. first, let me thank you for the tremendous work you and your staff performed onmv2u the sunsn innovation@b2gract. we greatly appreciate your work 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's in their food and how it's produced. more than 90% of consumers, regardless of aim, income or party affiliation routinely tell pollsters that they simply want the right to choose the right to know what's in their food. but this isn't simply a question

off)u to know. it's also a question of consumer confusion. as mrs. caps

together to draft a label without rendering a judgment on the technology. fortunately, fda has the authority to require such a disclosure. and as mr. waxman alluded to earlier, has usedéomzñ this auty in the past. and that's fortunate bee4wue we would greatly, greatly prefer a national gmo labeling solution. but in the absence of leadership from fda, we believe they should act and require mandatory disclosure. congre3amo7ñ long recognized a role for the states, a leading labeling. and that's why the mlea was crafted to not prevent state labeling laws such as the gmo disclosure laws that have been passed by states like vermont. you've heard arguments made today and will hear more by this panel that gmo labeling will increase food prices, but you doesn't have to work for the grocery manufacturers associate

or work for the food industry to know that food companies change their labels all the time, to highlight new claims or new innovations. [ also hear today that gmo labeling will create costly new farm and food segregation systems. but those systems have been in place for decades to address allergens and to meet growing non choices all the way from the farm to the elevator to the processor to the retailer. in fact, the snack food industry has launched more non-gmo offerings in the last decade than any other food segment in the industry. you also will hear again that we need gmo crops to feed the skl world. first, let me say, no one, no one is seeking a ban on gmo crops. and let he point out that many farm groups, including the national farmers union support

mandatory gmo labeling. butq it'sr'÷6dz also worth noti we've run the experiment for the last 20 years, and so far, yields of conventional crops have kept pace with yields of ge crops. i agreey hear from ms. forshe 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 and consumers. unfortunately, hr 4432 does not provide a national mandatory labeling system. in fact, it 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 things that have fueled confusion. and it also creates state laws. mr. chairman, people simply want

to know what's in their food. they want to be able to make choices for their families, and i hope you'll work with us to give consumers the right to know whether or not their food contains genetically modified ingredients. >> now i recognize ms. webb for opening statement. you, mr. dhar. and committee. my name is kate webb. i'm 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 laws at risk for q7z 4432 become law, because vermont is involved in litigation involving this issue, i want to be clear i am not a lawyer, not a scientiss and not here as a representative of my statetwmtc or government. i want to show that this is

important to our citizens. vermont's act 120, related to genetic engineering was signed into law this may, to great fanfare and celebration on our state house steps.kx-p this billr< ñ grew from efforts of vermonters. this was not limited to a handful of vermonteján that more than 75% of vermonters were in favor of such labeling. iñh0 personally became involve this legislation in 2012, and other the next three years, we vg÷ know how our food is produced. drafts that traveled through six legislative committees, who people, including lawyers, food producers and manufacturers on both sides of the issue.

act 120 in the time form was the result of many hours, years and weeks of work. i want you to hear this. a senate vote of 28-2. it passed the house in a vote oñ 114 to 30. why is it that vermont wants ìáhp &hc% transparency and truth in labeling. even the world health organization defines genetically modified food as food derived from organisms whose genetic material has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, and monsanto has genetically modifiedñ organisms. however, many genetically engineered products continue to carry the word natural or variations on their label. i believe this is misleading and act 120 would limit theríf[ of this term.

and evolving science, consumers concerned about thegt health effects want the right to exercise this prekauflgts and finally, we heard testimony that many religious groups could not tellí@ç÷ if foods violate their religious traditions. there's nothing in our law that says it is good or bad. businesses and farming will go on as businesses and farming always does. one of the great strengths of a capitalist democracy is notsdsty we also do so by selecting the products we purchase. transv÷bñq5áñ allows us to see government. financial institutions or the food we eat. this transparency allows us to make informed decisions and ultimately build trust. continued today to lead the way on food labeling.-m;o

41 states regulated the use of sell by and use by data updates on food labels. before congressman dated our current federal county of origin, country of origin label which also doesn't state whether it's good or bad