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.

produce a disease-resistant 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 screeria -- ni-

>> no more war. u.s. intervention is counter productive. the weapons will land in the hands -- >> this committee will come to order. mr. secretary, we welcome you back to the committee. thank you for being here today to discuss one of the most important topics that congress ever must meet the challenge of. whoen you last appeared before the committee in september you asked congress to authorize military force against isil. we have in a umf that the

committee will consider later this week. today we are asking you to provide the administration's views on this text. on your strategic planning to counter isil along with the range of military authorities you will need to achieve your goals. this is the most important vote that any member of congress can take. it is a vote that potentially sends america's sons and daughters into p harm's way. we don't take that responsibility lightly. that demands our full attention and consideration of three issues. first the military action is necessary and in the security interests in the united states. i believe it is. and i doubt anyone on the committee would disagree. i believe the risk of isil acquiring a safe haven in iraq or syria or beyond from which it can create the operational capacity to attack american interests and at some point america itself demands action.

second, we need to understand the political and military goals of the operation. how we expect to achieve them and the time frame of this campaign. now, i know some may see this as limiting. but at the end of the day, americans will not be supportive of an authorization of an endless war. they do not want us to occupy iraq for decades. they do not want an isil recruitment aumf allowing deployment of ground troops would be ground hog day in iraq all over again. we want to hear what the authorities expect they will need from congress to achieve his political and military goals of defeating isil and closing off the region to extremists and terrorists.

i hoped to begin the conversation weeks ago so the entire senate, not just this committee would have time to consider a comprehensive bipartisan aumf. that didn't happen. we are here today to begin the process of taking action. i think the american people expect congressional leaders to engage on this issue to understand the mission, parameter and risks. as i have said many times, i am not comfortable with the administration's reliance on the 9/11 amf and the 2002 iraq aumf. the 9/11 was to counter al qaeda in the wake of the september 11 attacks. no member could have foreseen we would still be acting under its authority 13 years later. i don't believe it provides authority to pursue a new enemy in a different country under different circumstances than existed 13 years ago.

congress has the ability and authority to authorize military action and to declare war for these reasons. we are the check and balance on executive power regardless of who the executive is. if we abandon the role we will have done a grave disservice to the american people. the text i have is based on consultations with members of the committee and addresses t the -- seeking. an eye is sill specific aumf should authorize the president to use military force against isil and associated persons or forces. meaning individuals or organizations fighting for or on behalf of isil. it should limit the activities of our forces so there will be no large scale ground combat operations. the president feels he needs that, then he should ask for it and congress can consider it. it should limit the authorization to three years and require the administration to report to congress every 60 days. as drafted the text would limit

the authorization of force by not allowing ground combat operations except as necessary for the protection or rescue of u.s. soldiers or citizens for intelligence operations, to en able air strikes, operational planning or other forms of advice and assistance. the authorization would be limited to three years. the president has said this will be a multi year campaign. i don't believe the aumf should be unlimited. a three-year time frame would allow this president and a new president time to assess the situation and make responsible decisions. together with the congress about whether and how to continue military action. that said, mr. secretary, we'd love to hear from the administration what the framework is, what you see.

this authorization is intended to provide the authority. isil is not only an american problem. it is a global problem. no isil strategy can rely on american military power alone. we need to train iraqi security force and kurdish peshmerga forces, stand up and train and equip for moderate syrian fighterers which are being authorized in the defense authorization bill that the congress will consider this week. work with coalition partners to cut off financing and foreign fighter flous and provide humanitarian aid to address the situation situation of the millions whose lives have been uprooteded. we look forward to working on our mutual goal of degrading and defeating isil. we welcome you back to the committee. let me turn to the distinguished ranking member for his remarks. >> mr. chairman, thank you for

allowing us to move away from what we considered last week which was an aumf that was an amendment to a water bill. i i want to thank the secretary for being here. i'm pretty sure this is not are where he'd like to be this afternoon. i thank you for coming before the committee. i want to thank you for trying to set up a process this week that was thoroughment that's not occurred. i think everyone understands that we have no defense presentations here, no intelligence presentations here. i would also say.

it was going to last about ten hours. we were able to go through a process that was much more serious than the one we would have this week. whatever passes out of the committee this week is not going to become law. at least this will be a part of the process. just for what it's worth, i know we are not going to get to a place where the house and senate pass an authorization. when we begin a process like that, we don't actually enact it in law. we weaken our nation.

we also hurt our nation when we attempt to pass something out on a partisan basis. one of the things about the earlier syrian aumf was it had bipartisan support and opposition. regardless of what happens in these meetings this week, my plan of conduct personally is to act in such a way that hopefully will not harden positions but will build for an opportunity for us to act in a more full way down the road. i want to say though that i think the testimony today will be helpful. you know, i listened to the chairman's comments and referred to the fact that the 60-word authorization that was passed september 18 of 2001 has led to some out comes that people

didn't anticipate. that's why from my standpoint i would like something much more full. much more understood, a strategy that's laid out in a way that i understand where we are going. authorizing. it's hard to remember one that ended up with a satisfactory outcome. we start the conflicts without teasing out from the administration in most cases how we are going to actually go about being successful. we start the process. in this particular case it appears that an aumf has been offered to start the process. it actually limits the commanderers in chief -- the

commander in chief's ability to carry it out. in fact, what would happen under this authorization is right now we can use all efforts, if you will, to go against al qaeda. if we were to pass this authorization as where it en. we would be saying against isis we can with only do certain things. somehow we must view them as being a lesser evil than the al qaeda effort -- the al qaeda group we have gone after and the taliban group we have gone after in afghanistan. we are not going to do anything that passes unfortunately. i don't think it is good for the nation. it's better to start at a time we can finish with a congress that will actually deal with this from start to finish. i appreciate the chairman