to label or not to label. we're debating genetically modified foods and if you want to see them on store shelves. >> gmos, it stands for genetically modified organisms, and dozens of states are looking at labeling requirements, but there are a lot of politics surrounding potential policies. while there is no shortage of opinions on this topic, my tweets have been lit up all day. >> our community is vocal and passionate and very opinioned. >> consumers have a right to know how their food is made. spencer said i agree about labeling. gmo doe is to food as cloned hus are to humans. finally the sad thing about this debate it has become a political issue as and not, quote, what is best for the population issue. loyal streamers, you're the third host of the show. due to all your online contributions, engage us on twitter using the hashtag. >> they say you are with a you eat, and many residents in washington state want to know what they're eating. there is a battle brewing which would require retail food product and

label. we have two other states that are waiting to see if states around them pass labeling laws, but at some point they may come into this. but that's basically who is gating information. we talk about everyone should have information. well, right there, those are the folks with labeling laws. there were attempts on the west coast to pass labeling laws, and those were not successful and so this is what we have. now, what we're proposing -- that everybody get information, people in my home state of michigan, people across the nation, everybody will get information and that there will have to be a mandatory label. we give three choices -- on food that contains g.m.o.'s. not voluntary like the house, but a mandatory labeling system. so what did we do? and how is it different than what happened in the house? we wilwell, first of all -- wel, first of all, as i indicated, a national mandatory labeling requirement. and i'll talk more about that in aempt mo. -- in a moment. secondly, in vermont and

we regulate the labeling including labeling on the foods under the food and drug act. we established that the food is disbanded if it is labeling, false or misleading in any particular. the act also provides that labeling is misleading if it fails to review material facts to the representation made by suggestive of labeling or number two fails with respect to consequences whether that is a labeled use or customary use. historically they are taking the position that the use of the genetic engineering and the food is normally not by a self material information in a meeting of the food and drug act. the courts have held that absent of the facts are the difference fact or the difference in the food derived from the source. the act doesn't require labeling indicating that it's been developed for the genetic engineering. .. is the agency more or less confident today in the safety of the underlying technology? >> it's confidence remains strong. it has been and remains strong. >> how do you know that genetically engineered foods are no different in terms of safety than their c

. >> the same thing on the labeling. if you have -- i don't think we'll have 50 different labeling requirements but two or three states, then shat shows we need a national standard. >> right, the level of complexity with that type of labeling would be an incalculable burden on manufacturing. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate it. >> time has expired on the floor votes so we'll come back as soon as we vote. there are two votes. and the committee stands in recess for the floor vote. >> the time of reassess having expired, we'll continue with the questions and at this point the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank all of the witnesses for joining us today on this very important subject. as a matter of fact, i walked out of this hearing to go back to my office before i went to a floor for the vote, and there were a group of seven people in there wanted to talk about this bill. so somebody is really organized today. but it is an important issue, and mr. offthe

we regulate labeling, including labelling of ge foods.ablishes the food is misbranded if its labelling is false or misleading in any particular. the act also provides that labeling is 1 one, fails to reveal material facts that are material with respect to representations made or suggested in the labeling. or, two fails to reveal facts that are material with respect to consequences that may result from use of the food, whether that's a labeled use or customary use. the use of jennetic engineering in the development of food is normally not by itself material information within the meaning of the food5@fqw drug act. federal courts have held it absent a material fact. the act does not require labeling, indicating the food has been developed through genetuc engineering. in closing let me reiterate the consultation process for foods derived from ge plants is working well. and provides for a rigorous food safety evaluation of such foods. the agency will be vig lent in ensuring the safety and integrity of the food supply. >> the chair thanks the

and the labels bring the urgency to the point of sale. and so this is one of the problems of transportation emissions and the consumer just does not feel part of the problem because they are very much of a problem. because their contribution individually is small, but collectively they are part of this large problem and so the label locates the responsibility at that point of sale directly. so another problem with greenhouse gas emissions is that it does not bite us, it does not hurt and we don't get any immediate feedback and so the labels still feedback at the point of sale. and so the consumers is getting that oh, this is a problem message, and it is going to be durable, and be consistently there and every time that they are there, it is a reminder and it is going to be conscious and so the discounting is what i was saying earlier, it is a term psychological term, that we tend to discount the future threats. and it is a bias, and the climate change is a perfect storm of cognitive biass for human beings, we need tools, and the cities ne

this is what you'll get from the label of the future. this will be the new norm in providing consumers with information about the food we buy and eat. so this is a huge deal, which is why everybody is here. and it's going to make a big difference for families across this country. so today i want to end as i started, by truly thanking the f.d.a. and everyone else involved in this important effort. i am excited to see all the comments that come in over the coming months, and i look forward to celebrating the final label, and then ultimately seeing it on grocery shelves across the country in the years to come.

been involved in managing food labelling?alse 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 statut

that wording was in the label they mandated, it wasn't in the merck label. >> mr. frederick let's come down to practical. you say earlier, that the merck scientists were saying when they received this letter the fda doesn't like our language. what do you suggest merck could have done without changing its label until the fda would have approved it, and why do you believe you can convince a jury that if they had done it your way the fda would have. >> accepted the new label, well the regulatory matter let's start with the law, the cbe regulation gives the manufacture the right to change the label subject to revision by the fda. that never happened here because merck never proposed ean adequate warning. >> is we know the fda, assuming the theory that the fda doesn't believe the label is add qt. what could they have done -- the absent the study? >> because the study obviously changed the fda's mind. you're saying merck could have done it. there was plenty of information by that point justice sotomayor and dr. lane goes through this. it's an emeeks brief, explaining wha

label nongenetically engineered labeled label, and then consumers can find out. mr. chairman, i yield back. then the consumers can find out if they want to purchase nongenetically engineered products. there are companies out there that are going to provide them. so i think this doesn't get to where a lot of people want to get, but it gets us a long way down the road. it will be able to define what this means. and put in place a workable solution that i think people should support. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1599 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. to internear a colloquy with the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pompeo: when considering the substitute report by the agriculture committee, i would like to confirm the committee was aware of ingredients perfect crifed by genetically engineered crops they contain no genetically enneared material. i yield to the gentleman from texas for his response. mr. conaway: it certainly is our understandi

no label gives you nothing. that is it. host: what do you mean no label gives you nothing? caller: no label tells you it has no history, it has no background of telling the person with the history is of their party of their history, their current opinions get messed up without a party label. host: that is nancy in minnesota. if you go to the no labels document, the list of principles this document represents when it comes to energy issues and environmental issues, part of it says one of the goals is all and above energy strategy is the best way to lower prices for american families, saying america needs to be able to build clean energy technology. these are the principles i possible third-party could represent, should it happen. do you support or oppose the effort? pick the line that best represents you. you can text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. in virginia, opposed line. caller: good morning. i want to talk about joe manchin , he is a disaster for the american public. he is the man behind this scam. this is a coup to defeat joe biden, who is popular against trump. t

a few things, the record labels will still exist, the big labels.they will still exist because everybody likes superstars and at least for the time being the way to turn nobody into a gigantic star, justin timberlake or beyonce, still old-fashioned way, for that artist to sign with a major record label and use the connections to get on the radio. you have seen more of that. there is this kid, the new teen pop guy who plays in malls and your kids probably like him a lot and the jonas brothers. there are a lot of traditional stars but something interesting is happening under the surface and that is artists are finding ways to make money without the traditional labels system. some of these artists are well known. radio head is the best example. radio head put out an album called rainbows. it is a popular rock band. they put up this album and they said pay us what you want. we will give it away on the internet. get it for free if you want or pay a $5 million. everybody said are they crazy? it was a really interesting concept. two things happened. people

nutrition facts label. but there's more steps that we can take with front of package identification attributes, if there's other ideas we will of a public docket f there -- if the that we can have more icons and information that can allow consumers to make quicker decisions and more quickly identify the important features of food, and do it with a voluntary frame work, where we can create a consistent standard that food manufacturers can take advantage of that is something that we are interested in doing. >> thank you. very much for your comments today. brian todd with the food institute, we are also from new jersey so we have that in common. just a question about the food safety modernization act. a lot of our members in the food industry is, you know, dealing with those regulations right now from our own feeling, from our own understanding and what we have seen is a lot of companies are kind of dragging their feet right now, particularly the smaller ones and just wanted to see if you had any comments abou

our solution is labels. when you say displacing state law you are talking like a lawyer which is what you are supposed to do. what worries me is if you go too far in allowing the jury to find mislabeling by not including things, you are hurting the vast majority of women or whatever who can be benefiting from this medicine. on the other hand if you don't go far enough you will hurt that minority. that is the framework i'm trying to figure out the answer to the question and that is why neil gorsuch's question was relevant. all the earmarks here are that merck took this as a letter saying this will not hurt people and we will not help you to put it on. obviously somebody must have picked up the phone when they got that letter and say do you mean that? you can change the word stress factor in two questions or you don't know enough about it. appointment of the layer task force suggests they felt they didn't know enough about it and merck couldn't have done it. i'm looking for your answer, and the more abstract q

eat is not labeled. -- 70% of the food we eat is not labeled. [indiscernible] most of the food that we are eating has been modified. to some extent, i really do not -- to limit the ability of people to produce new products. the future of our ability to provide -- >> how will leveling -- i still don't understand how labeling will prevent people from developing other kinds of foods. it is just letting consumers know what is they are eating. >> if consumers want to know that they eat non-gm food, there are other options. they can buy organic. it is ok. the question is, what is the norm of the food my grandmother, for example, would like kosher food. not every food is labeled kosher or non kosher. a lot of other things are labeled voluntarily. to what extent do you really want to stigmatize gm foods or not? if people would like to develop -- requiring labeling of everything then. they cannot just ask you to label 70%. >> let's go to that issue. let me ask stacy malkan about this. dr. david zilberman mentione

labeling. a lot of questions or as a wife a lot of companies we lobby on behalf of our parmer customers to make sure that the that you know the their issues are understood and appreciated i don't think there's anything unusual or atypical about about our lobbying efforts in terms of the of the food labeling i think those numbers are are very clear in terms of what the industry and what monsanto contributed you know both in california and by how much can house how much of an both cases because you didn't answer my first question i don't really have the specifics but it is important to be happy to follow up with wow ok i got it so why don't you kid that's like a missouri man if you like her politician a sly arson or rob what's wrong. if they label it. not a big thing in fact you know that it's a great starting point for the conversation because a lot of people think that we're against lately the reality of it is we've been very supportive of the voluntary labeling approaches that i think are real

the single labels people get tired of them and not notice them and graphic warning labels are more effective. >> you say graphic labs. >> yes. pictorial with the population using language and sometimes, people they're not going to read it or don't thinks there's a lot of research are pictorial advisement is better and more effective. >> all right. supervisor wiener new questions nope thank you for your presentation. >> okay. so now at this time i think we'll open up for public comment i have a few public comment cards i'm going to call up the four names they'll speak first and any other member of the public may speak afterwards chris in the american health association and alcohol justice and from the medical society and andrea yip just as a reminder two minutes. >> thank you good afternoon. thank you inspires for allowing me to speak i want to start by thanking supervisor mar and supervisor cohen and supervisor wiener as the chairman for the heart association for i stand here and say the heart association supports those two measures reducing the sugar sweetened beverages is a huge will have

not just labeling. there are a whole bunch of food regulations that will increase price of groceries at the store. gerri: margo, i want you to weigh in something we've been talking about on this and revamping serving sizes. that is part of the labeling issue. they're going to, instead of saying that a pint of ice cream is two to four servings will say two which is more like reality. there is concern there will be downsizing of packaging along with this and increase in food prices. what do you say to that? >> i say the last time nutrition labeling went into effect there wasn't increasen costs passed on to the consumer even though a lot of people cried wolf and said that was going to happen. so i'm not expecting to see that. customers want a certain size package, they're used to that it will just mean that they will have more accurate nutrition information for what is in that package. bag of chips was about the same size. going to be more honest labeling of it. >> well the food experts i talked to today,

labeling will debate the economic and health impacts of labeling these food. bowl and. it's not completely accurate but arguably getting there and it's not just social media companies either the government is getting into the mix as well paying private companies to follow you around you may have heard a lot about a certain company as of late called trap wire though not much has been confirmed about the program we do know this that the quote sophisticated predictive software used to predict terrorist attacks is already in place in cities such as los angeles new york los vegas and d.c. with a limitless data bank with who knows what or who well there you have it it seems the days of anonymity are gone and it's not just the camera but the data bank you should also be afraid of so is a picture really worth a thousand words well as we found out today it might be worth much much more reporting from washington imagine a set of artsy and with most programs involving high tech cameras and an f.b.i. database the need for these programs is often said system from the need for greate

>> you are saying like a different label for the diesel verses gasoline? >> yes. >> yeah, i suppose that would be up to the policy makers to decide what the best way to do it was and i think that eyer original thinking was simpler was easier and better to have just one label so that we can save on the printing cost and design costs and confusion, but, yeah, i think that is a decision for the policy makers to decide, if you want to have the specific customized labels for each of the fuel types. >> we don't have that many, that would be a a little better. one thing that i just wanted to jot down this is something along these lines and each gallon of this fuel that you use, produces an average of whatever, we say that the thing is, 20 pounds of, and co2, the gap, and something as simple as that and with the food note of the epa and it is talking to me, right? and i am doing something. yes, go ahead. >> and so, wow, heather you are really inspiring me and those are great, great ideas and they bring up one of the point that i just want to talk about with fundin

labeling. this bill is frankly very different from what passed the house of representatives about a year ago i think now. and from what we voted on in march. and i do think senator roberts and -- thank senator roberts and his staff for working in a bipartisan way to get us to the spot where we are now. as everyone knows, i opposed voluntary labeling at every turn. i don't think it's right to preempt states from having labeling laws and replace it with something that is voluntary. there needs to be a mandatory system which is what this bill does. i worked to keep what was dubbed by activists as the dark act from becoming law three different times here in the united states senate. throughout this process i worked to enthis are that any agreement -- to ensure that any agreement would first recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe. second, ensure that consumers have the right to know what is in their food. and third, to prevent a confusing patchwork of 50 different labeling req

it was labeled dairy free. however she says eating the candy could have threatened her son's life. 7-year-old tyler is as playful as any first grader diving into his toy tent or wrestling his little brother you would never know this carefree little boy faces a terrible threat. >> it is life and death. it is to the something to be taken lightly. >> tyler is severely allergic to dairy products. his mother says the slightest drop of milk or eggs could cause a life-threatening shock. >> he experiences vomiting. his toping and lips get swollen. >> they separate all foods in the kitchen. tyler safe food here and unsafe foods up high. tyler has learned to read labels to find safe treats. >> and he found the candy bar and he said, mommy, this say dairy free and vegan. does that mean i can have it? >> he was thrilled to find these chocolate bars had a dairy free label. >> i read the ingreed -- ingredients and did not see any dairy or egg. >> tyler began to eat one and within minutes the panic. >> he said to us my mouth

host: how would you design a label?>> guest: with difficulty. i would do something much disagree much like a traffic label system that was used in great britain for a while. the fda proposed a photo packaging system. because the institute of medicine in washington to do the two major reports on the package labeling and the second is a proposed system of photo package labeling and it's like traffic lights where it only looks at the sugar, salt, saturated fat and calories and has a check mark for them. but that came out during an election year and find him and i think the fda is going to leave those reports in the drawer until they get the nutrition facts label straightened out and they may never go back to it but i would pull the report out of the drawer immediately. >> host: because of the availability of more calories per person and is thus likely to decrease world hunger? >> guest: would be nice. it is decreasing according to the food and agriculture organization that just came out with its annual report and its down

that wording was all in the 2010 label that fda mandated, not in merck's label. justice sotomayor: you say earlier that the merck scientists were saying when they received this letter, the fda does not like our language. what do you suggest merck could have done without changing its label so the fda would have approved it? and why do you believe you can convince a jury that if they had done it your way, the fda would have accepted the new label? mr. frederick: as a regulatory matter, let's start with the law first. cbe regulation gives the manufacturer the right to change its label subject to revision by the fda. that never happened because merck never proposed an adequate -- justice sotomayor: we know that the fda, assuming the theory that the fda does not believe the label is adequate, what could they have done, absent the study? because the study obviously changed the fda's eye. you are saying merck could have done it. mr. frederick: there was plenty of information by that point, and dr. lang goes through the chronology. it is a beautifully done amicus brief t

labeling, allergen labeling, bioterrorism and recordkeeping and proposed updates to the nutrition facts panel. we also have our own safety and quality standards that go beyond these laws. the last thing we want is someone to get sick from the food in our grocery stores. you might ask how is this related to what we are talking about today. these are all related to the supermarket industry and where we devote time and resources. they are regulations that are not applied to chain restaurants. when the f.d.a. takes a chain restaurant menu labeling law and stretches it out to grocery stores on top of the other laws that we comply with and abide with, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the glove simply doesn't fit. we are committed to aiding our customers and making healthy choices and i will highlight three of those things we are doing. we with other grocers have a healthy initiatives departments that make informed decisions about healthy eating, something we didn't have to do but it's the right thing to do. we invested significant resources in the scoring system, a system that gives a zero t

to put the risk in the label than it is to leave it out. and then they set up the task force to find they were wrong. >> this is what is really interesting about the task force. the fda clearly didn't have all of the relevant information. because what the task force finds is that there are about 170-some articles that have been written on this subject, only five had been given to the fda. or that there was evidence that the fda was aware of. and so that's why this statute imposes the duty on the manufacturer, because the manufacturer is going to be tracking this all over the world. there was a report from a merck employee in singapore in 2006, who said i've now seen several of these specialized atypical femoral fractures, i think this could be an indication that we need a safety signal. and justice breyer, i accept your basic point, but what started this whole thing was the first lawsuit against merck for these atypical femoral fractures was in march of 2008, and that's what started this whole back and forth, the fda became aware of this la

is confusing they're spending more money than ever spend on labeling telling people that labeling is too expensive they're pretending that the labeling bill has been created by trial lawyers to force lawsuits and that it's going to be bad for farmers and small businesses and it's going to cost a huge amount of money for california bureaucracy in reality all of these are manufactured lies and this is very simply a right to new orleans will be affixed to a a package indicating whether a product is genetically engineer. and some of the opponents of prop thirty seven jeffrey say that the food choices will decrease and prices will increase our how do you respond to that. there are sixty one countries that have labeling requirements for genetically engineered toots and not one has increased the cost of foods to consumers in fact the same companies that sell g m o's in the united states kraft nestle as hershey's have either labeled it overseas or removed it entirely at no cost to consumers if they wanted to thrust the entire cost of hiring an artist to place the actual label would cost abou

label helps them appreciate that, that there are externalties. and bringing that externals in to that floor and it is we, and we argue is, in the essential part of changing people's attitude and beliefs so we can create the stronger price signals as you know, 2015, is greenhouse gas, transportation, and cap and trade and rules applied to the transportation. and so that is that. so the idea, the end result of the labels is to bring about this, and this term is cognitive, and it is making consumer dissatisfied with the current technology of what we are using now and creating greater demand for policy change for new technology for land use changes and better transit option and so on. so, the idea is kind of set the stage for that type of thing. this is just another term it is about you know, changing the social context and the labels are out of the public relevant sxm they are changing the social context around the fossil in the society. and this is a canadian study on smoking labels, and as you can see, virtually everybody notices them, and they ha

a clean label is? >> i don't want to get too far ahead of the process. from my standpoint i like to see a broader policy goal. these are not things that we can do every two years. after much consideration there's a cost involved in relabeling products and a lot of work coming up with what's the optimum label. we want to find vehicles to find ways for sponsors to put informational labels in ways that some of the advocates are useful for consumers to make decisions and put them on a way that's more prominent allows them to identify information more quickly. so coming up with a voluntary framework where consumers can identify things that are science -based. an optimum label is one that a consumer can look at the important information to make smart choices. there's more steps we can take particularly with package identification. that's why talked about healthy. there's other ideas will open a public docket. or other ways to create easily identifiable information on the label and icons that consumers make q

label. now it's out of ordinary we are holding a hearing before the fda has released a formal proposal. but it is an important conversation. we must recognize food labeling reforms are not the end-all be-all which is to say they are not a silver bullet solving the nation's health and obesity issues. the committee needs to look at all factors leading to obesity and how congress can use its resources to promote a healthier lifestyle. this means examining fda's role in reviewing the safety of chemicals and ingredients that o into our foods. so foods are safe to consume it. congress can better support robust scientific research and food ingredients and i look forward to discussing this with fda leadership i would hear from fda about the progress it is made improving food safety duties. under the biden/harris administration fda face enormous challenges and regulating food safety including the 2022 infant formula shortage which are severely impacted american families. the largest reorganization in

label contest.ond one we did last year. this was the thousand dollar winner then. >> it's called a drive and talk speaker phone. what does it say. warning, do not use while driving. [ laughter ] >> bob is back and he agreed to let you in the audience award a thousand dollars. he begin this contest 13 years ago because he was angry about what lawsuits do in america. >> it's the debate but all the ways in culture are changing because it's the most lawsuit happy society on earth. we have more lawsuits than any other country in the world. we twoochbtd talk one way litigation is filtering in every day. >> girl scouts must sell tens of thousands of cookies each year just to pay their liability insurance. >> we work with nonprofit organizations that feed the poor. we work with little league of america spends more money on liability insurance than any other item in their budget, basketballs and bats combined. >> john: warning labels get longer. there are unintended consequences. >> they claim they are doing

so to say did the fda tell merck they couldn't change their label? if they told merck that then it is impossible but if they didn't, whatever is in the fda's head then it's not impossible they will change the label and it has responsibility over the label to the extent it thinks the literature supports a change it should support the label. >> but first and foremost, look at the letter itself it would have been better if it stated without ambiguity reason we are rejecting your proposed warning is we don't think there is sufficient evidence of causation to warrant inclusion with this portion of the label that would be better. >> and it would be enough we would not be here but it would be an easy case and merck would win with that in big us letter the court should construe in light of submission of the regulatory schemes and in light of fda subsequent action. >> why? merck is the manufacturer of drugs it hast to ensure that adequate warnings are given if it is not safe the act does not take away that responsibility but it does say you have to get approv

if you don't put a warning label you will get sued. here we have a warning label. here is a great little product. say you are driving down the road and you have a wonderful idea and write a note to yourself where you can take this little wheel mate, attaches to the steering wheel. warning, never use this product while driving. >> john: that would seem like a reasonable warning. you don't want people to use it. as the company explained, they said it is impossible to use while driving. so the car would drive around in circles if you tried it but the lawyer said put it on just in case. >> that is what we hear. you will sued if you don't. a warning label on fishing harmful if swallowed. >> john: product three. >> this is neck pillow that parents will put around the neck of the infants in the car. >> john: so the child can be more comfortable. >> it keeps their head stable and hurting the child. warning label actually says keep this product away from facts and children. it's kind of hard to use it. >> john: we called the company and they didn't respond. this is number f

require a label. require a label. a label is simple. a label works. and senator merkley, i see you're on the floor, and i'm finishing up. we have various ways we can do the label. one way is give it to the f.d.a. and tell them to come up with it. another way is the way senator merkley has proceeded in a way to attract more support. he's given four options, all of which are very good. and all of which would immediately give you the information that you need. now, in 2000 when i introduced the first senate labeling of g.e. foods, my legislation had one supporter, and it was me. i had no other supporters back then. it was so long ago, 2000. now 14 senators are cosponsoring the bill, and i am so proud to cosponsor senator merkley's bill, the biotechnology food labeling and uniformity act, which again will put forward four options for companies. so there are reasons that people want this information and not one of us we are should decry or could decry what our people want. they want to know if the foods contain g.m.o.'s because of the prevalence of herbici