Well 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 well 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, well 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, id like to just ask for your comments. Fda has made it clear there are current consultation process is rigorous, involves a number of experts wellversed in methods, and is entirely, to use their words, entirely sufficient for purposes of reviewing the safety of these products. And so if the fda is perfectly comfortable in the process, feels it adequately protects pre public for food safety, why are you arguing for new Legal Authority that fda did not believe it even needs . Thank you very much for the question. I agree with you that fda is clearly the agency in the government with the expertise on food safety, and if theres any anything that should be deciding the set of gmo crops they should be fda and i believe they have the expertise. So i agree with you and theyre using that in this consultation process but i think the process works only because of the good nature of the companies that are coming forward with the genetically engineered seeds. Theyre not required by law to do that. While there are lots of incentives for companies that are based in the United States to do that, that may not be the case for imported foods from other countries. So i can give you an example of china, which is now spending 300 million a year doing research on jeanette click en genetically engineer crops and may grow a rice variety and that may get turn into different Food Products imported into the United States. Those Companies May not think of the voluntary process as mandatory. And fda may not know about those because they werent homegrown products that started with Research Trials in a company or university here in the United States. So usda may not be aware of those. So fda need the teals to do it with the imports coming into the country. They need the authority to make sure that something is overseen. Your primary concern is on imports. And also on the experts. I do a lot of work in developing countries and around the world, and we do a lot of exports of our genetically engineered crops and those countries cant look to the fda decision. Theres no opinion from the fda these are safe. So those countries, which many our exerters from the u. S. Would like to say to those countries, please defer to fda, and a lot of other countryies do that, but because in this case theres no approval think cant do that. Their own process, so i hurts or exports and imports. Mr. Goodings, do you get the sense you have an opinion about this is a well. Tell me what you think about it. Mr. Whitfield, mr. Jackey and i have been friends for three decades and it gives me pain to have to disagree withhim but virtually everything he has mistaken. We need to remember that fda has absolute authority to require that all food placed on the market in the United States be safe. Thats all the authority they need. It doesnt matter what process is used. If its food on the market, fda has the authority to ensure that it is safe. The other thing to remember is that this category of gmos or gn food is gays owned a def notwithstanding that is at odd as the facts as we fine them. This is an artificial category. There is no meaningful basis distinguish genetically modified organisms from others than others because agency on earth is genetically modified. Theres no correlation between the products of the most modern plant breeding technologies in any hazard or food safety risks. These things have an unblemished safety record. We know what causes safety problems in the in the consumption of food and its primarily the presence of pathogens. The only these reduce the potential for path pathow general nick infestation so how this is a category that is meaningful relevant to Risk Assessment or safety is contradicted by the facts, data, and vast experience. Show to fda is correct. There are no data. Theres no experience which assaults they need additional authorities or theres a problem here in need of fixing. Do you have a community youd like to make on this . Well, im obviously not qualified to talk about im sorry. Im obviously not qualified to talk about the regulatory process, but the American Farmer does trust the regulatory process. They believe that these products are safe. And they do need a regulatory process that delivers products to farmers in a timely mandatory deal with the issues in the future. You know, to the attorney general of vermont, im certainly not an expert in food safety, i buy a lot of food, though. Anytime you go to a store and you see an label, this contains such and such, or this may contain such and such, it almost seems like its a warning label, and just without giving a lot of stock to this, and im looking thats why we enjoy these hearings, without giving a lot of thought to it, i think thats one of the primary concerns i would have about the vermont law. It almost looks like its a warning label, and im not aware of any Scientific Evidence that theres any safety issue involved truthfully. Would you want to make a comment on that . Certainly, congressman. And thank you for the question. Its an important distinction to make with regard to the disclosure vermonts law requires. Fundamentally, the placement of that disclosure and the size and the font and things like that, in looking at the issue of how consumers are interested in this information and how they can best access the information, the Attorney Generals Office intentionally chose to make the disclosure either their choices for industry, the same size as the serving size disclosure hope to Nutrition Facts Panel on the back that the fda already requires, or the ingredients listing there. The goal being to say, its got to be easily spread easily found. Those are the standards. Its not a clear and conspicuous warning. Its a simple statement of fact that if a consumer is interested in finding the information, they can look for it, read it, and make a choice accordingly. Mr. Chairman, the. You recognize the ranking member. Five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As i said in my Opening Statement i dont think genetically engineered foods pose special safety or environmental rhyss or different from nong foods therefore doesnt seem to make sense to require them to be labeled. At the same time, unless theres some harm created by allowing vermont to impose mandatory ge labeling i dont think we in congress ooh tell vermonters what to do, and im hoping the panelists can help me figure this out. One issue ive heard it that requiring ge foods to have a special label would be inherently misleading because it would indicate that it there was Something Different about the foods. So let me ask their jaffe, i know cspi asia strong supporter of strong Food Labelings. What are their views on that question . Thank you for that question. Cspi has been a strong proponent of labeling as something very informative to consumers and important. But the labeling has to be truthful, neutral, and nonmisleading. Thats critical. We have also been strong believers that the only the most Important Information should be map mandated by the government. Safety information, whether something is an an allergien, or nutritional information, how much salt or calories are in it because that has a direct relationship to their diet. As you said, genetically engineered foods the current ones are safe, and so theres no safety or nutritional reasons to label those. So while we support the idea there should be transparency and consumers who want to find that information about where their food comes from, should be allowed to do that. I guess our view is that in terms of government mandates, when the government mandates labeling, those should be left for most critical pieces of information. If we mandate everything on a label, the consumers dont know what is the most critical information. So, for us, the things that are most critical are either Safety Information or nutritional information. This doesnt qualify there. So, while we think that we understand the Consumers Want information about this, we think that there should be ways to figure that out less than mandatory governmentimposed labels. Let me ask, why you dont think ge labeling is inherently misleading . One of my colleagues on the republican side said, you see the label exyoure just going to say, obvious live this is different, or maybe this is bad, even though it doesnt say that. Why dont you think that the ge labeling is inherently misleading . Thank you for the question. There are two answers to that, and ill start with one that came along very recently. Its important to remember that hr1599 is not the only challenge that act 120 faces. Grosser manufacturerring association and other trade groups have sued the state of vermont tone joy the law and its important for this body to remember that there is a bound on what vermont can do in terms of misleading labels i know im intenting you because i want to ask another thing. I wt to know why its not misleading. You got to tell me that. Well, if havent decided what to do here. Okay . To cut myself shorter, the federal court just ruled it wasnt misleading, it was in fact a straightforwardactual disclosure. Ruled is a strong word but agreed with vermonts position and indicate thats how the court was looking at it. Thats the fundamental piece of act 120, its a factual disclosure before a process involved in making the product. I only have a minute. My other main question is whether it imos undo burden on industry. We dont have much time. I understand that neither of you support mandatory labeling. However, why would putting a statement such as, produced with ge ingredients, just that, on the label, require need to create new supply chain lines or distribution lines . What problems do you foresee with the inclusion of just small Statement Like that doesnt say its good or bad or anything, just produced with ge ingreedent inside. I think it fits a clear National Standard. Manufacturers can deal with it. I if we hat melt pel states with different labeling requirements it would be an enormous burden to make sure they got it right. Manufacturers secure their supply chains are and are concerned securing the ingredients up to the point of consumption in particular this issues that manufacturers fine themselves liable for a product that is outside of their control. Thats one aspect. But they sound is like youre saying you wouldnt have a problem with the label. To there clearly is a problem for multiple labeling directions from many def what there if was just one National Standard, produced with gm ingredients. If theres a clear National Standard that minimizes the risk in that. They would have an easier time dealing with that type of law verse many different states imposing requirements on them. Think the American Farmers demonstrated they can produce very safe and abundant and inexpensive food, and theres a demand for nongmo foods our farmers will respond weapon dont want consumes to have to pay burdensome costs to a supply change Management Program if theyre not interested in purchasing nongmo. What this act does is give us a pathway, if a farmer i can decide if i want to grow gmo crops or nongmo crops, theres a smarted to give consumers not only the right to know but a right to choose products. And i think thats what is powerful about this legislation. Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. Shimkus, five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. To my friend, my question is to follow up on yours in two points. One is, the country feeds the world. United states, we feed the world, and i would argue, being from illinois, and im glad john is here, and emand the midwest is a predominant producer of base commodity products that go around the world. So, john, these two questions are for you. First of all, last couple of years we had a pretty big drought. Had we had that drought a decade ago, or two decades ago, what would have been the result and how what made our ability to withstand the drought survivable . Well, droughts for farmers are years that burn themselves into your memory. In 1993 i can go through the list. I tell people, the drought of 2012 was different because even though we didnt have good rainfall and because we had very high temperatures, we still had ream yields across the corn belt, and it makes sense. I of you can protect a plant from damage to the root system, if you can protect the plant from damage too the stems. Protect from weeds, then it can maximize the use of the water that is available. How do you do that . With biotechnology. Biotechnology is the best solution for those problem is just talked about. By far. Safest, most efficient way for me to get those kinds of rules is i by using biotechnology. Not just to in the United States but as we assist other countries around the world, feed themselves, it is through the great aspect of science has allowed us to do this, and its unfortunately its an untold story in this debate because without it, and the population growth, and the climate changes, we could be in a disastrous position. Let me go to the next question. Talks about an individual producer elm the producer sometimes gets lost in the debate. So, if you okay. So, we have now just bifurcated system of labeling and not labeling, and a supply chain. Tell me how a corn or bean farmer in central illinois, whos planting 750 to 1 thon walk kerr, whats would you have to do . What i would have to do to produce two sets of corn going for the same product, one gmo, one nong. O. P. Basically start with the selection of the seed. Buy different kind of seed. Have to make sure that we keep the integrity of the seat, only is planted in the fieldment. You have to stop the wind. Stop and clean planters out. Make sure the right product is incorporated into the field. Different silos. Have to have different trucks. The trucks and the harvesting equipment has to be clean. When i went to the Food Processing facility would they have to have dissilos. Absolutely. Whole special elevators where we deliver grain, special handling equipment designed to be handled that equipment and keep it segregated. I know that corn now is sold around the world, and i was kind of surprised that sometimes theyre in containers. I always think theyd be the a big hull, and you just pour all the corn in. What if it pulls up to a port and they do a sample, and of the billions of kernels they find one that is either or. Then what happens . Then that Company Country or company that finds that kernel will decide whether they want that shipment of corn or not. In theyre favor they could decide to ticket or 0 to reject it. This is a debate were having, and i think we need to tread very carefully. I want to thank my colleague for taking the leadership on this help has the wheat story to tell, im sure, which is very similar to a corn or a bean story, and we havent even talked about segwaying into the livestock issue and feed issue and multiple other derivations that this so thats why im a cosponsor and look forward to looking with him as he moves forward. I yield back. Thank you. Now recognize the gentle lady from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I think each of our witnesses for your testimony. I firmly believe that consumers have the right to make informed decisions bottoms the food they east. I home this is a point on which we up can agree, and i think theres general agreement that a good federal standard for ge labeling is preferable to a confusing patchwork of state labeling rules. Bus theres an agreement what the standard too be and im not constanced hr1599 will assure consumer theyd have reliable and clear information theyre looking for. Dr. Jaffe, do you think this bill needs consumer demands for clear, consistent labeling of ge products . So, i think we dont have a good idea what consumer demands really are. There are a number on polls and you ask, due you want ge labeling, most consumers say yes. Could do you want palestine palestine label inside they zayat. Antibioticsland sunset they say yes. As a consumer, if somebody offered me information, why say more that. But there was a rutgers poll where they asked what information would you want 0 on the label, and 7 said gm labeling, and you asked people about everybody said 70 for each of those. I im not coin veined theres an overwhelming number of consumers and most of the polls show the rutgers poll, a good independent poll, and im happy to submit that to the committee. That would be great. Twothirds of the consumers have not had a discussion about this and dont know about it. So providing information without knowledge about what that information means can inherently be misleading. Could you provide for us in your within your purview, the difference between organic, nongmo, and natural Food Products . How do these type of products disfrom one another, just to set the record here. An organic product, theres a definition the usda has a definition. If you follow that definition you can call your food organic in the United States, and those have certain and rules that have to be followed. Not based on science. Based on, did you follow the rule. Right. Okay. Thats clear. T