POLISCOPE
Back to feed
FEDERALhearing transcript
High Impact

Congressional Hearing on National Food Biotechnology Labeling Standards

Original title: A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW AND LABELING OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD

January 1, 2016

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing explored the potential shift from a patchwork of state-level food labeling laws to a single federal standard, which would determine how information about genetically modified ingredients is disclosed to consumers nationwide.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Food Manufacturers

A national labeling standard would dictate the requirements for packaging and disclosing biotechnology ingredients across all states.

State Governments

A federal framework could preempt or override existing or future state-level laws regarding food labeling.

Consumers

The outcome of this policy discussion determines the level of information provided on food labels regarding the use of biotechnology.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2016.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The House Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on June 18, 2015, to discuss establishing a national framework for the review and labeling of products. The session featured testimony from industry representatives, legal experts, and advocacy groups regarding the potential for a unified federal standard versus state-level labeling requirements.

Key Facts

  • The hearing took place on June 18, 2015, under the 114th Congress.
  • The primary subject was the development of a national framework for reviewing and labeling food products containing biotechnology.
  • The hearing included testimony from five witnesses representing supply chain, legal, agricultural, and public interest perspectives.
  • The discussion addressed the tension between state-specific labeling mandates and the desire for a uniform national policy.
  • The record includes submitted statements of support from the Agriculture Committee and the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food.

Why It Matters

This hearing explored the potential shift from a patchwork of state-level food labeling laws to a single federal standard, which would determine how information about genetically modified ingredients is disclosed to consumers nationwide.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the purpose of this hearing?
To gather expert testimony on whether the federal government should create a national standard for labeling food that contains genetically modified organisms (biotechnology).
Who testified at the hearing?
Witnesses included representatives from the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, the Vermont Attorney General's office, Growmark, Inc., the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Sponsors

Show 1 more sponsor

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Federal Preemption Trend

The hearing highlights a clear legislative effort to move toward federal preemption of state-level food labeling laws to ensure consistency for interstate commerce.

Connected Entities

personRick BlasgenCEO of Council of Supply Chain Management ProfessionalsMap →
organizationHouse Committee on Energy and CommerceParent committee of the Subcommittee on HealthMap →
personJohn ReifsteckChairman and President, Growmark, Inc.Map →
personGregory JaffeBiotechnology Project Director, Center for Science in the Public InterestMap →
personJoseph R. PittsChairman of the Subcommittee on HealthMap →
personL. Val GiddingsSenior Fellow, Information Technology & Innovation FoundationMap →
personTodd W. DalozAssistant Attorney General, VermontMap →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance75
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy65
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment10
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz20
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record