2015: Schweikert Voted Against Repealing Country Of Origin Labeling Requirement As Part Of The FY 2016 Omnibus. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against a provision contained within a larger bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, the measure would have "repeal[ed] mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements for beef and pork products." The legislation was, according to Congressional Quarterly, a FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 316 to 113. The legislation was later combined with a tax extender bill. The Senate passed the larger measure and the president signed it. [House Vote 705, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
Country Of Original Labeling Requires Retailers To Notify Customers Of The Source Of Certain Foods. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is a labeling law that requires retailers, such as full-line grocery stores, supermarkets and club warehouse stores, to notify their customers with information regarding the source of certain foods. Food products covered by the law include muscle cut and ground meats: lamb, goat, and chicken; wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish; fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables; peanuts, pecans, and macadamia nuts; and ginseng." [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Accessed 1/11/15]
The U.S. Was Facing Sanctions Of More Than $1 Billion Due To Country Of Origin Label Requirement. According to The Hill, "Congress is taking steps to avert sanctions on more than $1 billion worth of U.S. goods from Mexico and Canada by repealing a country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rule in the massive omnibus spending bill released early Wednesday morning. Top House and Senate lawmakers were pushing to add the COOL repeal to a year-end spending bill after the World Trade Organization last week authorized Canada and Mexico to tax a wide variety of U.S. exports to cover the costs of implementing the Agriculture Department's contentious meat labeling regulations. The WTO decision ramped up pressure on lawmakers to scrap the regulations or put U.S. businesses in jeopardy of paying much more to send their products to two of the nation's biggest trading partners, ending a seven-year trade dispute." [The Hill, 12/16/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A Bill That Repealed Country Of Origin Labeling Requirements For Meat Sold In The United States. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that repealed U.S. country of origin labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken that is sold in the U.S. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have, "repeal[ed] U.S. country of origin labeling requirements for beef, pork and chicken that is sold in the United States." The vote was on the measure. The House passed the bill 300 to 131. The bill was received in the Senate and no further action was taken. [House Vote 333, 6/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/10/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2393]
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX): Country Of Origin Labeling Was "Really A Marketing Program" That The World Trade Organization Found To Have Had Trade Distortion Effects And Led To Retaliatory Trade Tariffs From Mexico And Canada. In a floor speech, Rep. Conaway said, "Mandatory country of origin labeling is really a marketing program, a heavy-handed approach by this Federal Government to demand a marketing program that may or may not work. [...] It turns out that my doubts were well founded. The program has not worked, and it is time to put this failed experiment behind us once and for all. Country of origin labeling, or COOL for short, was first enacted for meat products as a part of the 2002 farm bill. Implementation of the law was actually delayed until 2008. Less than 5 months after the COOL implementing rule was published, Canada and Mexico challenged the rule at the WTO, arguing that it had a trade distorting impact by reducing the value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the United States market. The WTO process has since progressed through the dispute settlement phase, a U.S. appeal to the WTO's appellate body, review by a WTO compliance panel, and an appeal by the U.S. of that decision. In all four instances, Mr. Speaker, the United States lost. In the fourth and final decision, released on May 18, the WTO rejected the United States' argument and found that the U.S. COOL requirements for beef and pork are unavoidably discriminatory. The final rule kick-starts the process to determine the level of retaliatory tariffs Canada and Mexico can now impose on the U.S., which has widely been predicted t" [Congressional Record, 6/10/15]
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN): The Bill Was An Unnecessary, Reactionary Response To The WTO Ruling That Prevented People From Learning Where Their Agricultural Products Came From. In a floor speech, Rep. Peterson said, "H.R. 2393 is a premature reaction to the WTO ruling against the U.S. country of origin labeling, or COOL, law. Rather than taking the time to find a workable solution, the committee passed a repeal just 2 days after the WTO issued a ruling. We understand that this needs to be dealt with. My problem with this whole process is that it just is not giving people enough time to look at this and figure out what is a reasonable solution. Most other countries have labeling. The American people want to know where their ag products come from." [Congressional Record, 6/10/15]
Americans Overwhelmingly Back Labeling On Food Products. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Critics of repeal noted that Americans overwhelmingly back labeling on food products and the bill would restrict information available to them. A coalition of 283 consumer, environmental, religious, farm workers and labor groups sent a letter to Conaway and Peterson on June 8 arguing against repeal." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/10/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Established A Voluntary National Genetically Engineered Food Certification Program. In July 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that established a voluntary national genetically engineered food certification program whereby food producers could choose to label their products as including or not including genetically engineered ingredients. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "establish[ed] a voluntary national genetically engineered (GE) food certification program under which food producers could label their product as including or not including genetically modified ingredients. The program created under the bill would pre-empt related state and local laws and prohibits mandatory labeling of GE or non-GE food." The vote was on passage and the House approved the legislation 275 to 150. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 462, 7/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/23/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1599]
The Legislation Required The Food And Drug Administration To Determine The Safety Of Genetically Engineered Foods. According to the Congressional Quarterly, "Additionally, the bill would also require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to continue to make determinations regarding the food safety of GE foods, would require the Agriculture Department to establish a notification process before GE plants can be used or applied to the processing of foods, and would modify the process for labeling natural foods." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/23/15]
Rep. Pompeo (R-CA): The Legislation Makes New Genetically Engineered Plant Subject To An FDA Safety Review. According to a floor speech by Rep. Pompeo, "First, we ensure that every new GE plant destined to enter the food supply goes in for an FDA safety review." [Congressional Record, 7/23/15]
Rep. Pompeo (R-CA): Legislation Prohibits State-By-State Mandatory GE Labeling Laws. According to a floor speech by Rep. Pompeo, "Second, we prevent the creation of what would be the unworkable patchwork of State-by-State--or even county-by-county or city-by-city--mandatory GE labeling laws." [Congressional Record, 7/23/15]
Rep. Pompeo (R-CA): Legislation Would Provide More Options For Consumers Through Voluntary Labeling. According to a floor speech by Rep. Pompeo, "Finally, in order to provide clarity to those who prefer not to eat GE products, our bill authorizes a voluntary, user-fee-based non-GE labeling program at the USDA to provide even greater transparency and more options so that consumers, by ensuring a common definition for non-GMO for all foods, whether they are sold at the retail level or served in restaurants." [Congressional Record, 7/23/15]
Wall Street Journal: Opponents Of Mandatory GE Food Labeling Say GMOs Are Safe And That Labeling Would Give The Impression There Is Something To Fear. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Opponents say that the fears about GMO foods are overblown, and that in fact the foods are safe and bring benefits. So, labeling foods would give the wrong impression that there's something dangerous about GMOs, when there isn't, opponents say." [Wall Street Journal, 7/12/15]
Rep. Welch (D-VT): Legislation Would Prevent States From Making Mandatory GE Labeling Laws Consumers Deserve To Know What They Were Consuming. According to a floor speech by Rep. Welch, "The question is whether consumers, when they purchase food, have a right to know what is in it. What Mr. Pompeo and this legislation are suggesting is that, regardless of what consumers want, they won't be told. [...] This legislation would basically block all State laws that require mandatory GMO labeling; so if the State of Idaho, with its Republicans and Democrats in the legislature responding to the demands of its constituents, wanted to label it, they wouldn't be able to do it. It effectively blocks the FDA from creating a national labeling standard. That is the irony here." [Congressional Record, 7/23/15]
Rep. Pallone (D-NJ): Legislation Would Make Congress Look Like It Was Preventing Consumers From Knowing What Was In Their Food. According to a floor speech by Rep. Pallone, "I feel that by preempting State right-to-know laws without creating any national labeling requirement, this legislation will be seen by most consumers as an attempt by Congress and Washington to prevent them from knowing which foods have GE ingredients, and therefore, I intend to vote against the bill." [Congressional Record, 7/23/15]
Wall Street Journal: Supporters Of Mandatory Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Say Consumers Deserve To Know What They Are Eating. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The argument for labeling comes down to the right to know: Consumers, the advocates say, should be well informed of what's in their food. Further, they argue, genetically modifying food carries risks while providing few nutritional benefits." [Wall Street Journal, 7/12/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Prohibit Foods Labeled As "Natural" To Contain Genetically Engineered Plants. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have prohibited foods labeled as "natural" from containing genetically modified plants. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "prohibit[ed] foods labeled with the term 'natural' to contain genetically engineered plants." The underlying legislation was H.R. 1599, which established a voluntary national genetically engineered food labeling program, forbidding localities to pass their own mandatory GE food labeling laws. The vote was on the amendment, and the House rejected the amendment 163 to 262. The underlying legislation passed the House on 4/23/15, on a 275 to 150 vote. The Senate took no substantive action. [House Vote 461, 7/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/23/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 680; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1599]
Rep. DeLauro (D-CT): Consumers Deserve To Know What They Are Eating And Allowing "Natural" Foods To Contain GE Ingredients Is Misleading. According to a floor speech by Rep. DeLauro, "I want to emphasize right from the outset it is about our basic right to know what we are eating and what we are feeding to our children. [...] Calling GMO foods 'natural' is not transparent. It is confusing, and we have the data to back that up. As Members can see from the chart behind me, almost two-thirds of American adults believe that 'natural' already means GMO-free, and 84 percent agree that that is what it should mean. We need to make sure that food labels reflect that commonsense understanding. As drafted, this bill would do the opposite. It would codify the status quo, being that food companies can put 'natural' on a product, even if it was genetically engineered, which allows misleading labels. It would perpetuate misunderstandings and confusion. It would keep American families in the dark." [Congressional Record, 7/23/15]
Rep. Davis (R-IL): Amendment Would Have Preempted A Science-Based And Driven Process Of "Natural" Label Determination. According to a floor speech by Rep. Davis, "There are no clear and consistent standards for the term 'natural,' which is why we are trying to correct this in this bill. We need to make sure that consistent litigation that has come about because of the very definitions of what the term 'natural' means can stop. Let's put a clear standard in place. H.R. 1599 also requires the FDA to file a notice and comment rulemaking process to define and set standards for the term 'natural.' I thought this was exactly what the rulemaking process was supposed to be used for. This will allow for an open, transparent, public process so that the FDA can establish such standards based on the facts, the science, and the input received. This amendment would predetermine that outcome and not allow for a science-based, fact-driven process--that is open to the public--to continue to move forward." [Congressional Record, 7/23/15]