S. 2080. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that food that contains a genetically engineered material, or that is produced with a genetically engineered material, must be labeled accordingly, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act. This legislation requires that all foods containing or produced with genetically engineered material bear a neutral label stating that: `this product contains a genetically engineered material or was produced with a genetically engineered material.'

The bill adds this labeling requirement to the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act which contain the general standards for labeling foods.

Recent polls have demonstrated that Americans want to know if they are eating genetically engineered food. A January 1999 Time magazine poll revealed that 81% of respondents wanted genetically engineered food to be labeled. A January 2000 MSNBC poll showed identical results. This pressure has already led some companies not to use genetically engineered materials in their foods. Gerber and Heinz have said they will no longer use genetically engineered material in their baby food. Whole Foods and Wild Oats Supermarkets also have said they will use no genetically engineered material in their own products.

Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Greece, New Zealand, and Japan already require genetically engineered food to be labeled.

If the U.S. wants to sell its genetically engineered food to these countries, it will have to label the food for foreign consumers. It is only fair that American consumers be given similar information. Why do I feel it's important for consumers to know that their food is genetically engineered?

First, we don't know whether genetically engineered food is harmful or whether it is safe. However, scientists have raised concerns about genetically engineered food. These concerns include the risks of increased exposure to allergens, decreased nutritional value, increased toxicity and increased antibiotic resistance.

In addition, scientists have raised concerns about the ecological risks associated with genetically engineered food. Some of those risks include the destruction of species, cross pollination that breeds new weeds that are resistant to herbicides, and increases in pesticide use over the long-term.

Earlier this year, for example, researchers at Cornell University reported that Monarch butterflies were either killed or developed abnormally when eating milkweed dusted with the pollen of Bt-corn, a genetically engineered food.

Second, the Food and Drug Administration does not require pre-market health and safety testing of genetically engineered foods. Therefore, it is only fair that consumers know they are eating products that have not been tested. Third, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture do not require substantive environmental review of genetically engineered materials under their jurisdiction.

My Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act not only mandates labels, but does something even more important: it authorizes $5 million in grants to conduct studies into the health and environmental risks raised by genetically engineered food.

Specifically, it directs the Secretary of HHS to make grants to individuals, organizations and institutions to study risks like increased toxicity, increased allergenicity, negative effects on soil ecology and on the environment in general.

What is the extent of genetically engineered crops today?

Last year, 98.6 million acres in the U.S. were planted with genetically engineered crops. More than one-third of the U.S. soybean crop and one-quarter of corn were genetically engineered. This represents a 23-fold increase in genetically engineered crop production from just four years ago. And waiting to come into the marketplace are more than 60 different genetically engineered crops--from apples and strawberries to potatoes and tomatoes.

Providing consumers with information about the foods they eat is hardly new. For example, I was proud to be the author of the law to provide for the `dolphin safe' label on tuna. The label indicated that the tuna was harvested by methods that don't harm dolphins.

I was also proud to lead the fight in the Senate to make sure that chicken frozen as solid as a blowing ball could not be labeled fresh. At the time, USDA's position was that frozen chicken could be labeled `fresh.' In 1996, I succeeded in amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to require that drinking water providers give their consumers annual reports concerning the quality of their water.

Others in Congress led the fight to tell consumers whether their products contain artificial colors or sweeteners, preservatives, additives, and whether they are from concentrate. I supported those labels as well. Food manufacturers also label their products with information that is of little value to consumers. Certain brands of pretzels, for example, bear a label which states that the manufacturer is a `Member of the Snack Food Association: An International Trade Association.' I don't think this is information consumers are clamoring for, yet the manufacturer is willing to go through the trouble of putting it on the bag. My legislation builds on the existing food labeling system, and would be simple to implement. It would require that all foods containing or made with genetically engineered foods be labeled with this information: `this product contains a genetically engineered material or was produced with a genetically engineered material.'

For example, corn flakes made with genetically engineered corn would be a `product that contains' genetically engineered material. To take another example, milk from a cow treated with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone would be a product `produced with' genetically engineered material. Specifically, my bill requires that food that contains or was produced with genetically engineered material be labeled at each stage of the food production process--from seed company to farmer to manufacturer to retailer. The labeling requirement in my bill, however, does not to apply to drugs or to food sold in restaurants, bakeries, and other similar establishments.

Genetically engineered material is defined under the bill as material that `has been altered at the molecular or cellular level by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.' Food developed through traditional processes such as crossbreeding is not considered to be genetically engineered, and the legislation's labeling requirement would not apply to foods produced in that way.

Under the bill, persons need not label food if they obtain a written guaranty from the party from whom they received the food that the food does not contain and was not produced with genetically engineered material. Persons who obtain a valid guaranty are not subject to penalties under the bill if they are later found to have failed to label food that contains genetically engineered material.

For example, a farmer who plants genetically engineered corn must label that corn. Each person who then buys and then sells that corn, or food derived from it, will also be required to label it as genetically engineered. Conversely, farmers who obtain a guaranty that the corn they are planting is not genetically engineered may issue a guaranty to purchasers that their corn is not genetically engineered. The purchaser then would not have to label that corn or product made with that corn.

If the corn or food is later found to have contained or been produced with genetically engineered material but was not labeled accordingly, the purchaser would not be subject to penalties under the bill. This guaranty system is used today to enforce provisions of existing law concerning the distribution of adulterated or mislabeled foods. The system is much less expensive than a system which would require food to be tested at every phase of the food production process.

Failure to label food that contains or was produced with genetically engineered material carries a civil penalty of up to $1,000 amount for each violation.

Importantly, the bill provides that if a party fraudulently warrants that a product is not genetically engineered, no party further down the chain of custody may be held liable for mislabeling. This provision is particularly meant to protect small farmers from the possibility that their suppliers would by contract provide that any liability for mislabeling be borne by the farmer regardless of the suppliers' own actions.

The bill also provides another protection for farmers. Under the bill, a farmer who plants a non-genetically engineered crop, but whose crop came to contain genetically engineered material from natural causes such as wind carrying pollen from a genetically engineered plant is not subject to penalties under the bill. This is the case so long as the farmer did not intend or did not negligently permit this to occur.

And, finally, the bill directs the Secretary of HHS to make grants to study the possible health and environmental risks associated with genetically engineered foods. The bill authorizes $5 million for this purpose. In closing, Mr. President, during the recent negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol, it was the United States' negotiating position that international shipments of seeds, grains and plants that may contain genetically engineered material be labeled accordingly.

If the United States took the position that it is appropriate to provide this information to its trading partners, shouldn't we make similar information available to American consumers?

I am hopeful that my House and Senate colleagues can act quickly to ensure the passage of my legislation to give American families the right-to-know whether their food contains or was produced with genetically engineered material.

I ask that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **