Washington Insider -- Thursday

By DTN's Washington Insider

Here's a quick monitor of Washington farm and trade policy issues from DTN's well-placed observer.

High Level Discussion of Climate Change on the Agenda for July U.S.-China Summit

This summer's U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue will place discussions about how to deal with climate change high on the agenda, according to a State Department spokeswoman. Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew will represent the United States and State Councilor Yang Jiechi and Vice Premier Wang Yang will lead China's delegation. The July meeting will be the sixth in the series of bilateral conferences.

As in the past, the dialogue will focus on a range of issues of immediate and long-term economic and strategic interest to both countries, but this year the meeting will include an update on the five initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution launched under the dialogue's Climate Change Working Group in July 2013. Earlier, the two countries pledged to reduce emissions from heavy-duty and other vehicles; promote carbon capture, utilization, and storage; increase energy efficiency in buildings, industry, and transportation; improve greenhouse gas data collection and management; and promote smart electric grids.

China and the United States are the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases. In 2008, they accounted for 42% of the global carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, a decision by the two countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions could go a long way toward addressing climate change.

***

EPA to Propose New Carbon Dioxide Guidelines for Power Plants

Speaking of greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency is on track to propose new guidelines for limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by June 2, according to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. She added that the input EPA received from other government agencies has helped ensure that the new standards are legally sound and account for the effects the rule could have on various areas of the economy.

McCarthy said that, while she does not believe the greenhouse gas emissions proposal will affect the reliability of the nation's electricity grid, businesses that rely on electricity should view the comment period on the proposal as an opportunity for their "voice to be heard" by the agency.

She also encouraged companies to suggest improvements to the proposed rule, noting that she is "unafraid" to alter a proposal if the EPA receives feedback that warrants changes. The administrator said that in the past, EPA has made changes based on public comments that have resulted in regulations that are more solid legally, technically accurate and cost-effective.

It was probably unnecessary for McCarthy to encourage affected companies to comment on the proposal once it is issued. The very idea that EPA would seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants already has attracted significant criticism, both from industry and from members of Congress who continue to rail against what they claim is the agency's regulatory "overreach."

***

Washington Insider: Food Labels in Court

The never-never land of food labeling theory is moving into federal court now, and it will be interesting and important to see how those issues play out there. The focus is a new Vermont law that would require labels for some foods, but not others, an effort driven mainly by what advocates call their "right to know" although it is far from clear what it is that they really want to know.

The issue has become a social rallying cry, leading to 63 labeling bills in 23 states. In addition, some 64 countries require labeling of foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including 15 European Union countries, Australia, Brazil, Japan and Russia.

In the United States, labels are evaluated extensively by the Food and Drug Administration and USDA, in the case of meats. There are strict rules about what should be included on labels and what is not appropriate. Neither agency has decided that inclusion of GMO products rises to that standard.

The difficulty in crafting labels that actually provide information for consumers can be seen by the approach being proposed in Vermont, which takes effect July 1, 2016. Food manufacturers are given three options: "partially produced with genetic engineering," "may be produced with genetic engineering" or "produced with genetic engineering." At the same time, the law excludes meat, dairy, liquor and prepared food sold in restaurants.

Food manufacturers tell the press that they are shaking in their boots that the law would lead to almost endless litigation about whether the label chosen actually complies. They also say that the negative publicity given GMOs now and in the future could drive the food manufacturers to work hard to insure that GMOs are excluded — a process that would significantly increase consumers' food bills.

As a result, the Grocery Manufacturers Association is filing suit in federal court against the Vermont law's label requirements.

Vermont is the first U.S. state to enact such a law, which, by the way, also established a $1.5 million defense fund in anticipation of a lawsuit. Given the prospect that the other states now considering such a law could act on their own versions of such legislation, food industry members say they will litigate against suggestions that GMOs are unsafe — and will attempt to head off a patchwork system across the nation that would confuse consumers and increase costs.

Labeling advocates say they welcome a court fight. "We are confident we can successfully challenge this legal initiative against labeling GMOs," Rebecca Spector, a director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a May 8 conference call. Her organization has worked with Vermont on labeling genetically engineered food for the last 10 years and provided legal expertise.

Spector said advocates are not calling for labels on the grounds that they may be harmful, but because they are "genetically different" from conventional crops and consumers have a right to know what's in their food. "And since the FDA has remained quiet, it's the states' job to lead the way," Spector said. Observers suggest that the court may well find such reasons an inadequate basis for requiring labels.

The FDA currently supports voluntary labeling of GMO foods, which include about 80% of processed products, according to the agency's website.

The Grocery Manufactures Association told the press that it would sue Vermont and cited studies by the FDA, the American Medical Association and others that found food containing GMO ingredients are safe and "materially no different from conventionally produced products."

The association also noted that consumers wanting to avoid GMOs already can purchase certified organic products.

The GMA also says it supports the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act which would give the FDA sole authority over the labeling of GMOs and thus would preempt state labeling efforts. Under the bill, if a GMO meets FDA safety approval, the agency could not require food containing GMOs to be labeled as such — which is consistent with current practice.

It has long been a mystery why so many food advocacy groups have invested so much energy and money in anti-GMO efforts. As Rebecca Spector told the press, and as advocates have noted in recent failed political initiatives in California and Washington, there is no evidence that GMO's threaten consumer health or the environment. In addition, their widespread use over nearly two decades has never been convincingly linked to health problems.

In addition, the "right to know" pales when the proposed label statements are considered — "partially" produced with GMOs, or "may" have been produced with GMOs. Imagine writing the legal definitions for such vague definitions.

Still, the most difficult aspect of this anti-GMO campaign may be its casual dismissal of the FDA, and of other scientists. It is difficult to see how a modern, complicated civil society can be effectively regulated when scientific institutions are recklessly disregarded as they have been in this anti-GMO campaign. So, it will be important for producers who rely on high-tech agriculture to watch this case closely as it proceeds, Washington Insider believes.

---

Want to keep up with events in Washington and elsewhere throughout the day? See DTN Top Stories, our frequently updated summary of news developments of interest to producers. You can find DTN Top Stories in DTN Ag News, which is on the Main Menu on classic DTN products, on the News Menu on Farm Dayta, and on the News and Analysis Menu of DTN's newest Professional and Producer products. DTN Top Stories is also on the home page and news home page of online.dtn.com.

If you have questions for DTN Washington Insider, please email edit@telventdtn.com

(CC)

Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.