Sanders fights GMO labeling bill test vote Presented by Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health

With help from Jenny Hopkinson, Helena Bottemiller Evich, Jason Huffman and Catherine Boudreau

SANDERS FIGHTS GMO LABELING BILL TEST VOTE: The Senate voted 68-29 late Wednesday on a procedural move that lays the groundwork for a final vote on the GMO labeling bill written by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and ranking member Debbie Stabenow — but only after Sen. Bernie Sanders tried to derail the measure by arguing it was a cover up to defund Planned Parenthood. The test vote on the compromise bill (S. 764) came after months of negotiations between the two Senate agriculture leaders, who are under pressure from the food and agriculture industries to preempt Vermont’s GMO labeling law, which is set to take effect Friday.


The dust-up arose from the fact the Senate legislation is in a “shell” bill that was once used for a measure to stop federal money being spent on Planned Parenthood. Despite promises from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other lawmakers that there was nothing left of the Planned Parenthood provisions, Sanders pushed his concern, backed by fellow Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “Is it possible that as part of the legislation that [McConnell] has introduced, that there is a title in there called the ... Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015?” asked Sanders, who is vehemently opposed to the Senate GMO labeling bill. “Is that title in the legislation we’re voting on?”

The test vote followed after Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stepped in and eventually reinforced the majority leader’s position, mollifying Sanders and company.

The Senate is expected to vote next week to limit debate on the bill, which gives food companies three options for providing consumers information on GMO ingredients: on-package labeling; on-package electronic labeling; or a symbol that would be developed by the Agriculture Department. USDA officials would have two years to set thresholds for when labeling would be required, but critics of the bill contend it lacks an enforcement mechanism. The bill still needs to be approved by the House, which passed a voluntary labeling bill last year. More on Sanders' stand here.

HAPPY THURSDAY, JUNE 30! Welcome to Morning Ag, where your host knows what it’s like to be drugged by Pizza. You know the deal: thoughts, news, tips? Send them to [email protected] or @IanKullgren. Follow the whole team at @Morning_Ag.

ANIMAL ACTIVISTS PUT ‘NATURAL’ IN THEIR CROSSHAIRS: The Animal Legal Defense Fund is suing Hormel Foods with the hope of setting a precedent to limit meat companies’ use of the word “natural.” In a complaint filed in D.C. Superior Court on Wednesday, the ALDF argues the Minnesota company’s Natural Choice-branded meats are little different from its conventional product lines, and that it misled consumers by suggesting that one is superior. The lawsuit argues Natural Choice meats are still made from animals raised in “cramped, filthy barns” and fed antibiotics and other drugs. It includes survey data showing consumers believe that “natural” meat products are from animals raised in superior conditions — such as family farms using sustainable practices — instead of industrial farms.

“The term ‘natural’ is ubiquitous in the industry. And many of these companies are using these terms and using it misleadingly,” Kelsey Eberly, an ALDF staff attorney, told MA. “Nothing is natural about it, from the way the animal is raised to the way the meat is processed.”

The FDA doesn’t have set standards for what natural means, but the agency says it generally doesn’t object to the term if products don’t contain added colors, artificial flavors or synthetic substances. Hormel Foods didn’t immediately respond to MA’s requests for comment on the lawsuit, which you can check out here.

POTUS VISIT TO CANADA STIRS UP DAIRY DRAMA: Timed with President Barack Obama’s visit to Ottawa, the National Milk Producers Federation and the U.S. Dairy Export Council blasted Canadian milk pricing policies that they say lock out U.S. exports. The U.S. dairy industry is miffed about a number of Canadian milk policies, including a longstanding supply management policy to keep prices high for domestic farmers, and a more recent pricing policy in Ontario that the groups say discourages imports.

“America’s dairy farmers rely on exports to provide a home for the equivalent of one day’s worth of milk production each week,” Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation, said in statement. “When other countries disingenuously use policies and regulations to block those sales — especially in light of previously negotiated free trade agreements — the negative impact is felt on the farm. This is particularly damaging in tough years like this when milk supplies exceed demand. We hope President Obama will continue to hold our trading partners accountable, particularly those with whom we’re preparing to deepen our trade ties, such as Trans-Pacific Partnership members.”

HIGH-SPEED TEXAS TRAIN WON’T RESTRICT ACCESS TO LAND: The developer of a high-speed passenger train between Houston and Dallas will ensure landowners have access to their property, including ranchers concerned the railway will bisect grazing land, said Tim Keith, CEO of Texas Central Partners, the private company responsible for the project. In an interview with POLITICO Wednesday, Keith said the company plans to offer fair compensation for “partial acquisitions” of land where infrastructure needs to be built, and also will provide easements so there is “access to cross in the right places.”

“We don’t want to acquire land in such a way that disrupts neighbors' use of the land or the existing landowners,” Keith said, adding the company has held more than 30 meetings to educate rural and urban communities on the project's impacts, and will continue engaging the public. “We will provide thruways underneath bridges, for example, so animals and equipment can move freely underneath.”

But before construction can begin, which Keith said is targeted for late 2017, Texas Central must overcome several regulatory hurdles. Those include an environmental impact statement by the Federal Railroad Administration to determine the best route; the report could be finished this fall, Keith said. Our story from last year about ranchers’ resistance to the project can be read here.

FARM BUREAU WANTS IN ON UTAH SAGE-GROUSE SUIT: The American Farm Bureau Federation and its branch in Utah on Wednesday filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s efforts to protect the greater sage grouse. The suit, brought by the state of Utah in a Utah federal court, contends the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service illegally imposed restrictions on ranchers’ ability to use federal acres for cattle grazing, as well as on other activities, when it developed land-use plans to conserve the bird's habitat. Read the motion here.

EPA LOOKS TO STREAMLINE PIP CROSSBREEDING RULES: The EPA is making available for public comment today a white paper outlining changes to how it will regulate the product of crossbreeding two crops that contain plant incorporated protectants, known as PIPs, such as Bt corn. The agency now requires registration of both the initial crops and the result of the crossbreeding. Under its proposal EPA will put specific terms for crossbreeding in the registrations of the PIPs to dictate how and what they can be mixed with, instead of requiring the final product be registered. The agency breaks down its plan here.

SKINNY ON FDA’S TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF GMO BILL: Back to the GMO labeling bill ... The FDA had a lot to say about the Roberts-Stabenow GMO compromise measure — from concerns over definitions to potential conflicts with existing labeling laws — in a technical assessment published Monday. Opponents point, in particular, to parts of the document that raise concerns over provisions of the bill that would require disclosure of GMO info only when foods contain "genetic material," which the FDA says would exclude a host of oils and refined sugars. When soybean oil and beet sugar are processed, for example, they are stripped of genetic material, so the bill, as written, would not apply to foods with those ingredients, the agency notes.

Additionally, the bill's definitions that apply to only those GMO crops "for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature" would set a high bar for what products would be labeled, the FDA said. The technical assessment is here. Pros can brush up on the Capitol Hill maneuvering here.

Cue the cheers: Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) highlighted the assessment in a floor speech Tuesday, while Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement Wednesday that the “critique makes it very clear that this is really a non-labeling bill disguised as a labeling bill.”

NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS AND GMO LABELING: Three Nobel prize winners were slated to participate in a press conference this morning to talk about a letter they co-signed along with more than 100 other Nobel Laureates asking Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified foods. It's great timing for the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food, one of the groups arguing on behalf of the Roberts-Stabenow bill. The group sent out a press release Wednesday to bring attention to the letter, which calls on the United Nations and "governments around the world" to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice, a crop genetically engineered to fight Vitamin A deficiency. "How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a 'crime against humanity?'" the letter asks.

Expected to appear at the National Press Club were Sir Richard Roberts, who won the Nobel for physiology/medicine in 1993, Randy W. Schekman, the 2013 Nobel winner for physiology/medicine, and Martin Chalfie, who won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 2008. Read their letter here.

REPORT: AGRIBUSINESS IS MAJOR WATER POLLUTER: A new report today from Environment America blames agribusiness and large-scale farming practices for contributing to dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Erie. The report looks at the water pollution footprint of Tyson, Smithfield, Cargill, JBS, and Perdue, making note of runoff from fields, manure from livestock and waste from processing facilities. All told, the companies are responsible for 162 million tons of manure ending up in waterways, the report found.

“Today’s agribusiness practices — from the concentration of thousands of animals and their waste in small feedlots to the massive planting of chemical-intensive crops such as corn — make water pollution from agribusiness both much more likely and much more dangerous,” the report said. “ ... Major agribusiness firms are responsible for the degradation of many American waterways, and they must change practices throughout their supply chains to clean up the mess.” The report is here.

42 HOUSE MEMBERS OPPOSE CATFISH REPEAL: An insurgency to kill the catfish inspection repeal bill in the House doesn't appear to be going as its leaders hoped. As of Wednesday, 42 members were on record as being opposed — eight less than Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) said last week. More than four times as many House members signed a letter supporting repeal, which would take inspection responsibility from the USDA and give it back to the FDA. Opponents still have some time; there are seven session days until the House goes on summer break. Speaker Paul Ryan hasn’t said where he stands on the issue.

“The bottom line is the catfish debate is not about duplicative programs, excessive government spending, or trade protectionism. These misleading assertions are intended to distract from the real issue, that imported catfish poses a significant threat to public health and safety,” the opposition said in a "dear colleague" letter Wednesday. “Overwhelming evidence suggests that producers in the Asia Pacific routinely treat their catfish products with antibiotics and chemicals that are both illegal and known carcinogens.”

ON THE MOVE: Sean Darragh is leaving the Grocery Manufacturers Association, where he was EVP of global strategies, for a gig at FTI Consulting, where he’ll be a managing director in the firm’s public affairs practice, POLITICO Influence reports. Many of you Ag pros will know Darragh; his CV includes stints as EVP for international affairs and food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and as principal food and agricultural negotiator for the Office of the USTR.

MA’s INSTANT OATS:

— There’s a growing movement to let SNAP recipients buy groceries online, Quartz reports.

— Congressional staffers may have been drinking lead-contaminated water for months, POLITICO reports.

— The EU has already said it will review the potential Bayer-Monsanto merger even before a final deal is reached, The Wall Street Journal reports.

THAT'S ALL FOR MA! See you again soon! In the meantime, drop your host and the rest of the team a line: [email protected] and @ceboudreau; [email protected] and @jennyhops; [email protected] and @hbottemiller; [email protected] and @iankullgren; [email protected] and @mjkorade; and [email protected] and @jsonhuffman. You can also follow @POLITICOPro and @Morning_Ag on Twitter.

Follow us on Twitter Pradnya Joshi @pjoshidc



John Yearwood @john_yearwood



Ryan McCrimmon @ryanmccrimmon



Liz Crampton @liz_crampton



Helena Bottemiller Evich @hbottemiller