Pending Roberts bill and my reco's

From:GHIRSHBERG@Stonyfield.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2016-02-15 15:38 Subject: Pending Roberts bill and my reco's

Likely this week (I am confirming timing with Debbie Stabenow today), Roberts will introduce a bill that postpones the scheduled 7/1/16 implementation of Vermont's mandatory state GMO labeling law (as well as any other state initiatives) for a number of years (we don't yet know how long he is proposing) to give the largest grocery manufacturers time to try to implement their so-called smart label digital scanning solution. This is an overt attempt to avoid them from having to put a simple disclosure on their food packaging, as is the common practice in 64 other countries including all of the EU. We haven't seen the final language yet, but the idea is that, after the requisite number of years has passed, some third party would be engaged by FDA or USDA to do a national survey and if a certain % of consumers acknowledged that the digital scanning technology was working, then VT and other states' laws would be permanently pre-empted. Presumably if that % threshold was not reached, the state laws could go ahead. As you can tell, this is so weak and vague that it instead is really is a complete and crushing win by industry over consumers' rights to know. It also is a brazen assertion of federal authority over not only VT's already-passed law, but over the 3-6 other states that will likely pass exactly similar GMO labeling measures this year (RI, MA, NY, NJ) not to mention the 20+ other states that are debating equivalent measures. It is another example of the Republicans' hypocritical practice of supporting states' rights when it serves them and crushing them when it does not. We are working to either amend or stop it, but they are pouring tens of millions into lobbying and have already seduced Tom Vilsack into seeing this as some kind of compromise. One of their inaccurate and disingenuous representations is that this will help avoid a "patchwork quilt" of different state bills, but we have ensured that all the state measures are identical. We explicitly counter-proposed to Tom and them that a measure that would be more fair and balanced for consumers and average citizens would be (a) a 2-year delay at the end of which (b) food companies could choose between implementing a federal on-packaging disclosure OR complying with any state-mandated disclosures UNLESS the testing threshold of a high enough % had been met (we are proposing 90% of those who will be surveyed) of Americans easily being able to know whether GMO's are in their foods or not. In this way, it ensures consumers that one way or the other there WILL be a working solution in place in 2 years rather than leaving that open-ended. Our amendment properly puts the burden on Industry to either succeed in their efforts or accept the consequences if they don't. Politically, we can expect Bernie to make a passionate demand that the Roberts bill be completely stopped from pre-empting Vermont's and other states' laws, that this is an egregious over-reach by Republicans at the expense of citizens' rights and yet another example of big business's firm grip on our government (gosh, I bet he might even mention Wall Street). My guess is that he will jump on this soapbox just as soon as the bill is introduced but he also may not wait. HRC could seize the day and beat out Bernie by inserting into a speech or interview asap an assertion of her strong support for all consumers, mothers and grandmothers to be able to know what is in our foods, that she is aware of a pending measure that would offer an industry solution in response to the 90% of surveyed americans (2 Mellman polls) who say they want to know if their foods contain GMO's and she would be strongly opposed to any bill that would not provide an explicit timetable for people having their rights protected and that puts control of the disclosure timeline exclusively in Industry's hands...that we are living in a new era in which more and more genetically modified foods are being introduced and regardless of how you feel about that, people want and deserve the right to be able to know; that when other new technologies like orange juice from concentrate and wild vs farmed have come along, the government has had a tradition and a responsibility to make sure that consumers can know and choose for whatever reason they want, and that this is the way markets work. One other thing...the Industry has spiced up their argument for the digital smart label by saying that they don't want to simply solve the problem of GMO transparency, that they want to anticipate other issues that will come up (such as humane treatment of animals, palm oil, etc). This is a straw man...no other issue like that has had one state already require labeling and several more about to require it, not to mention 20+ other states debating it, and with the recent approval of genetically engineered salmon, apples and other products, it is truly disingenuous to try to lump this in with a bunch of other vague concerns. The bottom line, John, is that Bernie will try to own this issue because it really will play with millennials but the timing of this bill affords HRC the opportunity to take that from him if she acts swiftly. Confidentially, for your eyes only please, this is a video that we will be releasing this week which captured HRC speaking in Iowa a few weeks ago: PLEASE DO NOT SHARE: https://vimeo.com/154643942 Password: gmo In a moment, I will share a separate email anecdote evidencing Bernie's lack of political sophistication and consensus-building skills that could also be helpful to you, at least with donors but I want to get this off to you now. GH Sent from my iPad > On Feb 15, 2016, at 8:07 AM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote: > > Gary > Sorry we missed when I was running around NH. Tough loss but great team. On the latter, can you shoot me a note on what Roberts is up to and I'll try to get something done quickly. > Miss you man. > John > > >> On Monday, February 15, 2016, Gary HIRSHBERG <GHIRSHBERG@stonyfield.com> wrote: >> Hi, your tone and remarks were perfect on cnn the other night. >> >> 3 ideas: >> >> - in the wake of mcconnell's announcement, HRC should rename them the Grand Obstructionist Party >> >> - when it comes to Bernie, she should hammer on the theme that there is a big difference between Legislating and Governing, and between them she is the only one who has experience doing both. (He won't dare suggest that being a mayor of a tiny city compares to running the US government and agencies) >> >> - Lastly, a time sensitive one. Not sure you are following the latest developments in the GMO labeling saga but Sen. Roberts is about to introduce a terrible measure that will strongly favor industry over citizens and specifically will pre-empt VT. We expect Bernie to speak out about this, which will also play to the millennials. It would be extremely smart for HRC to get out ahead of him by stating her support for protecting citizens' and states' rights. I could explain the language to someone in your policy team if you want to put them in touch with me. >> >> GH >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone