One thing on every retailer’s Christmas wish list

Life could be so much simpler for retailers and suppliers – and better for most consumers too – if federal lawmakers could find a way to grant the industry this one, not-so-simple, holiday wish.



Coping with the complexity of local, state and federal regulations and untold costs to retailers and suppliers expense structure and also exposes companies to compliance risk caused by the added complexity. This is true whether the issue is employee wages, product safety requirements, labeling disclosures, or the meaning of words like hazardous waste, organic or all natural. The most recent example is the furor over products that contain ominous-sounding “Genetically Modified Organisms,” commonly referred to by the more palatable acronym "GMO."



A vocal minority has effectively championed the “GMO’s are bad movement,” and pushed the issue to the fore, prompting lawmakers intent on protecting consumers to create new rules. As a result, food manufactures are faced with the prospect of an efficiency-sapping framework of GMO labeling laws that could vary from state to state.



This makes Pam Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), very mad, especially at Congress, which failed to reach an agreement this year that could have allowed for a uniform national regulation.



“It is unfortunate that Congress has failed to take action this year to stop a patchwork of costly and misleading state labeling mandates, an issue of tremendous importance to consumers, farmers, food and beverage companies,” Bailey said.



She contends that in January food manufacturers will face exponentially increasing costs totaling hundreds of millions of dollars just to comply with Vermont’s GMO labeling mandate.



“There is bipartisan agreement that genetic engineering should not be stigmatized – it is the technology that feeds a hungry and growing world. There is bipartisan agreement that consumers should have access to consistent and helpful information about genetic engineering. There is bipartisan agreement that a 50-state patchwork of laws is disastrous for farmers, food companies and consumers,” Bailey said. “Given there is so much common ground, we welcome Secretary [Tom] Vilsack’s willingness to bring parties together in January to forge a compromise that Congress could pass as soon as possible. We are hopeful that compromise will establish a uniform national standard for foods made with genetically engineered crops.”



GMA has proposed its newly announced SmartLabel initiative as a possible solution. Earlier this month, 30 leading consumer packaged goods companies threw their support behind GMA’s SmartLabel effort, which attempts to create a uniform solution to provide consumers access to all manner of product information, including GMO details.



By the end of 2017, GMA estimates that 20,000 food products will disclose through SmartLabel whether they contain ingredients sourced from genetically engineered crops. That figure could triple if Congress were to pass a uniform national standard for GMOs, according to GMA.