HR 1599 · 114th Congress 2015–2017, ended

Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015

Fact sheet

Latest action · Jul 24, 2015 Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Progress

Where this bill reached, and when. A stage with no date was not reached; one that failed a vote and later carried shows the date it carried.

  1. IntroducedMar 25, 2015
  2. Passed HouseJul 23, 2015
  3. Passed SenateNot reached
  4. To the PresidentNot reached
  5. Became lawNot reached

Summary

Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015

TITLE I--FOOD SAFETY AFFIRMATION FOR CERTAIN PLANT PRODUCTS

Subtitle A--Food and Drug Administration

(Sec. 101) This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to continue the voluntary consultation process established under the FDA’s "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties." In that process, the FDA evaluates a scientific and regulatory assessment provided by the developer of a food produced from, containing, or consisting of a plant that is a genetically engineered organism (GMO).

The FDA may require a GMO food to have a label that informs consumers of a material difference between the GMO food and a comparable food if the disclosure is necessary to protect public health and safety or to prevent the label from being false or misleading. The use of a GMO does not, by itself, constitute a material difference.

Subtitle B--Department of Agriculture

(Sec. 111) This bill amends the Plant Protection Act to allow the sale of a GMO food (including imported food and excluding plant pests) only if the FDA has determined through the consultation process that the GMO food is safe and lawful and that determination has been shared with the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The FDA and USDA must report on implementation of this process. A GMO plant may be sold for research, to produce a processing aid or enzyme, or as a nutrient source for microorganisms without meeting these requirements.

USDA must publish a list of GMO plants that can be sold as food and the determinations made by the FDA and USDA regarding those foods.

(Sec. 113) State and local requirements for GMO food are preempted by this Act.

TITLE II--GENETIC ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION

(Sec. 201) This bill amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to establish a voluntary genetically engineered food certification program. This program must be implemented through certifying agents accredited by the AMS.

For a food to be sold as a product produced without genetic engineering (non-GMO), the food must be subject to supply chain process controls that keep the product separated from GMOs and must be produced and handled in compliance with a non-genetically engineered food plan, which is a description of procedures to ensure compliance, monitoring records, and corrective actions in the event of a deviation from the plan.

For food derived from livestock to be sold as non-GMO, the product, livestock, feed, and products used in processing the feed must be produced without GMOs.

A food’s label or advertising cannot suggest that non-GMO foods are safer or of higher quality than GMO foods.

For a food to be sold as a GMO food, it must be produced and handled in compliance with a genetically engineered food plan. A GMO food’s label or advertising cannot suggest that it is safer or of higher quality solely because it is GMO.

The AMS must allow a person to voluntarily disclose how a product has been genetically engineered.

Imported products may be labeled as produced with or without genetic engineering if the products have been produced and handled under a genetic engineering certification program that provides safeguards and guidelines at least equivalent to the AMS’s requirements.

(Sec. 203) State and local requirements for the labeling of GMO products are preempted unless the state or local government establishes a program that matches the programs described in this Act.

(Sec. 204) Claims made before enactment of this Act regarding whether a product was produced with or without genetic engineering may continue to be made for 36 months after enactment of this Act. After that period, the claims must meet the standards in this Act. Products from certified organic producers are deemed to be certified non-GMO.

TITLE III--NATURAL FOODS

(Sec. 302) The FDA must regulate the term “natural” on food labeling.

(Sec. 303) State and local requirements for the term “natural” are preempted by FDA regulations.

Recorded votes 5

Newest first. Open one to see how every member voted.

Roll callQuestionResultDate
House 463Failed87–337Jul 23, 2015
House 462Passed275–150Jul 23, 2015
House 461Failed163–262Jul 23, 2015
House 460Failed196–227Jul 23, 2015
House 459Failed123–303Jul 23, 2015

Cosponsors 106

Members who signed on, in the order they did. Signatures ran from Mar 25, 2015 to Jul 16, 2015, with 17 there on the day it was introduced.

SeatCosponsorSigned on
D-FLAlcee L. HastingsOriginalMar 25, 2015
D-NCAlma S. AdamsOriginalMar 25, 2015
D-AZAnn KirkpatrickOriginalMar 25, 2015
R-MOAnn WagnerOriginalMar 25, 2015
D-NEBrad AshfordOriginalMar 25, 2015
R-NYChris CollinsOriginalMar 25, 2015
R-WADan NewhouseOriginalMar 25, 2015
R-CADavid G. ValadaoOriginalMar 25, 2015
D-GADavid ScottOriginalMar 25, 2015
R-CADevin NunesOriginalMar 25, 2015
R-KYEd WhitfieldOriginalMar 25, 2015
D-NCG. K. ButterfieldOriginalMar 25, 2015
R-NDKevin CramerOriginalMar 25, 2015
D-ORKurt SchraderOriginalMar 25, 2015
R-NCRenee L. EllmersOriginalMar 25, 2015

Actions 30

Everything that happened, newest first.

  1. Jul 24, 2015Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  2. Jul 23, 2015Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 369. (consideration: CR H5416-5439)
  3. Jul 23, 2015DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 369, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the DeLauro amendment No. 3.
  4. Jul 23, 2015DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 369, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Huffman amendment No. 2.
  5. Jul 23, 2015DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 369, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Pingree amendment No. 4.

Amendments 5

Amendments offered to this bill.

AmendmentDescriptionOffered byStatus
HAmdt 678Amendment sought to require that if a U.S. company or its subsidiary labels its product as containing GMOs in any foreign country, that company must also label the equivalent product the same way in the U.S.Peter A. DeFazio D-OROn agreeing to the DeFazio amendment (A001) Failed by recorded vote: 123 - 303 (Roll no. 459).
HAmdt 679Amendment sought to ensure tribal sovereignty with respect to prohibiting or restricting the cultivation of genetically engineered plants on tribal lands.Jared Huffman D-CAOn agreeing to the Huffman amendment (A002) Failed by recorded vote: 196 - 227 (Roll no. 460).
HAmdt 680Amendment sought to prohibit the use of the term "natural" on food when a food consists of a genetically engineered plant.Rosa L. DeLauro D-CTOn agreeing to the DeLauro amendment (A003) Failed by recorded vote: 163 - 262 (Roll no. 461).
HAmdt 681Amendment sought to strike the entire text of the bill and add back the section that creates a non-GMO certification program and label at USDA.Chellie Pingree D-MEOn agreeing to the Pingree amendment (A004) Failed by voice vote.
HAmdt 682Amendment sought to change the title of the bill.Jared Polis D-COOn agreeing to the Polis of Colorado amendment to the title Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 87 - 337 (R

Related bills 1

Companion bills and other measures the record links to this one.

Subjects

Assigned by the Library of Congress. Policy area: Agriculture and Food.

Text 4

Each version as it was printed, newest first.

  1. Jul 24, 2015Referred in Senate
  2. Jul 23, 2015Engrossed in House
  3. Jul 16, 2015Reported in House
  4. Mar 25, 2015Introduced in House

Support LegiList

This page is free, carries no paywall, and is built and maintained by one person. If the record here is useful to you, a few dollars keeps it going.

Processed by Stripe in a separate window. LegiList never sees card details.

Everything here is as published by Congress: the summary is the Congressional Research Service's, the action wording is the clerks', and the subjects are the Library of Congress's. How far it got is read from the actions themselves, taking the most recent one of each kind, so a bill that failed a vote and later passed is shown as having passed. Records come from this bill on Congress.gov and govinfo.gov.