Rep. Huffman Votes Against Bill that Voids States & Local Genetically Modified Food Labeling Laws

July 23, 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Congressman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) today voted against the so-called “DARK Act,” which would prevent local and state governments from enacting genetically modified food labeling laws and prevents the federal government from developing a national labeling system. The legislation would void genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling laws throughout California’s North Coast, including those adopted in Marin, Mendocino, Humboldt, and Trinity Counties. Though Huffman voted against the bill, it passed 275-150.

Huffman spoke out against the bill on the House floor, footage of which can be found HERE, and offered an amendment to ensure that tribal sovereignty is not inadvertently harmed by the DARK Act. Huffman cited that many tribal organizations and tribes have stated their strong support for GMO labeling in order to “to preserve, protect, and maintain the integrity of traditional native foods, seeds, and agricultural systems.” Huffman’s amendment was defeated 196-227.

“We deserve to know what is in our food. This bill prevents local and state governments from providing consumers with that information, the information they want,” Huffman said. “With the significant concerns over GE foods and proactive steps tribes are taking on their land and resources, we should make it clear that this bill would not affect tribes’ authorities to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of genetically engineered plants on or near tribal lands.”

[[{"fid":"461","view_mode":"full","fields":{"format":"full"},"type":"media","attributes":{"alt":"Huffman speaks out for GMO Labeling","height":"380","width":"640","class":"media-element file-full"}}]]

“Mr. Speaker I rise today to offer an amendment to ensure tribal sovereignty is not inadvertently harmed by this legislation, the DARK Act. I am joined by several colleagues in support of this amendment, including cosponsors Reps. Polis, McCollum, Grijalva, and Ruiz. 

“Now, much of the debate this morning has focused on how and if this bill will preempt state and local laws—which would include ordinances in my district that have been adopted by Marin, Mendocino, Humboldt, and Trinity Counties.

“I agree with my colleagues: We deserve to know what is in our food, and this bill prevents local and state governments from providing consumers with that information, the information they want.

“But in today’s debate, little has been said about the need to protect the principle of tribal self-governance.

“I recognize that some of my colleagues believe the manager’s amendment addresses any concerns regarding preemption and tribal sovereignty. I disagree. That’s why I am offering an amendment to address any potential ambiguity in the bill, and to ensure that tribes can continue to take action on GMOs as many of them have sought to do. If the underlying bill is supposed to protect tribal sovereignty, I would hope the bill’s supporters wouldn’t mind making that protection explicit by passing this amendment.

“In 2013 the National Congress of American Indians, which supports my amendment today, passed a resolution calling on Congress and the federal government “to preserve, protect, and maintain the integrity of traditional native foods, seeds, and agricultural systems… support the labeling of seeds or products containing GE technology and ingredients… create GE and transgenic crop-free zones; and oppose the use and cultivation of GE seeds in the United States.” But, this bill would prevent the creation of a national standard for GMOs that NCAI has asked for.

“Now, this is not just about crops. The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, which includes several tribes from my district, are strongly opposed to the FDA approval of genetically engineered salmon, due to the potential harmful impacts on wild salmon that are so important to the tribes and the commercial economy in my district. Under this legislation, it is hard to see how the FDA could ever require the labeling of genetically engineered salmon.

“With the significant concerns over GE foods and proactive steps tribes are taking on their land and resources, we should make it clear that this bill would not affect tribes’ authorities to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of genetically engineered plants on or near tribal lands.

“Now, the Congressional Research Service, in an analysis of the bill’s new preemption section and they have said that the effects of the preemption language are ambiguous. In the case of impacts to tribes, we should leave no ambiguity.

“I urge support of my amendment. No matter how we feel about this legislation as a whole, I would hope at the very least we should clarify that tribes should retain the authority to restrict GE plants on their own lands, if they so choose.

“I reserve the remainder of my time.”

Huffman continued:

“Thank you Mr. Chairman. If the intent is not to prohibit or preempt or prevent tribal sovereignty, why not make it clear? Why not pass this amendment?”

Huffman continued:

“I would respectfully disagree that that language is clear, but I would note that that language says nothing about tribal sovereignty. So, Mr. Chairman, colleagues, this is a bill that is deeply flawed, it should be opposed for all sorts of reason. But here is an amendment that would at least make it a little better. For those of us that represent Indian country, for those of us that support tribal sovereignty, for those of us that want to protect tribes that have taken action on their land and in some cases partnered with states for buffer zones near tribal land. We should at least make it clear that they can do that, that we’re not running roughshod over their tribal sovereignty.

“With that, I request an aye vote.”

###