Stephanie Strom reported in today’s New York Times that, “A federal bill that would require labeling of foods made with genetically engineered ingredients passed a major hurdle in the Senate on Wednesday, significantly raising the odds that a national standard for labeling will put an end to a fight that has roiled the food industry for years.

“The bill requires food manufacturers to use one of three types of labels to inform consumers when genetically engineered, or G.M.O., ingredients are in their products. The label requirements would also apply to growers of fruits and vegetables that are genetically engineered, like the Arctic Apple and some zucchini.

“The approval is a big win for food companies, farm groups and the biotech industry, which began pushing for a national standard last year to head off a Vermont labeling law that went into effect last Friday.”

Ms. Strom noted that, “The bill moved forward in a 65-32 procedural vote and is now widely expected to get final approval in the Senate as early as this week. It was approved after moments of unusual theater, including visitors in the gallery throwing cash on the Senate floor to protest contributions made by Monsanto to senators backing the bill;” and added that, “Both Republicans and Democrats expect the bill to get final approval in the Senate. How it fares in the House, which last year voted in favor of a voluntary labeling regime, remains to be seen. It is also unclear whether President Obama will sign the bill.”

And Christopher Doering reported in today’s Des Moines Register that, “Small food manufacturers would be allowed to use websites or telephone numbers to satisfy disclosure requirements, while those defined as very small, along with restaurants, would be exempt.”

The New York Times editorial board opined on the Senate measure in today’s paper, stating in part that, “This bill, a bipartisan compromise negotiated by Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, and Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, is being pushed through Congress because some lawmakers from farm states want to pre-empt a Vermont law that requires labeling for some genetically modified foods that went into effect on July 1 (Vermont is giving companies six months to comply) and to prevent other states from enacting similar laws. The Senate bill follows a failed effort in March to block state labeling laws. The House passed a bill last year that would pre-empt states from enforcing such laws.”

The Times added that, “The biggest problem with the Senate bill is that — instead of requiring a simple label, as the Vermont law does — it would allow food companies to put the information in electronic codes that consumers would have to scan with smartphones or at scanners installed by grocery stores. The only reason to do this would be to make the information less accessible to the public.”

However, the Los Angeles Times editorial board stated in today’s paper that, “Californians smartly rejected a ballot initiative in 2012 that would have required warning labels on groceries containing genetically altered organisms. It was bad policy based on nothing but conjecture. There’s no evidence that eating GMO-laden foods is harmful to humans.

“But GMO warning labels may be forced on food sold in this state nonetheless. If so, we can thank a tiny state with a population smaller than San Francisco. In 2014, Vermont lawmakers gave in to fear mongers pushing junk science and adopted a GMO labeling bill that took effect Friday. That’s too bad for Vermonters, who are just starting to realize that the new law will mean, at least for the short term, the withdrawal of thousands of products from their grocery stores. But it may prove problematic for consumers in the rest of the country too.”

The L.A. Times opinion item also indicated that, “It is wrong to let the baseless fears of certain consumers dictate national food policy. A warning label, however mild, connotes danger, and that unfairly stigmatizes approximately 70% of the packaged food in our grocery stores.

“For all the consternation about ‘frankenfood,’ there is no scientific evidence that foods with GMOs are dangerous to humans — and scientists have been looking closely for that evidence. In May the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a sweeping study that GMO crops should be considered just as safe as the non-GMO versions.

“If food manufactures want to tout their GMO-free status, that’s fine. But the government should not be in position of forcing them to do so in the absence of any verified threat to human health.”

Emiko Terazono reported today at The Financial Times Online that, “Grain bulls continued their retreat after much-needed rainfall in the US Midwest increased prospects of a bumper corn harvest…[T]he price for new harvest corn has tumbled more than 20 percent since this year’s high of $4.44 a bushel last month, with CBOT September corn trading at $3.47 a bushel on Wednesday.”

The FT article noted that, “The latest crop development report from the US Department of Agriculture also added to the bearish sentiment around corn, with the proportion of crops rated as being in good or excellent condition at 75 percent, unchanged from a week before.”

Meanwhile, Bloomberg writers Megan Durisin and Jeff Wilson reported yesterday that, “Some investors had speculated that U.S. farmers would choose to plant more soybeans instead of the grain after a rally for the oilseed. Instead, U.S. government data showed that growers sowed the third-biggest corn crop since World War II. The improving weather is also boosting the outlook for production as plants enter the pollination period.”

And University of Illinois agricultural economist Darrel Good pointed out yesterday at the farmdoc daily blog (“Weekly Outlook: Corn Prices Face Strong Headwinds“) that, “Prospects for another year of low corn prices and negative returns to corn producers have two implications. First, producers will need to continue to look for ways to reduce production costs. Second, some reduction in world corn production may be required to move prices back to profitable levels. With prospects for increased acreage in Argentina and a rebound in yields in Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa in 2017, the reduction may fall to the U.S.”

Stephanie Strom reported in Saturday’s New York Times that, “Nearly all food labels in Vermont are now required to disclose when products include genetically engineered ingredients. The requirement, passed two years ago, became effective on Friday.

“The rule is the first of its kind in the United States, and although it applies only within the tiny state, it is having national impact.

“Most major food and beverage companies have already added language to their labels to meet the new rule, rather than deal with the logistical hassle of having separate labels for different states. Campbell Soup was the first big company to say it would label all of its products, and General Mills, ConAgra, Mars and Kellogg’s followed.”

Ms. Strom explained that, “Vermont’s law requires the labeling of most packaged grocery products as well as any whole fruits or vegetables produced with genetic engineering. That means virtually all products containing derivatives of crops like corn, soy, canola and sugar from sugar beets will need labels, as most of those crops in the United States are grown from genetically modified seeds.

“Vermont’s law is careful, however, to exclude cheese, a big business in the state. Hard cheeses require the use of chymosin, an enzyme found naturally in the stomachs of ruminant animals. But most cheese makers rely on chymosin generated through synthetic biology, a form of genetic engineering.

“The law also exempts meat from animals that have eaten feed made from genetically engineered grains.”

With respect to federal action, the Times article pointed out that, “The Senate Agriculture Committee produced a compromise bill just last week, and even advocates for labeling say it has a good chance of passing — should it ever come to the full Senate for a vote. Companies would have three choices for labeling under the bill — a phrase on packaging indicating that a product contained genetically engineered ingredients, a symbol of some sort or a QR or bar code that consumers could scan with their mobile phones. It would still need to pass the House, which has approved G.M.O. labeling bills in the past, and be signed by President Obama.

“But the bill is facing unexpected opposition from the Food and Drug Administration, which on June 27 sent a three-page letter detailing shortcomings it has found in the revised bill. Among other things, the F.D.A. criticizes the proposed law for assigning regulatory responsibility for G.M.O. labeling to the Department of Agriculture, which traditionally weighs in only on the labeling of meats and eggs.”

More specifically on the FDA position, Christopher Doering reported in Saturday’s Des Moines Register that, “The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Friday challenged claims that a Senate bill requiring labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients could exclude thousands of items.

“In a letter to Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., obtained by The Des Moines Register, the USDA said it believes that the bill introduced last week gives it the authority to require labels on everything on the grocery store shelf that contains genetically modified organism ingredients approved by the USDA, including highly refined sugars and oils made from commodities such as soybeans.”

Mr. Doering indicated that, “This week, the Food and Drug Administration expressed concern that the legislation’s use of the words ‘that contains genetic material’ would mean that oil made from genetically engineered soybeans, and starches and purified proteins, would not require a GMO label. The reason is that once the commodity is processed, it would not have any detectable amount of biotech ingredients.

“‘In order to put this misinformation to rest, I asked the USDA’s general counsel to confirm USDA’s interpretation of the biotechnology definition in the agreement,’ Stabenow said. ‘As the response clearly states, this agreement would provide the USDA with the authority to label everything that is on the grocery shelf that contains ingredients from GMO commodity crops.’

“The USDA would have sole authority for implementing the bill, but other agencies, such as the FDA, can provide feedback. They are regularly asked by Congress to do so.”

And more broadly on the GMO issue, Niraj Chokshi reported last week at The New York Times Online that, “More than 100 Nobel laureates have a message for Greenpeace: Quit the G.M.O.-bashing.

“Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C.

“Opponents, they say, are standing in the way of getting nutritious food to those who need it.”

Gregory Meyer reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “A spring grain rally has prompted US farmers to plant more corn and soyabeans, raising the prospect of a supply deluge at the end of the year.

“The planting spree comes despite relatively low grain prices that have pinched farmers’ incomes. US crop receipts are estimated at $190bn this year, down a fourth straight year from $232bn in 2012.

“But a sharp, fleeting rally brought on by a worsening outlook for South American crops happened as farmers started their spring planting campaign. It spurred them to sow much more corn and soyabeans than they had signalled in March, the time of the last US Department of Agriculture survey.”

And Wall Street Journal writer Jesse Newman reported yesterday that, “If Midwest weather cooperates, farmers this year are expected to raise one of the largest corn crops on record after switching fewer acres than expected to soybeans.

“The move heaps more pressure on an agricultural sector already grappling with lower farmer incomes and sales of farm equipment and supplies.

“Corn futures fell almost 4% by Thursday’s market close and have slid by 18% from their peak earlier this month, while soybeans continue to rally.”

Ms. Newman noted that, “The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated U.S. farmers have planted 94.148 million acres of corn, topping the 92.759 million forecast by analysts and the agency’s own March projection for 93.601 million.

“The additional corn came despite a steep rally in soybean prices, which analysts had expected to prompt a switch between the crops.”

Yesterday’s Journal article also pointed out that, “The USDA said farmers planted a record 83.688 million acres of soybeans this year, though that fell short of the 83.969 million forecast by analysts. The smaller-than-expected acreage estimate also comes as global demand for the oilseeds remains robust, putting the spotlight on August weather, which is crucial for determining yields. Analysts said strong U.S. yields will be required to satiate voracious global appetite for soybeans.”

A more detailed discussion of the USDA’s updated Acreage report from University of Illinois agricultural economists Darrel Good and Scott Irwin is available here.