Interview Transcript

Kate - Welcome to the Leading Voices in Food podcast. I'm Kate Stanley, a researcher at the World Food Policy Center at Duke University. I'm joined today by my co-host, Katariina Koivusaari, a researcher at North Carolina State University. Together, we collaborate on policy research for the Bezos Center for Sustainable Proteins at NC State.

Katariina - Great to have you. Greg, you have been involved in food and agriculture policy in Washington, D.C. for several decades and have worked with both Democratic and Republican administrations. Are food policy politics caught up in party differences depending on which political party is running the executive branch?

A very relevant question right now. I guess it would be wrong to say that the political party in office doesn't make a big difference in the policies being carried out by the executive branch. However, in the food and agricultural space, and especially in the areas that I focus on, which is really around these new technologies in food and Ag and how do those get into the marketplace and adopted, that difference hasn't been so big. Let me give you an example or two. I'll take you back first to about 2000, and we had the Clinton administration. We have the regulation at FDA of biotech crops, and they had a voluntary consultation process and there were a number of stakeholders and others who felt that that wasn't sufficient. The Clinton administration interpreted the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to try to turn that into what they called a mandatory consultation, and they proposed a pre-market notification rule. It didn't get finished in, before the end of the administration in January of 2001. Then we had the Bush administration come in, so we went from a Democrat to a Republican. And the Bush administration looked at the same law and looked at that same proposed regulation and said, "We don't have the legal authority to do that." And they withdrew that proposal, and so we still have to this day this voluntary consultation. And I give you that example for two reasons. One, I think what we've seen when it comes to food and policy regulation by different administrations is how they interpret the law. And I can say this in very general, the Democrats have tended to be a little more expansive in how they interpreted the law to try to find more legal authority to do things that they might want to do. And the Republicans have tended to look at that language much more restrictively or look at just exactly what that language said and not try to interpret anything into it. And so, you see that difference here between what happened in the Clinton administration versus what happened in the Bush administration.

I mention this example because as many of your listeners may know, right now in this administration, we have the question about voluntary GRAS and whether that's going to become mandatory or not. And some of us who have followed that know that the current FDA has submitted to OMB, to the White House, a proposed rule to make GRAS mandatory. Well, that is-- the regulatory process for those biotech crops is also a GRAS process. It's interesting now that we have a Republican administration who's finding the authority to do that, and we'll see what actually comes out and what the courts do with it. But I think this shows that sort of difference in policies between Democrats and Republicans. But overall, we haven't seen a lot of difference.

In this new administration, I think one of the questions people had was what would happen with a technology like cell-cultivated meat? Where would the regulation of it go forward? There's many in the MAHA movement, I think, that felt that that wasn't consistent with what they wanted. But we've seen that those approvals continue to happen. Similarly, pesticides have been an issue in many administrations. Sometimes Democrats have argued to be much more restrictive in the use of pesticides and to make the regulations much harder. And Republicans have oftentimes said to make those easier for the agencies. But what we see is pesticides have moved forward under both administrations. People understand the need for pesticides to produce agriculture. We have some differences in policy, but on the whole, in this area, I think, whether it's Democratic or Republican, they have generally supported following the law.

Kate - Greg, you shared some interesting examples of across administrations how we've seen different actions be taken. And I'm curious. Under this administration, for some of these areas you work in, like these novel technologies, what do you see as driving the new federal legislative actions in food policy?

The legislative area has generally always been more partisan than the executive branch to some extent. I mean, the executive branch is interpreting laws from Congress; the Congress is setting those. But I think again, in the area of food policy, we've seen many good laws come out that have been bipartisan. And when I look at how did those laws come to be, I sort of see a couple different scenarios. One, and I don't think this is unique to food policy or ag policy, we tend to see legislation when some crisis has occurred. The example I would give in the food space was the establishment of the Food Safety Modernization Act more than a dozen years ago. And to a large extent, that was reaction to a number of outbreaks: spinach outbreaks, peanut butter outbreaks, egg outbreaks. And people getting sick, and some people even dying from those outbreaks. And so that brought a bipartisan coalition together to say, "We need to give more authority to FDA to address our food supply and ensure it's as safe as it could be." So that's one way we've seen that.

A second way we see policy change is when a policy is old or that is no longer in favor. And the example I give there is most recently, in this Congress passed the whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, and that is a definite change in policy from the Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. This changes what milks, whether they're flavored, and how much fat they can have and be in the school programs. And I think in both cases, those bills were relatively partisan at the time, and yet they do opposite things. So that would be another reason that we see changes in laws.

But the third way, and I wanted to focus a little more on this, is one way the federal government gets involved and Congress gets involved is when states start regulating an area, and we start getting different standards. And then there's a push at the national level to have some sort of uniformity, some sort of have national standard for markets to work properly, for efficiency's sake and so forth. And I can give several different examples. We can go all the way back to the National Organic Law that was passed back in 1990. You had a number of states who had defined organic; they had different organic labels. Congress came together and said, "Hey, let's set up a national organic standard." We had the same thing happen with the National Bioengineered Disclosure Law, that I think happened around 2017 or 2016. In which case you had a number of states proposing legislation. You had Vermont that had passed legislation requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients. And in fact, the law that was passed by Congress was passed, I think, within a week or two of when the Vermont law was about to go into effect. And people felt it was better to come together and have a national standard than have different states doing different things. Because the reality is, consumers and manufacturers don't just purchase things in one state or produce things for one state. They produce it for the nation. We're a nationwide market. And then we see even those kinds of things happening today, and I go back to the pesticide area as another example. We've had different states having pesticide laws or regulations that have been different than the federal situation. We have a Supreme Court case now that the Supreme Court is going to hear in April of this year about whether that's those state regulations are preempted by the federal law. But Congress and the Farm Bill has also put in language that would ensure that the federal standard is the standard that is applied, not having multiple different state standards. So that's been a way that we've seen a lot of things happen in this food and Ag space.

Kate - We've seen a lot of food policy action at the state level in the past few years. Katariina and I were on this podcast not long ago talking about state legislation aiming to restrict how cell-cultivated meat products are labeled or even banning those products altogether. We've seen action in a variety of other areas as well. Are there issues that states have started regulating where you think we could see federal action in the near future?

I do. I think that the MAHA movement in particular has really set up a situation where we see states taking the lead on a number of issues, and we'll see whether the federal government decides to come in, and particularly Congress, to address those at a national level. For example, in the area of synthetic dyes and food additives, I think there's some 30 states that have introduced bills. And a number of which have passed, either restricting those use at all in any foods, restricting their use in school lunches, having different labeling associated with many of those ingredients. And we've seen some of those laws pass, and we've already seen some court cases. A court case in West Virginia which said that those laws are preempted by federal law. One could envision either something at FDA or in Congress that would set some uniform standard...