Over the past week, I have heard from many people at home regarding their interest in H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.

Over the past week, I have heard from many people at home regarding their interest in H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. It would create a voluntary uniform national labeling standard to certify a product contains no genetically engineered ingredients while preventing states from imposing their own labeling requirements. I struggled with this vote because while the federal government clearly has a legitimate and constitutionally-grounded role to play in regulating interstate commerce, it does not have an unlimited role to play in this sphere. This is where the issue of federalism and state’s rights came into play for me in this debate, and when combined with the government’s function in offering information and transparency so important to the working of any market, my vote was tipped into the no column. Unfortunately, the bill ended up passing anyway by a vote of 275 to 150. Let me explain why I voted as I did.

This issue, first and foremost, was about the power of states relative to the federal government. Too often, what James Madison observed more than 200 years ago is forgotten in Washington; he said then that “the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” In this case, the federal government would take from states the ability to enact their own labeling requirements, and replace it with…nothing! I would have voted differently had this bill been about federal prerogative on interstate commerce, and replacing a patch-work of different standards with one national standard…but this is not what it did. It said to states, “you can’t require this information, but we chose to do nothing in replacing it, save for a voluntary standard which in real terms means nothing.” This approach was odd given we have a whole host of different state standards in things as disparate as what a used bottle can be returned for to fuel blends that we put in our cars. But, in this case, the federal government was saying states can’t have a voice in their labeling requirements on the fuel we put in our body.

This bill was also about transparency and the legitimate role government should play in making sure it’s offered. Vital to a market-based, capitalistic system are ingredients like private property rights, limited government, and rule of law, and one of the keys to the working of this system is transparency in the marketplace and information. This bill cut against both of these important components.

I am anything but deliberate about what I eat; it’s something I need to focus on more as I age. But after 5,000 barbeque dinners and midnight supper at Wendy’s night after night during campaigns, my eating philosophy has essentially boiled down to this: “if it’s not moving or doesn’t have mold, I guess it’s good.” Other folks are more discerning, and if one wants to have information on genetic modification of food, the federal government should not be about knocking out a state’s right to offer information when the federal government proposes no alternative.

Even though I didn’t vote for the bill, I did support two amendments. The first, offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, said that if a company labeled its product in another country as containing genetic modification, they should not take the labeling off for the same product sold in the USA. Sixty-five countries now require this labeling, and to me it seemed reasonable and fair that Americans should have the same information available to them. This amendment failed by a vote of 123 to 303. The second amendment I supported, offered by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, would have prohibited labeling a food “natural” when it contains genetically modified material. There was no real definition of what natural meant in this case, and the debate on the floor was about the degree of confusion this might mean for the consumer. This amendment also failed by a vote of 163 to 262.

So that’s the vote count on this bill, and in it I want to be clear that I don’t personally understand or see the dangers of genetic modification of food, but if we really prescribe to a limited federal government, I don’t think the federal government should impede those who do.