CURD Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill we are considering under suspension of the rules, S. 2322, the Codifying Useful Regulatory Definitions Act, or the CURD Act.

This bill has not proceeded through regular order and codifies into the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act a highly prescriptive definition of ``natural cheese'' that should be determined by the FDA, not by Congress.

This legislation creates a statutory definition for a specific category of cheese and expressly distinguishes what shall be considered natural cheese from the other standards of identity for processed cheese currently defined in regulation. The bill then codifies these regulatory standards of identity into the statute and expressly preempts any non-Federal definition of the term ``natural cheese.''

The FDA has the authority to define this term, yet proponents of this legislation prefer legislative expediency over sound regulatory decisionmaking. Supporters insist that this definition is needed in statute immediately to assure it quickly applies. However, instead of waiting to proceed through regular order or following the regulatory process, stakeholders are asking for an immediate statutory change because of ongoing litigation that this bill will help to resolve for some stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that by rushing this legislation through we have not been given adequate time to consider the implications for this change or how this definition might impact consumers and other industry stakeholders. The FDA is best positioned to consider the public health impacts of defining this term and how it would interact with other agency efforts regarding nutrition labeling, such as a broader definition for the term ``natural.''

Additionally, I am concerned by the precedent this legislation creates and believe that passing this bill only encourages stakeholders to seek additional statutory changes or definitional clarity for the products when they believe the FDA has not acted as expeditiously as they wish or when they are facing litigation.

We should be making changes to the Federal statute when they are necessary and in order to protect the public health, not when industry is seeking a favorable outcome that could be achieved through regulatory process. I do not believe this change is warranted in this circumstance.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that legislation like the CURD Act should be considered through regular order, and I am opposed to this bill, given that the House of Representatives has held no hearings on this issue and has not marked up the bill under consideration today. The Senate passed this bill in the dead of night, with no discussion or debate on the floor. I believe we are abdicating our duty to fully consider the implications of this statutory change if we pass this bill today.

On the substance, Mr. Speaker, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumer Reports, and The Good Food Institute are all opposed to this legislation and have raised serious concerns about the impact of this change on consumer confusion and transparency. I include in the Record letters in opposition to the bill from all three.

Center for Science

in the Public Interest,

Washington, DC, December 19, 2018.

Dear Member: The Center for Science in the Public Interest

writes to urge you to oppose the CURD Act (H.R. 4828, S.

2322). This misguided bill would define ``natural cheese'' in

a way that actually muddles, rather than clarifies, the term.

For example, it would allow the use of artificial colors and

additives in ``natural cheese'' and would also make labeling

for cheese inconsistent with U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) labeling requirements and possibly also with the Food

and Drug Administration's (FDA's) labeling requirements for

other ``natural'' foods. The bill could also prevent the term

``natural'' from being used on non-dairy cheese alternatives

that may otherwise rightly be considered natural by

consumers.

The stated purpose of the bill is to draw a clear line for

consumers between ``natural cheese'' and processed cheese.

Yet we have seen no evidence that consumers are confusing

processed cheese with natural cheese in the marketplace. The

FDA's current standards of identity for processed cheese

types already require that these cheeses include a specific

statement of identity on the label indicating that they are

``process cheese.'' And there are currently strong incentives

for the manufacturers of process cheese to avoid ``natural''

claims, as this could expose cheesemakers to liability.

Rather than protecting consumers, the bill would confuse

them by permitting misleading ``natural'' claims on products

that most Americans would not consider natural. For example,

a nationally representative telephone survey conducted in May

2018 by Consumer Reports found that more than 80 percent of

consumers say ``natural'' should mean no artificial

ingredients were used. Yet the CURD Act allows for the use of

synthetic food dye, artificial flavors, and other artificial

additives in so-called ``natural cheese.'' Similarly, an

overwhelming majority of Americans surveyed felt that use of

the term ``natural'' should be reserved for foods that deploy

natural agricultural practices to produce the food's

ingredients, including by limiting the use of hormones,

pesticides, and antibiotics. In contrast, the bill would

allow the term ``natural cheese'' to appear irrespective of

the agricultural practices used to produce the cheese's

ingredients.

The bill would also make labeling for ``natural cheese''

inconsistent with USDA and with likely future FDA

requirements for ``natural'' on food labels in general. The

USDA currently permits the use of the term ``natural'' on

products that contain no artificial ingredient or added color

and which are only minimally processed. In addition,

understanding that ``natural'' can have many meanings, the

USDA requires a brief statement of meaning on labels to avoid

confusion, stating, that the food is ``*no more than

minimally processed and contains no artificial ingredients.''

The FDA is also currently considering adopting a definition

of ``natural'' and may create similar requirements based on

comments in its public docket on the issue. Yet the bill

would authorize the claim ``natural cheese'' to be used on

cheese in a manner that fails to align with either the USDA's

current rules or prospective FDA requirements, leading to

inconsistency and confusion across the marketplace.

Finally, the bill defines ``natural cheese'' in a manner

that could be interpreted to prohibit use of the term on non-

dairy alternatives intended for consumers who are vegan,

lactose intolerant, or who otherwise wish to avoid dairy

cheeses. Use of the term ``natural'' should not be prohibited

on these products, provided the products otherwise meet

consumer expectations for use of this term.

The FDA is currently working on a definition of ``natural''

that would be non-misleading, based on consumer

understanding, and apply uniformly to all FDA-regulated

foods, including cheese. Congress should not act prematurely

to carve out a definition for ``natural cheese'' before the

agency has taken action to define ``natural'' for other

products.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote ``no'' on the CURD

Act.

Sincerely,

Sarah Sorscher,

Deputy Director of Regulatory Affairs, Center for Science

in the Public Interest.

Mr. Speaker, we should not displace the important role of the FDA in determining the correct terminology and approach to regulating and labeling food products like cheese. Changes to the statute should be considered in broad daylight, with robust discussion and significant input from consumer, industry, and government stakeholders.

That has not happened in this case, and for these reasons I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to oppose the bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I missed some votes on Wednesday, December 19, all votes on Thursday, December 20, and some votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Roll Call Vote Number 440 (Passage of H.R. 7327, the SECURE Technology Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 441 (Passage of H.R. 7279, the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 442 (Passage of H.R. 6227, the National Quantum Initiative Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 443 (Passage of H.R. 6652): YES;

Roll Call Vote 444 (Passage of S. 1520, the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 445 (Passage of S. 3530, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 446 (Agreeing to H. Res. 1180): NO;

Roll Call Vote Number 447 (Agreeing to H. Res. 1181): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 448 (Concurring in the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to S. 756, the First Step Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 449 (Passage of H.R. 7328, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 450 (Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5075, the Ashanti Alert Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 451 (Passage of H.R. 7093, the Clean Up the Code Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 452 (Passage of S. 2896, the Justice Against Corruption on K Street Act of 2018 or JACK Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 453 (Passage of S. 2961, the Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 454 (Passage of S. 2679, the Veterans Small Business Enhancement Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 455 (Passage of H.R. 7227, the Taxpayer First Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 456 (Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4227, the Vehicular Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 457 (Passage of S. 2652, the Stephen Michael Gleason Congressional Gold Medal Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 458 (Passage of S. 2765, the RBIC Advisers Relief Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 459 (Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5509, the Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and Apprenticeships Act):

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2322) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to define the term natural cheese.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before us today is a bill to define the term ``natural cheese.'' The House sponsor is our Speaker from Wisconsin, obviously, from the cheese State and the dairy State. What we are debating is S. 2322, the CURD Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 2322, the CURD Act, which would define the term ``natural cheese'' within the Federal statute and, with passage, head to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2322.

I ask unanimous consent that the Johnson amendment at the desk be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.