At a U.S. House committee hearing this week, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator told lawmakers the recently published report on glyphosate is no indication of what the EPA’s final decision will be. In early May, the EPA published, and then pulled a report from the agency’s website that concluded glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. That report, labeled “final,” from the EPA’s independent Cancer Assessment Review Committee, was only a “step in the process,” according to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. She says the warrants a larger agency review. DTN reports the final decision by the EPA on glyphosate is expected sometime this fall. Representative Frank Lucas of Oklahoma says there is concern among the farm community the agency’s action may indicate a disagreement with the conclusion EPA had mistakenly released last month. McCarthy responded by saying “this is not an indication we don’t agree with the assessment,” adding “the problem was it was not a final agency decision.”

The Vermont GMO labeling law is poised to be the de facto national standard, at least, for now. The Senate Agriculture Committee unveiled its GMO labeling bill Thursday, but with the House in recess, the Vermont law will stand, for at least a few days. That is if the Senate can garner the votes needed to pass the compromise and the bill can be passed by the House once the chamber returns on July 5th. The House squashed all hope of defeating the Vermont law before it comes into effect on July first after Democrats caused chaos in the chamber with a ‘sit in’ demanding action on gun control measures. Republican leaders of the House responded by adjourning for recess, skipping the final two working days on the calendar for the House this month. The Vermont law does have a six-month grace period on penalties until January. However, many major food companies pledged to comply nationally with the Vermont mandatory GMO labeling law and have already begun shipping properly labeled products.

Senate Agriculture Committee Members, Chairman Pat Roberts and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow released a GMO labeling law Thursday that would preempt state laws, such as the one taking effect July first in Vermont. The bill would require mandatory labeling of most foods with genetically modified ingredients but with labeling options. The bill offers companies a choice of providing an on-package label or a symbol or scannable electronic label, according to the Hagstrom Report. The law would preempt state labeling laws but gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture two years to develop the labeling standards. Stabenow said the bill ensures that organic producers can clearly display a “non-GMO” label, but is “also a win for our nation’s farmers and food producers.” Roberts says the legislation recognizes the 30-plus years of proven safety of biotechnology and urged Senators to support the bill. He called the legislation “a far better alternative than Vermont’s law.” Grocery Manufacturers Association CEO Pamela Bailey said the compromise is “the commonsense solution for consumers, farmers and businesses,” and urged the Senate to quickly pass the bill.

A federal official is facing contempt charges in the House of Representatives over failure to turn over documents and information pertaining to the Waters of the U.S. Rule, or WOTUS. DTN says the House Oversight Committee recommended that Howard Shelanski, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, be found in contempt of Congress for not cooperating with the investigation into the Waters of the US rulemaking process. Contempt of Congress carries a maximum fine of $100,000 and a year in Federal prison, but the threat is often used to compel officials to comply with investigations. The Oversight Committee wants to know what role the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs played in developing the rule. The Committee notes that “of the over 7,600 pages of documents that have been produced, just over 5,100 are duplicates.”

The House of Representatives recently passed the Defense Department Appropriations Act with an amendment that said meat will remain an option for members of the military. The amendment was offered by Nebraska Republican Adrian Smith, and it prohibits the Defense Department from excluding meat in its food service program manual. The U.S. Coast Guard had cut meat consumption among its cadets by ten percent over three years, and that prompted concerns of potential meat cuts among other service branches. Smith said, “Meat contains vitamins and nutrients not available in a plant-based diet. The amendment is not a mandate or prohibition; it simply says there will be a meat option for our service members each day.” Both the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and National Pork Producers’ Council applauded Smith’s efforts to make sure anti-meat activists can’t decide what our military can and cannot eat.

Agriculture should be one of the largest industries to benefit from the new drone rules issued Tuesday from the Federal Aviation Administration. The American Farm Bureau says it will continue working with the FAA to tweak certain restrictions in the rules. The Farm Bureau suggested several changes to FAA rules, including not requiring drones be operated in the user’s line of sight or not operated directly over people, but those suggestions weren’t adopted. Politico’s Morning Agriculture Report says the obvious challenge is farmers have a lot of lands to cover and some of it isn’t contiguous. The group’s Director of Congressional Relations, R.J. Karney, gave the FAA credit for building in flexibility by allowing waivers to those restrictions. He hopes this will help build a case for more fine-tuning of the rules to help the technology take off for farmers and ranchers. Agriculture could make up almost 80 percent of expected commercial drone use. Drones could map terrain or monitor fields for pest and disease pressure, just to name a few of the expected uses.