Lawmakers, industry and advocates debate QR‑code labeling for infant formula as amendment seeks to remove formula exemption

The House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry Committee heard testimony April 17 on a proposed amendment that would remove an existing exemption for infant formula and require manufacturers to make heavy‑metal testing information available to consumers through a QR code once specified trigger conditions in other states are met.

Craig Fellner, director of government affairs for the Infant Nutrition Council of America, told the panel that infant formula is distinct from baby food because it is an FDA‑regulated product with mandated nutrients and extensive testing. "My name is Craig Fellner, and I am the director of government affairs for the Infant Nutrition Council of America," he said, explaining that manufacturers test ingredients on arrival, during production and the finished product — including multi‑week finished‑product testing to check for heavy metals and bacteria.

Advocates countered that transparency has driven improvements in baby food and could do the same for formula. Tom Neltner, national director of Unleaded Kids, said the FDA uses the phrase "toxic element" for arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead and that public disclosure encourages companies to improve: "We see that on baby food... companies do better when there's this transparency," he said.

Lawmakers pressed both sides on the timing and mechanics of disclosure. Representative Lipsky asked why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had not set definitive limits; Fellner said industry had shared data with FDA and expects a federal study and standards soon, citing a federal effort he described as "stork speed" to set heavy‑metal limits. Several members, including Representative Bartholomew and Representative Bridal, pushed for consumer access to test results and noted that QR landing pages used by baby‑food makers (the committee cited Gerber as an example) can offer context for consumers.

Industry witnesses warned the committee that uncontextualized raw batch data could alarm parents and that Vermont should avoid acting alone because of market consequences. Bill Driscoll of the Associated Industries of Vermont recommended keeping the bill as passed and revisiting infant formula after FDA guidance is released. He urged careful design of any trigger that would automatically apply Vermont requirements: "If you're going to have a trigger... it should reflect a situation where the market is transforming, and it's going to be a viable proposal," Driscoll said, recommending inclusion of population‑weighted benchmarks or California among the triggering states so the change affects a substantial market.

Committee discussion focused on three practical questions for any trigger: what constitutes a sufficient number or mix of other states, how consistent the other states' requirements must be, and whether a trigger should automatically implement a prewritten statute or instead require a reporting step and a legislative decision. Members also asked about emergency or variance provisions to protect supply in a shortage; Driscoll recommended any emergency authority be forward looking rather than reactive.

The committee did not take a vote on an amendment during this session. Chair said members would reconvene to review the amendment text when available and could take a straw poll once the language is produced. The panel expected to meet again the next morning to continue work.

Details from the hearing

- Industry position: Fellner and other witnesses emphasized regulatory differences between infant formula and baby food, saying formula is subject to specialized FDA oversight and international testing standards. Fellner said manufacturers test to international (EU) limits and that advanced labs are needed for granular testing.

- Advocate position: Neltner and other public‑health advocates said transparency (including certificates of analysis or consumer‑facing explanations) incentivizes companies to lower the worst results and gives parents a choice among products.

- Trigger design questions: Witnesses and lawmakers debated whether a two‑state trigger is sufficient, whether California should be specified because of its research capacity and market size, or whether triggers should be population‑weighted to ensure market transformation rather than isolated state action.

- Local economic concerns: Lawmakers raised potential impacts on Vermont manufacturing, citing Perrigo's Vermont plant; Fellner confirmed Perrigo is a member of his association and that the plant remains operational though it has previously signaled changes to capacity.

The committee will review the actual amendment language when it is available; no final policy change was adopted during the session.