22
Dec
USDA’s “Bioengineered” Food Label Language, Called Misleading, Upheld in Court Decision
(Beyond Pesticides, December 22, 2025) After a U.S. Court of Appeals Court decision in October that upheld the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) “bioengineered” food label language, Beyond Pesticides with people across the country renewed their call for truth in labeling—so that consumers clearly understand when products contain genetically engineered ingredients. The label requirement became law under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2016. When USDA proposed the bioengineered label, Beyond Pesticides told the agency in 2017, “Since many consumers may not know or understand the term bioengineering, there should be allowable interchangeable terms for the disclosure standard. These include the terms: genetically engineered, genetically modified organism, and GMO.” Beyond Pesticides issued an action to: “Tell USDA to require full disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients, using terms understandable to consumers.“
At the same time, the court ruled that USDA had failed to properly implement the law in allowing manufactures to provide label ingredient with a reference to the availability of electronic information. After a 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California overturning rules issued under the first Trump administration that, according to the Center for Food Safety (CFS), “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in October for the plaintiffs on providing general public access to information on genetically engineered products. The decision overturns a 2018 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) final rule permitting the use of a “QR code” or smartphone labeling for food products made with genetically modified organisms. The case was filed by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of a coalition of public interest organizations and grocers, including Natural Grocers, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Label GMOs, Rural Vermont, Good Earth Natural Foods, Puget Consumers Co-Op, and National Organic Coalition.
While the court decision takes an important step towards transparency by requiring labeling revealing “bioengineered” ingredients, the failure to require the use of terms readily understood by consumers—“genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” (or “GMO”)—falls short of full disclosure. In the disclosure law, the term “bioengineering” refers to a food that has been genetically modified in a way that could not be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature, the same as the meaning of terms genetically engineered, genetically modified organism, and GMO, that have been used consistently by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in National Organic Program regulations and communications.
In USDA regulations:
- The definition of “bioengineering” must include all forms of genetic engineering, including newer forms like CRISPR and RNA interference (RNAi). Definitions should be compatible with those recommended by the National Organic Standards Board.
- Each GE ingredient must be identified, including highly refined GE sugars and oils and processed corn and soy ingredients. Even if they are so highly processed that the GE ingredients are present only at undetectable levels in the final product, they are still GE foods.
- GE ingredients must be identified on product labels, or product shelves in the case of raw foods. All products required to label ingredients should include identification of GE ingredients on the label.
There is significant peer-reviewed evidence documenting the impacts of genetically modified organisms on health and biodiversity, as well as research on the health and environmental benefits of organically managed farmland. There are alternatives to genetically engineered crops that promote dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides in industrial monoculture agriculture. Organic systems can compete, and even outpace, conventional systems after a transition period, including corn and soybean fields, as documented in recent research published by USDA researchers in Ames, Iowa. Therefore, labeling at the consumer level should be clear enough for consumers to identify products produced with genetically engineered ingredients and weigh their costs and benefits against organic alternatives.
Letter to USDA
After a 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California overturning rules issued under the first Trump administration that, according to the Center for Food Safety (CFS), “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in October for the plaintiffs on providing general public access to information on genetically engineered products. The decision overturns a 2016 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rule permitting the use of a “QR code” or smartphone labeling for food products made with genetically modified organisms. However, missing from the court’s decision is direction to clarify the use of the misleading term “bioengineered.” Given the general public’s understanding of the common usage of “genetically engineered” or “genetically modified,” I request that USDA require the use of more generally understood terms on product labels.
While the court decision takes an important step towards transparency by requiring labeling revealing “bioengineered” ingredients, the failure to require the use of terms readily understood by consumers—“genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” (or “GMO”)—falls short of full disclosure. In the disclosure law, the term “bioengineering” refers to a food that has been genetically modified in a way that could not be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature, the same as the meaning of terms genetically engineered, genetically modified organism, and GMO, that have been used consistently by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in National Organic Program regulations and communications.
In USDA regulations:
The definition of “bioengineering” must include all forms of genetic engineering, including newer forms like CRISPR and RNA interference (RNAi). Definitions should be compatible with those recommended by the National Organic Standards Board.
Each GE ingredient must be identified, including highly refined GE sugars and oils and processed corn and soy ingredients. Even if they are so highly processed that the GE ingredients are present only at undetectable levels in the final product, they are still GE foods.
GE ingredients must be identified on product labels, or product shelves in the case of raw foods. All products required to label ingredients should include identification of GE ingredients on the label.
There is significant peer-reviewed evidence documenting the impacts of genetically modified organisms on health and biodiversity, as well as research on the health and environmental benefits of organically managed farmland. There are alternatives to genetically engineered crops that promote dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides in industrial monoculture agriculture. Organic systems can compete, and even outpace, conventional systems after a transition period, including corn and soybean fields, as documented in recent research published by USDA researchers in Ames, Iowa. Therefore, labeling at the consumer level should be clear enough for consumers to identify products produced with genetically engineered ingredients and weigh their costs and benefits against organic alternatives.
Please adopt regulations that require the use of more generally understood terms—“genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” (or “GMO”)—on product labels.
Thank you.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
