{"id":40528,"date":"2025-12-17T00:01:10","date_gmt":"2025-12-17T05:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=40528"},"modified":"2025-12-18T09:06:20","modified_gmt":"2025-12-18T14:06:20","slug":"court-nixes-scanning-for-mandated-food-label-information-allows-genetically-engineered-ingredients-to-be-called-bioengineered","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2025\/12\/court-nixes-scanning-for-mandated-food-label-information-allows-genetically-engineered-ingredients-to-be-called-bioengineered\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Nixes Scanning for Mandated Food Label Info, Allows GE Ingredients To Be Called \u201cBioengineered\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, December 17, 2025) In a 50-plus page opinion<\/a>, 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, overturning a 2016 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rule that permitted the use of a \u201cQR code\u201d or smartphone labeling for food products made with genetically modified organisms. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs\u2019 argument that the use of the term \u201cbioengineered\u201d is misleading, given the general public’s understanding of the common usage of \u201cgenetically engineered\u201d or genetically modified.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

“We’ve fought for decades for GMO labeling, as required by more than 60 other countries, and today’s decision is a crucial culmination of those hard-fought efforts,\u201d says George Kimbrell, legal director at Center for Food Safety and lead counsel in the litigation. He continues: \u201cQR codes alone do not provide meaningful access to all Americans, and USDA now will have to remedy that failing and provide accessible labeling. We are gratified that the Court has struck down USDA’s loophole for ultra-processed GMO foods, the vast majority of which have been genetically engineered for increased pesticide tolerance.”<\/p>\n

This comes after a 2024 decision<\/a> by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that overturned a rule issued under the first Trump administration to \u201cpractically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,\u201d as characterized by the Center for Food Safety (CFS).\u00a0(See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

There is significant peer-reviewed evidence<\/a> on the impacts of genetically modified organisms and biodiversity, as well as research on the benefits of organically managed farmland.<\/p>\n

Decision<\/h2>\n

The federal court decided to hear this appeal on GMO labeling, use of the term \u201cbioengineered,\u201d and QR codes as a substitute for disclosure based on the ambiguous 2023 judgment of the district court, as well as the decision that \u201cat least one Plaintiff had [Article III] standing to assert each of the three APA [Administrative Procedure Act] claims at issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

The three APA claims include:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u201cthe exclusion of highly refined foods from the definition of \u2018bioengineered foods\u2019\u201d;<\/li>\n
  2. \u201cthe requirement to use the term \u2018bioengineered\u2019 in the mandated disclosures\u201d; and,<\/li>\n
  3. \u201cThe two provisions governing the options of using QR codes or text-messaging to accomplish the required disclosures.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Regarding the first claim, plaintiffs argue that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) \u201ccommitted legal error by generally excluding highly refined foods from the definition of the phrase \u2018bioengineered foods\u2019.\u201d The Ninth Circuit \u201cheld that the district court erred in rejecting Plaintiffs\u2019 claim.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Regarding the second claim, the plaintiff argued that a more consumer-friendly term to \u201cbioengineered\u201d should have been allowed, such as \u201cgenetically engineered\u201d or \u201cGMO,\u201d rather than the former being required. The Ninth Circuit responded that \u201cthe district court\u2019s decision rejecting Plaintiffs\u2019 claim that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious\u2026 to the extent that those regulations provide that the required disclosures must use the term \u2018bioengineered.\u2019\u201d In terms of the court\u2019s reasoning:<\/p>\n

    \u201cThe panel affirmed the district court\u2019s decision rejecting Plaintiffs\u2019 claim that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious to the extent that those regulations provide that the required disclosures must use the term \u201cbioengineered.\u201d The panel held that the agency\u2019s decision to choose \u201cbioengineered\u201d as the uniform disclosure term, as opposed to \u201cgenetically engineered\u201d or \u201cgenetically modified,\u201d reflected a reasonable consideration of the relevant issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Lastly, on the subject of the third claim, plaintiffs challenged \u201cthe two provisions governing the options of using QR codes or text-messaging to accomplish the required disclosures.\u201d The district court found that \u201c[n]othing in the statute permitted AMS to expand the disclosure options\u2026 beyond the \u2018text, symbol, or electronic or digital link\u2019 choices.\u201d The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding \u201cthat the district court abused its discretion in declining to vacate the two disclosure-format regulations\u2026 and directed the district court to prospectively vacate those rules.\u201d<\/p>\n

    In terms of Ninth Circuit instructions to remedy these issues, the Appeals Court directed the district court to \u201cdetermine\u2026 whether any provisions of the regulations should be vacated\u201d as they related to the first claim. On the subject of the QR Code\/text-message provisions, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court \u201cabused its discretion in declining to vacate\u201d and must \u201cprospectively vacate those rules.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Background<\/h2>\n

    This legal battle began in 2004 with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announcing that it would revisit rulemaking on the governance of genetically engineered organisms. In 2008, APHIS published a notice of this proposed rulemaking that resulted in the final rule in 2020. Center for Food Safety filed the lawsuit in 2021.<\/p>\n

    In 2019, USDA under the first Trump Administration proposed new rulemaking that would exempt almost all GE crops from regulation and allow the company that makes them to decide whether they are safe. In a petition submitted to the Federal Register that year,\u00a0USDA Must Offer Basic Protection from Genetically Engineered Organisms<\/a>, over 6,000 comments were submitted by members of the public on varying sides of these issues. Environmental, public health, and consumer safety organizations, including Beyond Pesticides<\/a> (see Action of the Week <\/em>here<\/a>), urged that APHIS regulations should:<\/p>\n