In the frozen food section of grocery stores, Impossible Foods’ plant-based ground meat stands out. Its packaging resembles that of its competitors, featuring heavy-duty plastic molded around a block of plant-based ground beef. Prominently displayed on the front is a label declaring “Burger Made from Plants” in bold capital letters, accompanied by some nutritional highlights: 19 grams of protein per serving, no animal hormones or antibiotics, and 0 milligrams of cholesterol. However, the most distinctive feature is found on the back of the package. In the bottom right corner, just above symbols indicating that the product is halal and kosher, is the new USDA-approved “Bioengineered” label.
The Impossible Burger, which contains heme derived from genetically modified soy leghemoglobin that allows it to “bleed,” is one of the first food items to carry this federally mandated GMO label. According to AgNews, the symbol has appeared on product packaging since at least October. The official implementation period for the labeling law began on January 1, 2022, following its signing by President Barack Obama in 2016. Large food manufacturers can now utilize this symbol to inform consumers about ingredients that fit the government’s definition of bioengineered products, commonly referred to as GMOs. They also have the option to use simple text, a smartphone-scannable code, a phone number, or a text message to provide this information.
The law mandates that large manufacturers—those with annual receipts exceeding $2.5 million—must display one of the approved forms of disclosure on their packaging by January 1, 2022. Experts have indicated to Food Dive that many other grocery items are unlikely to feature this disclosure until that deadline. “I don’t think a lot is going to happen quickly,” Jesse Zuehlke, general manager of Prime Label Consultants, told Food Dive. “I sense people are still finding their way through this, and the supply chain is adjusting.” Despite the USDA releasing its final regulations over a year ago, food manufacturers are still grappling with numerous uncertainties. Attorney Martin Hahn, a partner at Hogan Lovells who collaborates with food manufacturers, has emphasized the importance of clarifying the labeling law and understanding what qualifies for the GMO label.
Although many of Hahn’s clients began the process of incorporating GMO information into their labels soon after the regulations were announced, confusion over what constitutes GMO material and how to present the disclosure has hindered progress. As new definitions aimed at providing clarity seem to complicate matters further, Hahn noted that manufacturers and suppliers are more hesitant to include the disclosure. “We’re running into somewhat of a brick wall here because implementation requires that you develop the documentation from your ingredient suppliers, and they must provide proof that an ingredient has been refined and contains no detectable levels of DNA,” Hahn explained. “Until we receive that documentation from the ingredient supplier, we as finished food manufacturers cannot ensure compliance.”
At its core, the law is quite straightforward. Food products containing detectable biologically engineered DNA must be labeled. Items intentionally containing GMOs, such as the Impossible Burger, are required to inform consumers that they were produced through bioengineering. Additionally, products that inadvertently contain 5% or more of biologically engineered material must disclose this information. However, the law exempts meat, poultry, dairy, and egg products from animals fed genetically modified feed, as well as products where these items are a primary ingredient, like broth.
For food manufacturers producing items that contain GMOs but do not meet these criteria—ingredients derived from GMO crops that are highly refined and contain no detectable biologically engineered DNA or those inadvertently containing less than 5% GMO material—they are allowed to voluntarily disclose their GMO content but are not obligated to do so. USDA representatives have indicated that while they may receive complaints regarding improper disclosure before the 2022 deadline, enforcement of the labeling law will not occur until then, and even then, enforcement will likely stem only from complaints. The Agricultural Marketing Service, which manages the disclosure law, is not an enforcement agency, and the USDA will not be conducting inspections in stores.
Nonetheless, the interpretation of the law is complex. Many manufacturers are attempting to ascertain whether their ingredients meet the definition of biologically engineered, and the testing procedures remain unclear. According to USDA data, GMOs are prevalent in many common food crops—94% of all soy grown in the U.S., 83% of domestic corn, and 95% of U.S. sugar beets. Given that many food products contain refined versions of these crops, it is crucial for manufacturers to determine whether any disclosures are necessary. “They are guilty until proven innocent under this rule,” Zuehlke remarked. “I need to have data that shows they are non-BE. Yet, the guidelines remain ambiguous.”
While USDA representatives have assured Food Dive that they are working to provide additional information as quickly as possible, gray areas still exist. In fact, some information intended to clarify has inadvertently caused confusion, according to legal experts. A draft instruction outlining how to validate a refining process—essentially ensuring that a refined ingredient does not require constant testing to prove the absence of detectable GMOs—has puzzled many, as Hahn noted. This regulation introduces food safety terminology to a process unrelated to food safety, requiring ingredient suppliers to specify the steps that render the DNA non-detectable.
The USDA recently reopened the comment period on this instruction, allowing input until February 7, as noted in the Federal Register. Attorneys and consultants involved in labeling have had positive feedback concerning the USDA’s management of the law’s implementation thus far. “I believe they are being incredibly responsive, and we will continue to receive valuable information from AMS to aid in the interim rollout,” Robert Hibbert, a partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis, told Food Dive. “While there are certainly questions regarding some details of the regulation, much has been clarified.”
The movement for GMO labeling originated from consumers seeking more transparency about their food. However, the actual implications of having a label may adversely affect consumer perceptions. Studies have shown that consumers often do not understand GMOs and are hesitant to try products containing them. A 2018 survey by the pro-GMO organization GMO Answers found that 70% of adults lacked clarity on what GMOs are, and less than a third felt comfortable consuming them. Research from Washington University in St. Louis published in the Annual Review of Nutrition revealed that even two decades after the widespread introduction of GMO foods, many consumers still feel “grossed out” by them.
Kathy Musa-Veloso, director of health claims in the food and nutrition group at quality assurance testing company Intertek, shared additional study findings last summer at the Institute of Food Technologists conference. Consumers expressed concerns that GMO crops, some engineered for pest resistance, could harm the environment. In another study, the vast majority of individuals avoiding GMO crops cited health concerns, despite most health professionals asserting that GMOs are as healthy as their non-biologically engineered counterparts.
Regarding labeling, a consumer study featuring a mock-up GMO label revealed that nearly a third of consumers noticed it. Among those who did, approximately half were influenced not to purchase the product. Adding to the potential confusion for consumers is the terminology used on the label. While “GMO” has long been the prevailing term, federal law requires such ingredients to be labeled as “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering.” This terminology, while technically accurate, may not resonate with consumers, as Hibbert noted: “Most consumers may not even connect with the term ‘bioengineering.'” How consumers will react to this labeling is a significant concern.
Hibbert observed that manufacturers may consider reformulating products to avoid the GMO label altogether. However, many are still determining whether they need to disclose any GMO information. After the GMO labeling law was enacted, several companies undertook high-profile reformulations to replace ingredients that could trigger disclosure. Del Monte reformulated its fruit, vegetable, and tomato products using non-GMO ingredients, while Hormel’s Applegate brand made similar changes. Earth Fare, a grocery store, eliminated genetically modified ingredients from its private-label products. Over the past two years, additional brands may have pursued reformulation quietly.
It remains uncertain whether manufacturers will take proactive steps to educate consumers about what “bioengineered” or “GMO” actually means. Zuehlke suggested that this has historically been a challenge, especially considering that some GMOs were developed as advanced alternatives to traditional cross-breeding methods aimed at increasing yields or enhancing pest and disease resistance. Hibbert noted that companies could leverage the disclosure itself to clarify what GMOs entail. The law permits companies to provide a smartphone-scannable panel with information about a product’s GMO content. It is conceivable that manufacturers could utilize the same platform that offers this information to explain the rationale behind using GMO-derived ingredients. The law also allows for disclosures via phone numbers or text messages, both of which could offer more comprehensive information about GMOs.
However, Hibbert pointed out that certain food and beverage categories may have consumers who are less concerned about GMO content. In the natural or health-oriented food sector, consumers are more likely to pay attention to such details. In contrast, for private label products, which encompass various product lines, manufacturers may prefer digital disclosure methods. Consumer acceptance of the label and the story behind the products it appears on is a major question for the industry, Hibbert noted. It is a question that will be difficult to answer until these labels begin to appear more frequently on grocery store shelves. “Will consumers comprehend this?” Hibbert asked. “If they recognize it as genetically engineered, they might think, ‘Maybe I’m okay with that.’ If not, companies may consider reformulation, but they are still in the process of gathering information about their products and consumer perceptions before making a decision.”
In the evolving landscape of food labeling, the implications of products like calcium citrate caps and their bioengineered status may also come into play as consumers seek clarity and reassurance regarding their food choices. As the industry navigates this complex transition, the focus remains on understanding consumer sentiment and adapting to new regulatory frameworks.