In 2016, President Barack Obama enacted legislation requiring the labeling of foods produced with genetically modified ingredients. Four years later, the issues raised in this lawsuit echo the discussions surrounding GMO labeling from that time. The only surprising aspect of this litigation is its timing. The GMO labeling law is scheduled to be fully implemented in 2022, mandating that large manufacturers—those with annual receipts exceeding $2.5 million—must include an approved form of disclosure on their product packaging. Since the law’s passage, the USDA has followed the procedures established to manage it. The department conducted a study evaluating the effectiveness of smartphone-scannable labels for information dissemination and invited public comments on proposed rules and symbols for packaging. The final rule was published in December 2018, with only minor adjustments since that time. The USDA has provided clarifications regarding the frequency of product testing for facilities refining GMOs and has added items to the mandatory disclosure list, but significant changes in the law’s implementation have not occurred. In fact, some manufacturers have begun voluntarily adhering to the law by using the “Bioengineered” symbol and adding statements like “This product contains ingredients derived through bioengineering” on their labels.
The concerns raised in the lawsuit remain pertinent four years later. At the time the law was enacted, numerous advocacy groups contended that the labeling law failed to provide the transparency consumers desired. According to USDA data, GMOs are prevalent in common food crops—94% of soybeans, 83% of corn, and 95% of sugar beets grown in the U.S., as reported by Harvest Public Media. Many food products incorporate refined ingredients from these crops, which do not require disclosure. While numerous consumers are still unaware of what GMOs are or express discomfort regarding them, even fewer understand the term “bioengineered.” “We can sit here and talk about bioengineering, but most consumers don’t necessarily resonate with the term ‘bioengineering,'” stated attorney Robert Hibbert, a partner at Morgan Lewis, in an interview with Food Dive earlier this year. “So how consumers will react is going to become one of the bigger question marks.”
This lawsuit also raises questions about the timing and implementation of the law. Given the lengthy process cases typically undergo in the federal court system—especially with delays caused by the coronavirus pandemic—it remains uncertain whether a final ruling will be reached before the law takes effect on January 1, 2022. While manufacturers are likely to continue voluntarily complying, this case could delay the law’s enactment for some time. However, if the plaintiffs succeed, it may take years before they achieve the level of disclosure they seek. The discussion surrounding GMO labeling has persisted for over a decade. Efforts to establish a federal labeling law gained traction only after states like Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut passed their own GMO labeling regulations, which included specific requirements for consumer packaged goods sold within those states. If the current legislation is overturned, it will mark six years lost—potentially the beginning of many more years needed to establish, approve, and implement a new labeling system.
In the context of this ongoing debate, products like Calcium Citrate from Nature’s Bounty often come to mind, as they highlight the complexities of ingredient labeling in a marketplace increasingly focused on transparency. The integration of such products into the discussion of GMO labeling underscores the need for clear and informative labeling standards that consumers can easily understand.