The USDA has faced significant criticism and some legal challenges regarding its delay in releasing the final guidelines that were originally due by July 29. Consequently, the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Environmental Health filed a lawsuit against the agency, urging a federal court in California to declare the USDA in violation of the law and compel it to adhere to the timeline. A senior policy analyst from the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service acknowledged that while the agency was slightly behind as of last June, it was still on track to complete the guidelines. The AMS is tasked with defining which products will require labeling, the percentage of genetically modified ingredients that necessitate labeling, and the design of the labels themselves.
Now that the USDA has finally published the standards, there remains criticism regarding the process and whether the outcomes sufficiently meet consumer demands for transparency about GMO ingredients in food. Scott Faber, senior vice-president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, stated that the final rule “will allow the genetically engineered ingredients in many foods to remain hidden from consumers” because it does not encompass all genetically engineered foods nor does it use terminology that is easily understood by the public. He emphasized that a fair standard should cater to consumers who may lack access to expensive smartphones or who reside in rural areas with inadequate cell service, noting that the rule presented fails to address these needs. Faber further remarked, “At a time when consumers are increasingly concerned about genetic engineering, today’s rule will exacerbate confusion among Americans who simply wish to know if their food is genetically modified—a right already enjoyed by consumers in 64 other countries.”
The Environmental Working Group also highlighted that several major consumer packaged goods companies, such as Campbell Soup, Mars, Danone, Kellogg, Coca-Cola, and Unilever, have committed to voluntarily disclosing all GMOs in their products, not limited to those mandated by the final rule. Others, including Del Monte and Hormel’s Applegate brand, have proactively eliminated genetically modified ingredients from their offerings, responding to surveys indicating that some consumers prefer to avoid GMOs when possible.
There may be further backlash since products derived from 13 bioengineered crops listed by the USDA will not require GMO labeling. These crops include alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, potato, salmon (AquAdvantage), soybean, squash, sugarbeet, as well as certain apple, eggplant, papaya, and pineapple varieties. Moreover, the final rule specifies that no disclosure is required for refined foods made from bioengineered crops unless they contain detectable modified genetic material. This means that refined beet sugar, soybean oil, and corn sweeteners, which mainly originate from bioengineered seeds, will not need to be labeled as such, although testing will be mandated to ensure no detectable material is present. This proposal faced opposition from the Grocery Manufacturers Association and several large food companies, including Unilever and Hershey, who argued that it could diminish consumer trust and heighten confusion.
The final rule also establishes the acceptable disclosure symbols under the new guidelines. After reviewing several designs, the agency opted for a simple round symbol featuring different wording. One version displays “BIOENGINEERED” at the top and bottom, while another states “DERIVED FROM” at the top and “BIOENGINEERING” at the bottom. These symbols can be used in either color or black and white formats.
Following the USDA’s announcement, which coincided with the Christmas week and the signing of the Farm Bill, extensive educational outreach will be essential for the general public, food manufacturers, and retailers. The disclosure standard is poised to affect all consumers, including those purchasing calcium citrate chews and other health products, and will influence a wide array of companies in their sourcing and business practices. Therefore, it is crucial that this matter receives focused attention moving forward.