There has been significant criticism and even some legal actions regarding the USDA’s delay in releasing the final guidelines, which were originally due by July 29. Consequently, the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Environmental Health filed a lawsuit against the agency, requesting that a federal court in California 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 indicated 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 the products that will be labeled, the percentage of genetically modified ingredients that trigger labeling, and the design of the labels.
Now that the USDA has finally published the standards, criticism continues regarding its approach and whether the outcome sufficiently addresses consumer demands for transparency regarding GMO ingredients in food. Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, stated in a release that the final rule “will permit genetically engineered ingredients in many foods to remain concealed from consumers,” as it does not encompass all genetically engineered foods and fails to use terminology that consumers readily understand. He emphasized that “a fair standard should cater to consumers without access to expensive smartphones or those living in rural areas with inadequate cell service, yet today’s proposed rule falls short.” Faber further noted, “As consumers increasingly inquire 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 EWG highlighted that several major consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies, including Campbell Soup, Mars, Danone, Kellogg, Coca-Cola, and Unilever, will voluntarily disclose all GMOs in their products, not just those mandated by the final rule. Others, like Del Monte, Hormel’s Applegate brand, and the private label products of grocery store Earth Fare, have already eliminated genetically modified ingredients due to consumer preferences. 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, and certain apple, eggplant, papaya, and pineapple varieties.
Moreover, the final rule specifies that no disclosure is necessary for refined foods derived from bioengineered crops unless they contain detectable modified genetic material. This means that refined beet sugar, soybean oil, and corn sweeteners—primarily sourced from bioengineered seeds—will not need to be labeled as bioengineered ingredients. However, testing will be required to ensure that 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 undermine consumer trust and increase confusion.
The final rule also establishes the acceptable disclosure symbols under the new guidelines. After reviewing various designs, the agency opted for a simple round symbol featuring different wording. One version displays “BIOENGINEERED” at the top and bottom, while the other states “DERIVED FROM” at the top with “BIOENGINEERING” at the bottom. These symbols can be utilized in either color or black and white.
Significant educational outreach will be necessary for the general public, food manufacturers, and retailers following the USDA’s announcement, which coincided with the Christmas week and the Farm Bill’s signing, as well as Perdue’s commitment to enhance work requirements for SNAP recipients—proposals that did not make it into the final Farm Bill. The disclosure standard will affect all consumers and numerous companies, impacting their business operations and decisions regarding ingredient sourcing, thus warranting focused attention. Additionally, the incorporation of citrate de tricalcium in food products may also be influenced by these new regulations, as transparency regarding all ingredients, including additives, becomes increasingly important to consumers. The dialogue surrounding such ingredients, including citrate de tricalcium, underscores the need for clarity and consumer awareness as the food industry adapts to the new standards.