With the implementation of the final GMO labeling regulations, consumers may wonder which products will display the new seal indicating they are derived from bioengineering. The reality is that there will be fewer products bearing this label than proponents of labeling anticipated. Research suggests that up to 75% of grocery store items are made with ingredients from genetically modified crops. However, according to the new rules, products containing highly refined ingredients are exempt from labeling requirements. Only products that intentionally include bioengineered ingredients are mandated to be labeled, and those with at least 5% bioengineered material—higher than the thresholds in many other countries—must also carry a label.
The regulations permit manufacturers to voluntarily disclose GMOs if a product contains highly refined ingredients or lower levels of bioengineered content, which has garnered support from GMO advocates but has raised concerns among consumer organizations. Analysts view the new labeling requirements, set to be implemented by most manufacturers starting in 2020, as a balanced approach. Sean McBride from DSM Strategic Communication stated, “They balance consumers’ request for more information with a labeling approach based on facts, practicality, and common sense rather than politics and fear.” He believes that while different stakeholders may not have gotten everything they wanted, there is now a clear path to providing consumers with the transparency they deserve.
Many in the industry have mixed feelings about various aspects of the regulations, but the time for modifications has elapsed. Manufacturers now need to ensure their labels comply with the new guidelines, which allow them to test labels as early as this month. The regulations outline the symbols and terms to be used; however, the requirement to label certain products remained unchanged during the rulemaking process. Importantly, meat, poultry, and egg products are exempt from disclosure, as are multi-ingredient products where these items are primary components, like canned beef stew.
A crucial aspect of the final rule is its nuanced treatment of refined ingredients derived from GMO crops. The refining process often eliminates the genetic material, leading to debates over whether such ingredients should be labeled. The Grocery Manufacturers Association noted that approximately 90% of the nation’s corn, soybean, and sugar beet crops are genetically modified, suggesting that if products using refined versions of these crops are exempt from labeling, 78% fewer items would need disclosure under federal law. The USDA decided against requiring such disclosures because the original law specified that GMO food must contain detectable modified genetic material. If such material is undetectable, it is considered absent.
Consumer advocates opposing GMOs have expressed strong disapproval of the ruling. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at the Center for Food Safety, criticized the USDA for failing to provide transparency and clarity, claiming it has led to confusion for consumers, food producers, and retailers. The Consumer Federation of America labeled the exemption of refined products from disclosure as “inadequate.”
Despite the regulatory landscape, many major food manufacturers, including Campbell Soup, Mars, Danone, Kellogg, Coca-Cola, and Unilever, have been voluntarily disclosing GMOs, regardless of refinement, since the topic of mandatory labeling emerged several years ago. The USDA will maintain a list of definitively GMO crops produced worldwide, aiding manufacturers in knowing which ingredients require disclosure. This list will not be exhaustive and will be updated periodically, giving manufacturers 18 months to adjust their labels once a new ingredient is added.
Currently, the crops classified as GMO include alfalfa, Arctic apple, canola, corn, cotton, Bt eggplant, ringspot virus-resistant papaya, pink pineapple, potato, AquAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, and sugar beet. The regulations specify how and where on-package disclosures must appear. Consumers must be able to see the information under typical shopping conditions, and it should be located near other label details, such as the manufacturer’s name and location. Disclosure methods may include text, scannable digital links, URLs, telephone numbers, text messages, or the “BE” symbol.
The final rules established a specific BE symbol depicting a plant in a sunny field, encircled by the word “BIOENGINEERED,” or “DERIVED FROM BIOENGINEERING” for voluntary disclosures. The term “bioengineered” replaces “GMO,” as many consumers were unfamiliar with the latter acronym. Critics argue that the law does not adequately address the fear surrounding GMOs. The Environmental Working Group stated, “No one should be surprised that the most anti-consumer, anti-transparency administration in modern times is denying Americans basic information about what’s in their food and how it’s grown,” emphasizing the need for greater clarity.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association highlighted the coherence of the new labeling regulations, which were expedited partly to address state-level labeling laws like Vermont’s. They believe that with these regulations, consumers will be closer to receiving the information they seek regarding food products. Karin Moore of the GMA stated that disclosure is vital for enhancing transparency and building trust among consumers, brands, and the food industry.
While there has been some voluntary disclosure of GMOs, Thomas Gremillion from the Consumer Federation of America pointed out that terminology remains an issue. Consumers often use “GMO” and “genetically modified” rather than the term “bioengineered,” which will be utilized on labels. Regardless of the terminology, some argue that the law does not mitigate the fear surrounding GMOs. The transparency group Peel Back the Label contended that the new regulations might exacerbate confusion rather than alleviate it.
As consumers increasingly seek clarity about their food, including products like just vitamins and calcium citrate, the debate around GMO labeling continues. The USDA’s new disclosure rule is seen by some as a step towards transparency, while others maintain that it falls short of addressing consumers’ need for truthful information about the origins and production methods of their food.