Federal Court Strikes Down USDA’s GMO Labeling Rule in Landmark Win for Consumers — What It All Means

How Organic Insider operates: We accept no advertising, we have no paywalls and we make our newsletters free to everyone because vital information about our industry needs to get out to as many people as possible. Please consider becoming an Organic Insider+ subscriber, whether you are an individual or a company. Thank you so much.

After nearly a decade of half-measures and loopholes, the fight for real GMO transparency has been given a second chance.

The other day, a decision from a U.S. Court of Appeals invalidated major portions of the USDA’s rule implementing the 2016 federal GMO-labeling law, known as the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The ruling opens the door to a labeling system that finally works for consumers, instead of catering to the wishes of major food corporations.

The court held that the USDA acted unlawfully when it exempted ultra-processed or “highly refined” ingredients, such as corn and soy oils. The court also concluded that it was unlawful for the USDA to allow QR-code-only labels that required shoppers to scan packages just to see if GMOs were inside.

For consumers, it’s an enormous win.

“We’ve fought for decades for GMO labeling, as required by more than 60 other countries, and this is a landmark victory for the public’s right to know what they eat,” said George Kimbrell, legal director of the Center for Food Safety and lead counsel in the case.

Retailers on the front lines of consumer trust echoed that sentiment.

“This is a crucial step toward full honesty and transparency in food labeling,” said Mark Squire, co-owner and manager of Good Earth Natural Foods, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

KEY ASPECTS AND CONSIDERATION

The court’s ruling provided clarity on some fronts, while uncertainty remains on others.

A Win for Transparency: The decision holds unlawful the current “highly refined” loophole, which had allowed most GMO-derived oils, sugars and starches to go unlabeled to this point because they were not deemed to be “detectable” modified genetic material. This is a major setback for Big Food, as these GMO ingredients are estimated to appear in roughly 70% of all conventional food products.

End of QR-Code Labels Alone: The court vacated, or struck down, the USDA’s digital-only disclosure option. This was based on evidence from the USDA’s own study that it was discriminatory to many consumers, especially those in rural or low-income areas, who lack reliable smartphone access. Instead, an additional on-package label will now be required, something Big Food had long fought to avoid.

Name is Legal: Despite the fact that most consumers still have no idea what “bioengineered” means, its use was upheld by the court. However, the court clarified that both retailers and brands are nonetheless permitted to use the clearer, more familiar language such as “GMO,” “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered” alongside it — a small but significant win, as this was entirely unclear at the beginning of the case.

Rule Rewrite Ahead: Absent Supreme Court review, the USDA must now redo the rule to comply with the decision, but the timing of this is uncertain. It is also unclear how long Big Food will be allowed to continue selling its products under the now-invalidated rule, which will be decided by the lower court in the coming months.

A Chance to Include Next-Generation GMOs: The 2020 rule did not address GMO 2.0 technologies, such as gene editing and precision fermentation. This new court victory gives consumer advocates a second chance to ensure these next-generation technologies are included in the updated rule.

NEXT STEP: COLLABORATION AND COOPERATION

For those who participated in the GMO-labeling movement from 2012 to 2016, the level of cooperation and unity among organic advocates was unprecedented — and many believe that same spirit will be needed again.

“There is huge overlap with MAHA and those fighting against ultra-processed foods — which are the same highly refined bioengineered foods, just stated differently — and we need to lean into that and work together,” said Center for Food Safety’s George Kimbrell. “This is a hard-won opportunity where the baseline has been reset, and for the first time in years, the law is finally on the side of the people who read labels, not those who write them.”

With gratitude, Max Goldberg, Founder