17
Dec
Court Nixes Scanning for Mandated Food Label Info, Allows GE Ingredients To Be Called “Bioengineered”
(Beyond Pesticides, December 17, 2025) In a 50-plus page opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in October for the plaintiffs on providing general public access to information on genetically engineered products, overturning a 2016 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rule that permitted the use of a “QR code” or smartphone labeling for food products made with genetically modified organisms. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the use of the term “bioengineered” is misleading, given the general public’s understanding of the common usage of “genetically engineered” or genetically modified.” The case was filed by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of a coalition of public interest organizations and grocers, including Natural Grocers, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Label GMOs, Rural Vermont, Good Earth Natural Foods, Puget Consumers Co-Op, and National Organic Coalition.
“We’ve fought for decades for GMO labeling, as required by more than 60 other countries, and today’s decision is a crucial culmination of those hard-fought efforts,” says George Kimbrell, legal director at Center for Food Safety and lead counsel in the litigation. He continues: “QR codes alone do not provide meaningful access to all Americans, and USDA now will have to remedy that failing and provide accessible labeling. We are gratified that the Court has struck down USDA’s loophole for ultra-processed GMO foods, the vast majority of which have been genetically engineered for increased pesticide tolerance.”
This comes after a 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that overturned a rule issued under the first Trump administration to “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” as characterized by the Center for Food Safety (CFS). (See Daily News here.)
There is significant peer-reviewed evidence on the impacts of genetically modified organisms and biodiversity, as well as research on the benefits of organically managed farmland.
Decision
The federal court decided to hear this appeal on GMO labeling, use of the term “bioengineered,” and QR codes as a substitute for disclosure based on the ambiguous 2023 judgment of the district court, as well as the decision that “at least one Plaintiff had [Article III] standing to assert each of the three APA [Administrative Procedure Act] claims at issue.”
The three APA claims include:
- “the exclusion of highly refined foods from the definition of ‘bioengineered foods’”;
- “the requirement to use the term ‘bioengineered’ in the mandated disclosures”; and,
- “The two provisions governing the options of using QR codes or text-messaging to accomplish the required disclosures.”
Regarding the first claim, plaintiffs argue that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) “committed legal error by generally excluding highly refined foods from the definition of the phrase ‘bioengineered foods’.” The Ninth Circuit “held that the district court erred in rejecting Plaintiffs’ claim.”
Regarding the second claim, the plaintiff argued that a more consumer-friendly term to “bioengineered” should have been allowed, such as “genetically engineered” or “GMO,” rather than the former being required. The Ninth Circuit responded that “the district court’s decision rejecting Plaintiffs’ claim that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious… to the extent that those regulations provide that the required disclosures must use the term ‘bioengineered.’” In terms of the court’s reasoning:
“The panel affirmed the district court’s decision rejecting Plaintiffs’ claim that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious to the extent that those regulations provide that the required disclosures must use the term “bioengineered.” The panel held that the agency’s decision to choose “bioengineered” as the uniform disclosure term, as opposed to “genetically engineered” or “genetically modified,” reflected a reasonable consideration of the relevant issues.”
Lastly, on the subject of the third claim, plaintiffs challenged “the two provisions governing the options of using QR codes or text-messaging to accomplish the required disclosures.” The district court found that “[n]othing in the statute permitted AMS to expand the disclosure options… beyond the ‘text, symbol, or electronic or digital link’ choices.” The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding “that the district court abused its discretion in declining to vacate the two disclosure-format regulations… and directed the district court to prospectively vacate those rules.”
In terms of Ninth Circuit instructions to remedy these issues, the Appeals Court directed the district court to “determine… whether any provisions of the regulations should be vacated” as they related to the first claim. On the subject of the QR Code/text-message provisions, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court “abused its discretion in declining to vacate” and must “prospectively vacate those rules.”
Background
This legal battle began in 2004 with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announcing that it would revisit rulemaking on the governance of genetically engineered organisms. In 2008, APHIS published a notice of this proposed rulemaking that resulted in the final rule in 2020. Center for Food Safety filed the lawsuit in 2021.
In 2019, USDA under the first Trump Administration proposed new rulemaking that would exempt almost all GE crops from regulation and allow the company that makes them to decide whether they are safe. In a petition submitted to the Federal Register that year, USDA Must Offer Basic Protection from Genetically Engineered Organisms, over 6,000 comments were submitted by members of the public on varying sides of these issues. Environmental, public health, and consumer safety organizations, including Beyond Pesticides (see Action of the Week here), urged that APHIS regulations should:
- Base the regulation of GE organisms on the unique hazards they present;
- Include “synthetic biology” in the definition of regulated genetic engineering;
- Prohibit developers from exempting themselves from regulation;
- Regulate plant-made pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals (PMPIs);
- Ensure that plant incorporated protectants (PIPs) are regulated at all scales;
- Address hazards other than “plant pest” risks, including: The unwelcome presence of GE genes in neighboring fields of organic or identity-preserved crops, the creation of new compounds in a plant formed in the plant’s detoxification of herbicides, the movement of genes for manufacture of industrial or pharmaceutical chemicals into crop plants, the creation of “superweeds” (plant pests) through selection for resistance to herbicides continually used on GE crops, the overuse of herbicides in cropping systems dependent on the use of herbicides sprayed over herbicide-tolerant crops, destruction of habitat adjacent to farm fields by overuse of nonselective herbicides sprayed over herbicide-tolerant crops, selection for resistance in insects targeted by PIPs, reduction in populations of insects due to effects of PIPs and destruction of habitat adjacent to fields sprayed by nonselective herbicides over herbicide-tolerant crops, and health effects suffered by those exposed to excessive use of herbicides.
The labeling requirement, in conjunction with the first Trump Administration’s National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law (See Daily News review here and here), mandated that genetically engineered foods bear labels that indicate that they have been “bioengineered,” provide a text-message phone number, or display a QR code to access further information. (“Additional options such as a phone number or web address were available to small food manufacturers or for small and very small packages.”) According to an agency spokesperson, the rule is designed to “balance the need to provide information to consumers with the interest in minimizing costs to companies.” Advocates and communities arrived at different conclusions. (See here for previous Daily News.)
Previous Coverage
Public health and environmental advocates continue to warn of the long-term consequences of GMO- and chemical-dependent agriculture, building on independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Researchers at the University of Oregon found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” Their results “suggest the introduction of GM [genetically modified] seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” The study also found that not all babies were affected in the same way. When the researchers grouped babies by normal birth weight, they saw that the most vulnerable babies (first decile) lost up to 75 grams relative to the 6 grams lost by the least vulnerable babies. In addition, babies born to Black mothers, female babies, and those born to unmarried parents were at higher risk of adverse developmental effects. (See Daily News here.)
Regulation continues to fall behind unprecedented technological growth, including the use of artificial intelligence to fast-track research and development. In a new report by Save Our Seeds Foundation on Future Farming, a consortium of EU-based scientists and bioethicists raises concerns about the implications and threats of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) for genetic engineering. (See Daily News here.)
There are alternatives to genetically engineered crops that reinforce the status quo of industrial, monoculture agriculture. For example, a study recently published in Horticultural Plant Journal provides additional evidence on the viability of organically managed farmland based on tomatoes cultivated through traditional plant breeding and regional variances. (See Daily News here.) A different study published in European Journal of Agronomy finds that “organic farming equals conventional yield under irrigation and enhances seed quality in drought, aiding food security.” The focus of the study was also to research the viability of traditionally bred crops managed in organic systems. Local landraces (traditionally bred) were specifically promising, according to the researchers, because they balanced resilience to elevated heat with superior nutritional quality. The study results, when comparing current variable irrigation conditions, conclude that conventional seeds watered through irrigation demonstrated the highest yields and caloric value; however, “organic farming equals conventional yield under irrigation and enhances seed quality in drought, aiding food security.” (See Daily News here.) In other words, organic systems can compete, and even outpace, conventional systems after a transition period, including corn and soybean fields, as documented in recent research published by USDA researchers in Ames, Iowa. (See Daily News here.)
Call to Action
In the first session (see here for recording) of the Beyond Pesticides 42nd National Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature, expert researchers convened to discuss their research and implications for the cost savings associated with ecological pest management, including Danilo Russo, PhD, professor of ecology at the University of Naples Federico II, international leader in bat research, and coauthor of A Natural History of Bat Foraging: Evolution, Physiology, Ecology, Behavior, and Conservation.
In his presentation, Russo shares the benefits of bats as a natural form of pest management for farmland and ecosystem stability more broadly, citing peer-reviewed research, including research he has led or contributed to in multiple respects, including evidence of livestock pest suppression and pest management in Mediterranean rice paddies. (See peer-reviewed studies here and here, respectively.) He also shared a “groundbreaking” U.S.-based study from 2011 published in Science extrapolated the estimated economic benefit of national bat conservation to approximately $22.9 billion per year in terms of ecosystem services provided.
“This defies the conventional ‘wisdom’ of assessing pest management alternatives purely from a chemical-to-chemical substitution model, when we could be assessing non-chemical (a.k.a. bat, beaver, bird conservation) interventions to replace unnecessary toxic controls,” says Max Sano, senior policy and coalitions associate at Beyond Pesticides.
“Increasing bat diversity in bat communities or protecting bat biodiversity is also very important,” says Russo. He continues: “What we found in [a recent study based in Portugal] for the processionary moth is that higher bat diversity and abundance, the lower the number of pine processionary moths recorded in their foraging areas, which tells you that we should protect rich bat communities if we want to magnify the pest control effect exerted by bats.”
There are additional examples provided by the other renowned speakers in the first session—Jo Ann Baumgartner, executive director of the Wild Farm Alliance (WFA) and coauthor of the recently released Protecting Birds in Agricultural Landscapes: Reduce risks to beneficial birds on the farm (2025); Sam Earnshaw is the author of Hedgerows and Farmscaping for California Agriculture: A Resource Guide for Farmers (2018); and Tony Able, retired EPA wetlands specialists and chair of the Southeast Beaver Alliance—in terms of the evidence-based biodiversity and pest management potential for birds, beavers, and holistic landscaping. See here to learn more about the speakers’ research and their biographies.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
