On January 1, 2022, a new era of food labeling began in the United States with the full implementation of the federal Bioengineered (BE) Food labeling law. This law mandates that certain food products containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) must declare the presence of bioengineered ingredients on their labels. While seemingly a step towards greater food transparency, the BE labeling law has sparked debate and raised questions about its effectiveness in meeting consumer expectations and providing genuine clarity about food production.
This article delves into the intricacies of bioengineered food, exploring what it truly means, how it’s labeled, and why understanding the nuances of this terminology is crucial for making informed food choices. We will unravel the origins of the BE label, dissect the legal definitions, and shed light on the ongoing discussion surrounding GMOs and food transparency in the modern food system.
Decoding Bioengineered Food: The Government Definition
The term “bioengineered food,” often shortened to “BE food,” is the United States government’s designated term for what are commonly known as Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs. According to the Bioengineered Food labeling law, specific BE foods are required to disclose the presence of bioengineered ingredients, but only when these foods contain detectable modified genetic material. This seemingly simple definition carries significant weight and is central to understanding the scope and limitations of the BE labeling law.
The crucial phrase here is “detectable modified genetic material.” This clause immediately excludes a range of products derived from GMOs from mandatory labeling. A significant category of exclusions includes foods developed using cutting-edge genomic techniques like CRISPR, TALEN, and RNAi. Currently, there are no commercially available tests to reliably detect the genetic modifications introduced by these newer methods in the final food product. Consequently, foods produced using these advanced techniques are not subject to the BE labeling requirements because the modified genetic material is considered undetectable.
Furthermore, the “detectable modified genetic material” clause also exempts many processed foods that utilize highly refined ingredients originating from GMO crops. During intensive processing, the modified genetic material is often removed or degraded to the point where it becomes undetectable in the final processed ingredient. Common examples of such ingredients include sugar derived from GMO sugar beets and cooking oil extracted from GMO canola. Despite being derived from GMO sources, these refined ingredients, and the products containing them, are not required to bear a BE label because they lack detectable modified genetic material in their final form.
The BE Labeling Law: What You Need to Know
The implementation of the BE label is rooted in the widespread public demand for transparency regarding genetically engineered ingredients in food. For many years, consumer advocacy groups and activists across the United States have campaigned for mandatory GMO labeling at the state level. This grassroots movement resulted in a patchwork of varying state-level mandates, creating inconsistencies for food producers and confusion for consumers across state lines.
In 2016, the federal government introduced the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS), aiming to establish a uniform, nationwide labeling system and replace the complex landscape of state-level regulations. While intended to address consumer demand for information, the federal BE labeling law, in its final form, has been criticized for having less stringent requirements compared to many of the original state-level initiatives.
The NBFDS does mandate disclosure for certain products made with GMOs, but its scope is limited by the “detectable modified genetic material” clause and various exemptions. This narrower scope means that the BE labeling law, while a federal standard, is considered by many to be insufficient in fully fulfilling a consumer’s right to know what is in their food and whether genetic engineering played a role in its production.
Loopholes and Exemptions: Why Not All GMO Foods Are Labeled BE
The USDA’s List of Bioengineered Foods is a central component of the BE labeling law. This list specifies the crops and foods that, in their basic, raw form, are considered bioengineered and thus necessitate disclosure. Currently, the list includes a range of commonly grown GMO crops:
- Alfalfa
- Arctic™ Apple
- Canola
- Corn
- Cotton
- Bt Eggplant
- Ringspot virus-resistant Papaya
- Pink Pineapple
- Potato
- AquAdvantage® Salmon
- Soybean
- Summer squash
- Sugarbeet
- Sugarcane
However, despite this list, numerous products derived from these bioengineered ingredients are not subject to mandatory BE labeling due to specific exemptions and the way the law is structured. These exemptions significantly narrow the practical application of the BE label and contribute to consumer confusion.
For instance, animal feed, pet food, and personal care products are explicitly exempt from the BE labeling law, even if they contain ingredients derived from bioengineered crops on the USDA list. Furthermore, certain food products intended for direct human consumption also fall under exemptions. Notably, meat, poultry, and eggs are exempt from BE labeling. This exemption extends to multi-ingredient products where meat, poultry, or eggs are listed as the first ingredient, even if other ingredients within the product are derived from bioengineered sources and contain detectable modified genetic material.
The USDA provides a clarifying example using canned pork stew to illustrate the complexities of these exemptions. A can of pork stew might contain bioengineered ingredients such as sweet corn. However, whether or not this stew requires a BE label depends critically on the order in which ingredients are listed on the ingredient panel.
If pork is the primary ingredient, listed first, the stew is exempt from BE labeling. Even if the stew contains GMO corn with detectable modified genetic material, the presence of pork as the predominant ingredient overrides the need for disclosure. Similarly, if the ingredient list begins with water, broth, or stock, followed by pork as the second ingredient, the stew remains exempt, even if GMO corn is the third ingredient. This is because ingredients like water, stock, and broth are disregarded when determining the primary ingredient for exemption purposes. However, if the stew contains more corn than pork, and corn is therefore listed first on the ingredient panel, then BE disclosure becomes mandatory.
This pork stew example underscores a critical point: the BE labeling law’s requirement for disclosure in multi-ingredient products is not solely based on the presence of bioengineered ingredients but is contingent on the order of ingredients listed on the product label. This intricate rule, based on ingredient predominance rather than simply the presence of GMO-derived components, arguably undermines the original intent behind GMO labeling initiatives – to provide consumers with clear and straightforward information about whether or not a product contains GMOs.
Understanding the Bioengineered Food Label
When BE disclosure is required, the Bioengineered (BE) Food label can take several permitted forms on product packaging, offering flexibility to manufacturers but potentially contributing to inconsistency and consumer confusion.
The permitted disclosure options include:
- BE Symbol: The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service has developed official symbols specifically for the BE labeling law. These symbols are designed to visually communicate the presence of bioengineered ingredients.
- Text Disclosure: Product packaging can simply display a text statement such as “Bioengineered food” or “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient.” This option utilizes the term “bioengineered,” which may be unfamiliar to many consumers and lacks further explanation on the meaning of “bioengineered” or where to find additional information.
- Text Message or Contact Phone Number: Brands have the option to include a phrase like, “Text [number] for bioengineered food information” or “Call [phone number] for more food information,” which directs consumers to obtain information via text message or a pre-recorded phone message.
- URL: Smaller food manufacturers are permitted to provide a website URL on the packaging that consumers can visit for bioengineered food information related to the product.
While these diverse options offer flexibility to food brands in meeting the disclosure requirement, the lack of a standardized, uniform label can be a disservice to consumers. Consistency in both language and label format is crucial for the effectiveness of any consumer information campaign. A label intended to be informative and equitable must be easily understood and intuitively interpreted by the average shopper. Furthermore, it is vital to remember that the absence of a BE food label does not automatically mean the absence of GMOs in a product, given the numerous exemptions and limitations of the BE labeling law.
Bioengineered vs. GMO: Are They the Same?
The bioengineered food label has effectively replaced previous GMO labels that were mandated by certain state authorities. However, the application of the term “bioengineered” under the federal labeling law is such that it excludes a significant number of products made with GMOs from mandatory disclosure. Crucially, bioengineered foods only necessitate labeling if the final product contains detectable modified genetic material.
GMOs are estimated to be present in well over 70% of conventionally produced (non-organic) processed foods in the United States. Organizations like the Non-GMO Project have played a significant role in raising public awareness about GMOs in the food supply through advocacy and education. A 2023 survey* indicated that 63% of consumers were familiar with the term “GMO,” whereas only 36% reported familiarity with “bioengineering.” This significant gap in understanding highlights a large portion of the population who may not grasp the meaning of a Bioengineered (BE) Food disclosure.
The choice to use the term “bioengineered” instead of the more commonly understood “GMO” has been viewed by some as hindering transparency in the food system. Clarity and accessibility of language are essential tools for effective communication with the public, particularly when it comes to complex topics like food production methods.
Furthermore, the Bioengineered Food labeling law stipulates that the genetic modification in a GMO must be one that cannot be found in nature or achieved through traditional crossbreeding to necessitate labeling. However, the biotechnology industry is actively developing new GMOs using advanced genomic techniques. Proponents argue that these techniques can achieve results comparable to traditional crossbreeding, but with greater speed and precision. They further contend that these “nature-identical” modifications should not be subject to mandatory BE labeling.
Critics argue that these claims are overly simplistic and potentially misleading. Gene functions and evolutionary processes are incredibly intricate and interconnected, based on complex interactions that are not yet fully understood. The assertion that a genetic modification engineered in a laboratory can perfectly replicate a natural evolutionary process or the outcome of traditional breeding (minus the time) is seen by many as presumptuous. There are broader, less visible aspects of genetic and biological systems that current science may not fully comprehend.
“Whether a GMO is created by combining genes from multiple species or by rearranging or silencing genes within a species, the fundamental premise remains the same — the flawed idea that genes can be reduced to isolated functions, without regard for the complex interplay of the entire genome.” — Megan Westgate, Executive Director, Non-GMO Project.
This perspective emphasizes that biological systems are holistic and interconnected, and reducing genetic modifications to isolated functions overlooks the broader, systemic implications. The argument that genetic engineering can create “nature-identical” non-GMO products is seen by some as a tactic to promote the continued development and use of new GMOs in the food supply while simultaneously circumventing BE disclosure requirements. Ultimately, the current BE labeling law, with its limitations and exemptions, leaves many consumers with incomplete information about how their food is produced.
Making Informed Choices Beyond the BE Label
For consumers concerned about GMOs, the primary goal is often to avoid them, rather than simply identify products that contain them. Due to its limited scope, various restrictions, and numerous exemptions, the Bioengineered Food labeling law is arguably insufficient as a tool for effectively identifying and avoiding GMOs in the marketplace. Too many categories of GMO-derived products fall outside the purview of the law for it to be considered a comprehensive solution for GMO transparency.
For those seeking to actively avoid GMOs, the Non-GMO Project Verified Butterfly label remains a more rigorous, transparent, and trustworthy standard. This independent verification program goes beyond the limited scope of the BE labeling law and offers a higher level of assurance for consumers seeking non-GMO choices. Furthermore, the Non-GMO Project Product Verification Program (PVP) actively contributes to preserving and expanding the non-GMO food supply chain.
Ultimately, while the Bioengineered Food labeling law represents a step towards federal GMO disclosure, its limitations and complexities mean that it may not fully satisfy consumer demand for transparency and informed food choices. For many, a more comprehensive and readily understandable labeling system is still needed to effectively support everyone’s right to know what goes into their food and how it is produced.
* Source: Linkage Research & Consulting, 2023.
