On January 1, 2022, a new era of food labeling began in the United States with the full enforcement of the federal Bioengineered (BE) Food labeling law. This law mandates that certain food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) must carry a label disclosing the presence of bioengineered ingredients. While seemingly a step towards greater food transparency, the BE labeling law has been met with criticism for its limitations, leaving many consumers still unclear about the genetic engineering status of their food.
Tracing the Roots of the BE Label
The genesis of the BE label lies in the widespread public demand for the labeling of genetically engineered foods. For years, consumer advocacy groups and concerned citizens across the nation campaigned for mandatory GMO labeling at the state level, leading to a complex patchwork of varying state regulations. In 2016, the federal government intervened with the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS), aiming to create a unified national system and replace the inconsistent state-level mandates.
However, the federal BE labeling law, in its final form, presents less stringent requirements compared to many of the initial state-level initiatives. The NBFDS covers only a subset of products made with GMOs, failing to fully address the consumer’s right to know what is in their food.
Defining Bioengineered Food: Decoding the Terminology
Bioengineered, often shortened to “BE,” is the term chosen by the federal government to refer to GMOs within the context of the labeling law. According to the Bioengineered Food labeling law, specific BE foods that contain detectable modified genetic material are required to disclose the presence of bioengineered ingredients on their labels.
This image displays the USDA’s official Bioengineered (BE) food symbol, designed for mandatory labeling of bioengineered foods as per the federal law.
The critical phrase here is “detectable modified genetic material.” This clause is the key to understanding why many products derived from GMOs are exempt from mandatory labeling. Foods produced using newer gene editing techniques like CRISPR, TALEN, and RNAi, for instance, currently fall outside the scope of mandatory labeling because the modifications they introduce are often undetectable using commercially available testing methods. Without a test to detect the modified genetic material, these foods are not classified as BE foods under the current law and therefore do not require a BE label.
Furthermore, a significant portion of processed foods contain highly refined ingredients originating from GMO crops. During processing, these ingredients, such as sugar from GMO sugar beets or oil from GMO canola, often undergo refinement processes that eliminate any detectable modified genetic material in the final product. Consequently, even though they are derived from GMOs, these refined ingredients and the products containing them are also exempt from BE labeling. This means many everyday pantry staples made with ingredients like GMO sugar or canola oil do not require a BE disclosure.
Navigating the BE Label: What’s Labeled and What’s Not
The USDA maintains a List of Bioengineered Foods that serves as the reference for determining which foods, in their basic, raw form, are considered bioengineered and thus potentially subject to disclosure. Currently, this list includes:
- Alfalfa
- Arctic™ Apple
- Canola
- Corn
- Cotton
- Bt Eggplant
- Ringspot virus-resistant Papaya
- Pink Pineapple
- Potato
- AquAdvantage® Salmon
- Soybean
- Summer squash
- Sugarbeet
- Sugarcane
While this list establishes which raw commodities are considered bioengineered, the complexities of the law mean that many processed products derived from these ingredients are not required to carry a BE label. This is due to various exemptions built into the legislation. For example:
- Animal feed, pet food, and personal care products are explicitly excluded from the BE labeling requirements.
- Certain food products intended for direct human consumption are also exempt, notably meat, poultry, and eggs.
- Multi-ingredient food products where meat, poultry, or eggs are listed as the first ingredient are exempt, even if the product contains other ingredients with detectable modified genetic material.
This image illustrates a pork stew example to explain the complexities of BE labeling law, showing how ingredient listing order can determine mandatory labeling.
To clarify the application of these rules, the USDA provided an illustrative example using a can of pork stew. A multi-ingredient stew might contain bioengineered ingredients, such as sweet corn. If pork is the predominant ingredient and appears first on the ingredient list, the stew would be exempt from BE labeling. Similarly, if water, broth, or stock is listed first, even if GMO corn is the third ingredient, no BE label is required because water, stock, and broth are disregarded in this determination. However, if the stew contains more corn than pork, and corn is listed first, then BE disclosure would be mandatory.
This pork stew example underscores a significant point: the BE labeling law’s complexity hinges on the order of ingredients on the product label, rather than solely on the presence of bioengineered ingredients. This intricacy undermines the original intent behind GMO labeling initiatives, which was to provide consumers with straightforward information about whether a product contained GMOs.
Decoding the Bioengineered Food Label: Label Formats
The Bioengineered (BE) Food disclosure can appear in various formats on product packaging, offering flexibility to manufacturers.
These disclosure options include:
- BE Symbol: The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service has created official symbols specifically for the BE labeling law, intended to visually communicate the presence of bioengineered ingredients.
- Text Disclosure: Product packaging can simply state “Bioengineered food” or “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient.” However, this option uses the potentially unfamiliar term “bioengineered” without further explanation, which may cause consumer confusion.
- Text Message or Contact Phone Number: Brands can choose to display “Text [number] for bioengineered food information” or “Call [phone number] for more food information,” directing consumers to pre-recorded messages.
- URL: Very small food manufacturers are permitted to provide a website address on the packaging where consumers can find more information.
While offering flexibility to brands, this variety of disclosure options may not serve consumers effectively. Consistency in language and labeling is crucial for any successful information campaign. For a label to be truly equitable and informative, it must be transparent and easily understood by the average shopper. Furthermore, because the BE food label does not apply to all products made with GMOs due to the law’s limitations, the absence of a BE disclosure cannot be reliably interpreted as the absence of GMOs.
This image showcases the various options for Bioengineered (BE) food labels, including text-based labels, the USDA BE symbol, and digital disclosure methods like QR codes and text messages.
Bioengineered Foods vs. GMOs: Understanding the Nuances
The bioengineered food label has effectively replaced the earlier GMO labels required by some state authorities. However, the legal definition of “bioengineered” and its application in the labeling law exclude many products derived from GMOs. Disclosure is only mandatory for bioengineered foods if the final product contains detectable modified genetic material.
GMOs are prevalent in the US food supply, estimated to be present in over 70% of conventional processed foods. Organizations like the Non-GMO Project have been instrumental in raising public awareness about GMOs in food through advocacy and education. A 2023 survey indicated that 63% of consumers were familiar with the term “GMO,” while only 36% recognized “bioengineering.” This significant disparity highlights a large segment of the population that may not understand the meaning of a Bioengineered (BE) Food disclosure. The choice of the term “bioengineered” over the more commonly understood “GMO” hinders transparency within the food system. Clarity and accessibility are essential for effective public information dissemination.
In addition to the “detectable modified genetic material” requirement, the Bioengineered Food labeling law specifies that the genetic modification in a GMO must not be achievable through conventional breeding or found in nature to necessitate labeling. However, the biotechnology industry is actively developing new GMOs using advanced genomic techniques, arguing that these methods achieve results comparable to traditional crossbreeding but at an accelerated pace. Such claims are oversimplified and potentially misleading, especially when applied to the definition of bioengineered foods.
Gene functions and evolutionary processes are incredibly complex, involving intricate interactions that are not yet fully understood. Asserting that a genetic modification engineered in a lab replicates a natural evolutionary process or traditional breeding outcome, merely faster, is a significant assumption. There are vast, unseen complexities at play.
“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
Nature operates within interconnected systems, and it is reductionist to assume isolated, identical outcomes from vastly different processes.
The biotech industry further argues that genetic engineering can create “nature-identical” non-GMO products. This assertion serves to promote the continued development and use of new GMOs in the food supply while simultaneously circumventing BE disclosure requirements. Regrettably, the current BE labeling law, with its loopholes and limitations, leaves American consumers with incomplete information about how their food is produced.
The Butterfly Mark: A Reliable Path to GMO Avoidance
For consumers concerned about GMOs, the primary goal is often avoidance, rather than seeking out products that contain them. The Bioengineered Food labeling law, due to its restricted scope and numerous exemptions, is inadequate for reliably identifying and avoiding GMOs. Too many categories of GMO-derived products fall outside its regulatory reach to make it truly effective for consumers seeking transparency.
The Non-GMO Project Verified Butterfly remains the most dependable, transparent, and rigorous label for consumers seeking to avoid GMOs. Its benefits extend beyond just informing purchasing decisions; the Non-GMO Project Product Verification Program (PVP) actively contributes to preserving and expanding the non-GMO food supply chain.
Simply disclosing “detectable modified genetic material” in some food products is insufficient for safeguarding environmental health and ecological balance for future generations. At the Non-GMO Project, we align with the 65% of consumers who advocate for mandatory GMO labeling. Labeling should be meaningful, consistent, and transparent, genuinely empowering everyone’s right to know what is in their food.
