December 1, 2022

Volume XII, Number 335

Advertisement

December 01, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 30, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 29, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

QR Code and Text Messaging Alone Are Insufficient to Disclose Bioengineered Food Ingredients

Due to a recent decision in the Northern District of California, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be required to revise current electronic and text message disclosure options under its Bioengineered (BE) Food Labeling Rules, also known as the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS or Standard). Plaintiffs successfully argued that these methods of disclosure did not meet Congress’s requirement that these methods be adequately accessible to consumers.

The BE labeling regulations took effect on January 1, 2022 and require labeling disclosure when foods contain bioengineered (BE) ingredients (or are themselves bioengineered). The Standard provides four methods of disclosure: (i) the statement “Bioengineered food” or “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient” (hereinafter “text disclosure”); (ii) the USDA BE symbol (the “symbol disclosure”); (iii) an electronic or quick response (QR) digital disclosure link and accompanying text (“electronic disclosure”); and (iv) text message instructions (“text message disclosure”). The law requires that the electronic disclosure be accompanied by a phone number for consumers to access an automated recording available 24-hours a day with the necessary BE disclosure information. 

In July 2020, plaintiffs–including the Center for Food Safety, a San Francisco-based non-profit–sued the USDA in the Natural Grocers et al. v. Perdue et al. case, alleging that certain aspects of the Standard violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiffs argued that the electronic and text messaging disclosure methods did not meet the statutory requirement for accessibility. The court agreed and held that the USDA failed to take into account issues identified in a study of the accessibility of the electronic disclosure method. The study, conducted during the rulemaking process, revealed that consumers lack the technical knowledge and access to smartphones that would facilitate obtaining disclosure information through the electronic disclosure method.

Additionally, the court found that the availability of the text message disclosure option did not fix the deficiencies of the electronic disclosure option and that USDA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in authorizing the text message disclosure option. The court remanded the regulations related to these disclosure options, which will remain valid while the USDA determines how to respond to the decision.

Plaintiffs also brought First Amendment challenges, claiming that the Standard precludes them from using terms such as “GMO” and “GE.” The court was not convinced and held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the Standard does not prohibit them from using said terms. They are free to say “GMO” or “GE” so long as they also include the word “bioengineered.” 

The USDA will presumably conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking to address the court’s decision. Regulated entities may consider using the text or symbol disclosure methods if they currently use the electronic or text disclosure methods.  Regulated entities should monitor developments as to the disclosure requirements and work with their regulatory departments and legal counsel to ensure labeling comports with the NBFDS regulations.

Copyright 2022 K & L GatesNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 272
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Natalie E. Rainer Health Care Lawyer San Francisco
Partner

Natalie Rainer is a partner in the firm’s San Francisco office and a member of the Health Care and FDA practice. She focuses her practice primarily in the food and beverage industry. 

Natalie practices food and drug law, advising clients on regulatory requirements for foods, dietary supplements, cosmetics, and food and drug packaging in jurisdictions around the world, including North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Natalie has in-depth experience in evaluating the regulatory status of food ...

415-882-8029
Amy Wong Commercial Litigation Lawyer K&L Gates
Associate

Amy Wong is an associate at the firm’s Orange County office. She is a member of the complex commercial litigation and disputes practice group.

Prior to joining the firm, Amy served as a senior associate at a national law firm where she counseled and litigated complex business and class action cases on behalf of large corporations, small businesses, municipalities, property owners, contractors, and business owners in all levels of civil litigation in both state and federal courts. In addition, Amy has an extensive background in personal injury claims where she has successfully...

+1.949-623-3599
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement