The Fight Over GMO Labels: Vermont’s Law, the Federal ‘Bioengineered’ Standard, and the 2025 Court Ruling

In 2015, while campaigning for president, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont told supporters that the country needed the courage to take on large food and biotechnology companies, and he backed mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods. His home state had just become the first in the nation to require such labels. A year later, Congress passed a federal law that overrode Vermont’s requirement and replaced it with a national “bioengineered” food disclosure standard.

A decade on, the fight over GMO labels has not ended. In October 2025, a federal appeals court struck down key parts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s labeling rule, ruling that it exempted too many foods and allowed disclosures that many shoppers could not easily see. This article traces the history of GMO labeling politics, explains how the current federal standard works, and describes what the 2025 ruling may change for consumers and companies.

Are GMO foods labeled in the United States? Yes, since 2022. After Vermont passed the first mandatory GMO labeling law in 2014, Congress created a national “bioengineered food” disclosure standard that overrode state laws, with mandatory compliance from 2022. The federal rule requires packaged foods with detectable engineered material to disclose it, but many refined ingredients are exempt and restaurants are not covered.

How Did the GMO Labeling Fight Start?

The modern labeling fight began when Vermont passed the first mandatory GMO labeling law in 2014, prompting food industry opposition and pushing Congress to create a national standard that overrode state laws. By the early 2010s, most corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets grown in the United States were genetically engineered, and ingredients from these crops appeared in a large share of processed foods. Polls consistently found that large majorities of Americans wanted GMO labels, while the food and biotechnology industries argued that labels would mislead consumers by implying a safety risk that scientific bodies had not found, and that a patchwork of state laws would be costly.

Labeling advocates pursued ballot initiatives and state legislation. California’s Proposition 37 in 2012 and Washington’s Initiative 522 in 2013 were both narrowly defeated after heavily funded opposition campaigns. Connecticut and Maine passed labeling laws that would take effect only if neighboring states acted. In Congress, Sanders offered an amendment to the 2013 farm bill affirming states’ right to require GMO labels; it was defeated by a wide margin.

Vermont went further. In 2014, the legislature passed and Governor Peter Shumlin signed Act 120, requiring most foods produced with genetic engineering to carry a label beginning July 1, 2016, and prohibiting such foods from being labeled “natural.” Food industry groups sued to block the law, but it took effect on schedule, and several major companies announced they would label products nationwide rather than create Vermont-only packaging.

Congress Steps In

Vermont’s law put pressure on Congress. In July 2016, weeks after it took effect, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed legislation creating the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The law required USDA to establish a mandatory national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods and preempted state labeling laws, including Vermont’s.

The federal law was a compromise. Supporters, including many food companies and farm groups, praised it for creating a uniform national standard and making disclosure mandatory. Critics, including many labeling advocates and Vermont officials, argued it was weaker than Vermont’s law, especially because it allowed companies to use QR codes rather than on-package words, and because its definition of bioengineered food could exclude many highly refined ingredients. Opponents had nicknamed earlier versions of federal preemption bills the DARK Act, for “Deny Americans the Right to Know.”

How Does the Federal GMO Labeling Standard Work?

The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, mandatory since 2022, requires packaged foods with detectable genetically engineered material to disclose it via text, a symbol, or a scannable code. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service published the final rule implementing the law in December 2018. According to USDA’s BE disclosure resources, the standard requires food manufacturers, importers, and certain retailers to disclose information about bioengineered foods and bioengineered food ingredients. The rule took effect in 2019, with mandatory compliance beginning January 1, 2022.

Key features of the rule as originally adopted include:

The term “bioengineered.” Instead of the familiar terms GMO or genetically engineered, the rule uses “bioengineered,” defined as food containing genetic material modified through in vitro recombinant DNA techniques that could not be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.

A list of bioengineered foods. USDA maintains a list of foods available in bioengineered form in the U.S., such as corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets, cotton, alfalfa, papaya, summer squash, potatoes, apples, pink pineapple, and salmon, to help companies determine whether disclosure may be required.

Four disclosure options. Companies can use on-package text such as “Bioengineered food” or “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient,” a USDA-designed symbol, an electronic or digital link such as a QR code with accompanying text, or a text-message option. Small manufacturers and small packages had additional options.

Exemptions. Foods served in restaurants and similar establishments, foods from very small manufacturers, and meat, eggs, and dairy from animals fed bioengineered feed are exempt. Foods in which bioengineered substances are present only inadvertently below a threshold of 5 percent per ingredient are also exempt. Most significantly, the rule did not require disclosure for highly refined foods, such as many oils, sugars, and starches made from GE crops, if modified genetic material was not detectable.

The 2025 Court Ruling

Natural Grocers, a grocery chain, along with food safety and labeling advocacy groups, challenged the rule. A federal district court in California ruled in 2022 that parts of USDA’s electronic disclosure options were legally flawed but left them in place while USDA addressed the problem, and rejected the plaintiffs’ other main claims. Both sides appealed.

On October 31, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision. As the law firm Covington summarized, the court struck down USDA’s exemption for highly refined foods in which modified genetic material is undetectable, remanding it to USDA for revision, which could significantly expand the range of products requiring disclosure. The court also held that the district court should have vacated the QR-code and text-message disclosure provisions, and directed it to set a timeline for their prospective vacatur after hearing from the parties. The court’s opinion also concluded that USDA may set a threshold amount of bioengineered substance below which a food is not considered bioengineered, and upheld USDA’s choice of the term “bioengineered.”

The practical effect is that USDA must revise its rule. Once it does, more foods made from GE crops, such as products containing GE-derived oils or sugars, may require disclosure, and companies that relied on QR codes alone will likely need to switch to on-package text or the BE symbol.

How Can I Tell If a Food Contains GMOs?

Look for a “bioengineered” disclosure on packaging, but note that refined ingredients like oils and sugars are often exempt; USDA Organic and Non-GMO Project Verified labels indicate non-GMO products. Look for the BE disclosure. Phrases such as “Bioengineered food” or “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient,” or the round USDA BE symbol, indicate that a product contains bioengineered ingredients under the current rule.

Know what the absence of a label means. Under the rule as originally written, many products made with refined GE ingredients, such as soybean oil or beet sugar, did not require disclosure. Until USDA revises the rule following the 2025 ruling, the absence of a BE disclosure does not necessarily mean a product contains no ingredients derived from GE crops.

Use other certifications. USDA Organic certification prohibits genetic engineering in production. Third-party programs such as the Non-GMO Project verify products against their own standards for avoiding genetically engineered ingredients.

Scan QR codes if present. Products may still use digital disclosures until the court-ordered changes take effect.

What Are the Arguments For and Against GMO Labels?

Supporters argue labels respect consumers’ right to know, while opponents say they imply a safety concern that science does not support and can mislead shoppers into thinking GM foods are dangerous. Supporters of mandatory labeling argue that consumers have a right to know how their food is produced, regardless of safety, just as labels disclose country of origin or whether fish is wild or farmed. They note that many other countries, including the European Union, require GMO labels, and that labels let people make choices based on environmental, ethical, or economic preferences about farming systems.

Opponents argue that labels imply a health risk not supported by scientific assessments. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in a 2016 report that it found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from conventionally bred crops. Opponents also cite costs to manufacturers and the potential for labels to stigmatize a technology that can reduce pesticide use or crop losses.

The federal compromise attempted to balance these views by requiring disclosure while using neutral language and flexible formats. The 2025 court ruling suggests the balance tilted too far toward flexibility, at least in the exemptions and disclosure options.

A Bipartisan, Shifting Issue

GMO labeling has not followed neat party lines. Support for labeling has come from progressives like Sanders and from some conservatives and libertarians who favor consumer information or distrust large corporations. Opposition has come from farm-state lawmakers of both parties, food and agricultural industry groups, and many scientists. The 2016 federal law passed with bipartisan votes and was signed by a Democratic president. The broader context of how U.S. leaders have approached agricultural biotechnology is covered in our articles on GMOs and presidential politics and how the U.S. decided to regulate GMOs.

What Comes Next

USDA will need to revise its definition of bioengineered food and its disclosure options in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, likely through a new rulemaking with public comment. The district court will set the timeline for phasing out QR-code and text-message-only disclosures. Companies may need to update packaging, and the number of products carrying BE disclosures could increase substantially if refined ingredients are covered. Meanwhile, new technologies such as gene editing raise further questions about which products fall under the bioengineered definition, since many gene-edited foods may not meet it.

How Do Other Countries Label GM Foods?

Many countries, including those in the European Union, require clearer mandatory GMO labeling than the United States, often with explicit text rather than scannable codes and fewer exemptions. The European Union has some of the world’s strictest rules. Foods and feed containing or produced from GM organisms must be labeled when GM material exceeds 0.9 percent of an ingredient, and the rules apply to products derived from GM crops, such as oils, even when no modified DNA is detectable. Products from animals fed GM feed are exempt. Many other countries, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Brazil, and China, have mandatory labeling with different thresholds and exemptions. Canada relies mainly on voluntary labeling. Compared with the EU, the U.S. standard as originally written was narrower, particularly in exempting highly refined ingredients, a gap the 2025 court ruling may narrow.

Gene Editing and the BE Definition

New breeding technologies complicate labeling. Gene editing can make precise changes to a plant’s own DNA without adding genes from other species. Because USDA’s definition of bioengineered food focuses on modifications that could not be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature, some gene-edited foods may fall outside the disclosure requirement. Supporters argue this is appropriate because such changes resemble those from conventional breeding; labeling advocates argue consumers should know about any genetic engineering. The European Union has been debating new rules for plants produced with new genomic techniques, reflecting the same tension.

What Companies Need to Do Now

For food manufacturers, the 2025 ruling creates uncertainty. Legal analysts have advised companies to review which products contain ingredients from crops on the bioengineered foods list, including highly refined ingredients that were previously exempt; prepare for the possibility that QR-code-only disclosures will need to be replaced with on-package text or the BE symbol; document ingredient sourcing and testing; and monitor USDA’s rulemaking and the district court’s timeline. Companies that already use on-package text or the symbol may face fewer changes, though more of their products could require disclosure.

What Research Says About How Consumers Read GMO Labels

Studies of consumer responses to GMO labels have produced nuanced findings. Some research suggests that mandatory labels can reduce consumers’ willingness to buy labeled products by signaling a potential concern, which is the outcome industry groups feared. Other research, including studies conducted after Vermont’s law took effect, found that labeling did not significantly increase opposition to GM foods and may have modestly reduced it, possibly because transparency increased trust. Results depend on how labels are worded and presented, the information consumers already have, and their underlying attitudes. The term “bioengineered” itself was unfamiliar to many shoppers when introduced, and surveys have found that many people do not recognize it as meaning genetically modified, which critics cited as a weakness of the federal standard.

The Costs and Benefits of Labeling

Estimates of labeling costs vary widely. Industry groups argued that a patchwork of state laws would raise costs through separate packaging and supply chains, while advocates countered that companies routinely change labels and that disclosure costs per package are small. The federal standard reduced the risk of conflicting state requirements but added compliance work, including tracking ingredients, documenting sourcing, and redesigning packages. Expanding disclosure to refined ingredients after the 2025 ruling would increase the number of products affected. Benefits are harder to measure in dollars: they include consumer access to information, trust, and the ability to make choices based on personal values.

Labeling and Trust in the Food System

Beyond the specifics of GMO disclosure, the labeling debate reflects broader questions about trust in the food system. Many consumers want to know more about how their food is produced, including where it comes from, how animals are raised, what chemicals are used, and how workers are treated. Labels are one way companies and governments respond. When labeling rules appear designed to minimize disclosure, as critics argued about QR-code-only options and refined-ingredient exemptions, they can undermine trust even among people who do not personally worry about GM foods. Conversely, clear and honest labeling can build confidence. The 2025 court ruling, by pushing toward more visible and comprehensive disclosure, may help resolve some of that tension, though debates over how to communicate about food technology will continue.

How Labels Interact With Other Claims

Shoppers encounter many claims alongside BE disclosures, including USDA Organic, Non-GMO Project Verified, “natural,” and brand-specific statements. USDA Organic and Non-GMO Project verification involve audits and standards, while “natural” has no formal definition for most foods regulated by FDA. Under the federal BE standard, the absence of a BE disclosure does not permit a company to claim a product is non-GMO; such claims are governed by separate rules against misleading labeling and by third-party certification programs. Understanding these differences helps consumers interpret what they see on packages.

Questions to Ask About a Food Label

Who sets the standard behind this claim, a government agency, a third-party certifier, or the company itself? Is the claim verified by inspection or testing? What does it cover, ingredients, production methods, or both? Does the absence of a disclosure mean what I think it means? Where can I learn more about the standard? Applying these questions to BE disclosures, organic seals, and non-GMO labels helps shoppers make informed choices aligned with their own priorities.

Where the Politics Stand Now

GMO labeling is less prominent in national politics than it was during the mid-2010s, when ballot campaigns and congressional fights drew national attention. Public concern has shifted somewhat toward other food issues, such as ultra-processed foods, food additives, and pesticide residues. Yet the 2025 court ruling shows that the details of labeling policy still matter and can change through litigation as well as legislation. Future debates may focus on gene-edited foods, how to communicate about new technologies, and whether disclosure rules keep pace with scientific change.

A Timeline Recap for Shoppers

For shoppers trying to make sense of labels over the past decade: before 2016, there was no national GMO labeling requirement, and Vermont’s law briefly required labels in mid-2016. From 2016 to 2021, companies prepared for the federal standard, with some voluntarily labeling. Since January 2022, the federal BE standard has been mandatory, with disclosures in several formats and exemptions for refined ingredients. Following the 2025 court ruling, the rules are expected to change again, likely requiring more visible disclosures and covering more products. Throughout, USDA Organic and Non-GMO Project labels have offered alternatives for shoppers seeking to avoid GE ingredients.

Common Misconceptions About GMO Labels

“No BE label means no GMO ingredients.” Under the current rule, many products with refined GE-derived ingredients have not required disclosure.

“A BE label is a safety warning.” The disclosure is informational; it does not indicate that a product is unsafe.

“Organic foods can contain GMOs if labeled.” USDA Organic standards prohibit genetic engineering as an excluded method.

“Vermont’s law is still in effect.” It was preempted by the federal law in 2016.

“Meat from animals fed GM corn must be labeled.” Animal products from animals fed BE feed are exempt.

“All gene-edited foods count as bioengineered.” Some gene-edited foods may fall outside USDA’s definition.

Labeling Debates Around the World Today

Labeling policies continue to evolve internationally. The European Union’s debate over plants produced with new genomic techniques includes whether such plants should carry labels like other GMOs or be treated more like conventionally bred plants, with different rules proposed for different categories. Several countries in Asia and Latin America have revised their GMO rules as gene editing advances. These debates mirror the U.S. experience: balancing consumers’ desire for information with scientific assessments of safety and the economic costs of labeling. Watching how other countries handle new technologies may influence how USDA revises the BE standard after the 2025 ruling.

For American shoppers, the practical message is that labeling rules are not fixed. Checking USDA’s BE disclosure page periodically, or relying on certifications that match personal priorities, offers the most reliable guidance while rules change.

Industry groups, consumer advocates, and retailers will all participate in USDA’s revision process through public comments, and shoppers can comment as well when a proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.

Who Benefits From Clearer Labels

Clearer labeling can benefit several groups. Shoppers who prefer to avoid GE ingredients gain reliable information without needing to scan codes. Organic and non-GMO producers may find it easier to differentiate their products. Companies that already disclose openly avoid being undercut by competitors relying on less visible methods. Even supporters of agricultural biotechnology have argued that straightforward disclosure can reduce suspicion by removing the impression that something is being hidden. The challenge for USDA is to design rules that are clear, workable for manufacturers of all sizes, and consistent with the court’s ruling.

Small and mid-sized food companies, which may lack large regulatory teams, are likely to need clear guidance and reasonable timelines to comply with any changes.

Researchers studying food policy will also be watching whether expanded disclosure changes purchasing behavior, company formulation choices, or public attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. Evidence from the post-2022 period, and from any revised rule, will help inform future debates in the United States and abroad about how best to label foods produced with new technologies.

Summary of the Current Rules

As of this writing, food manufacturers must disclose bioengineered foods and ingredients under USDA’s rule, using on-package text, the BE symbol, or, until the court-ordered changes take effect, QR codes or text-message options. Highly refined ingredients without detectable modified genetic material have been exempt, but the Ninth Circuit has ruled that exemption unlawful, and USDA must revise it. Restaurants, very small manufacturers, and animal products from animals fed BE feed remain exempt. Shoppers should expect changes to packaging as USDA updates its rule.

Readers who want to follow developments can monitor USDA’s BE disclosure page and the Federal Register for proposed rule changes and comment periods.

Until then, the most dependable approach for shoppers who care about this issue is to read packages carefully, understand what each label does and does not cover, and choose certified products when avoiding GE ingredients is a priority.

Key Terms

Bioengineered (BE) food: Food containing genetic material modified through laboratory techniques that could not be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature, as defined by USDA.

Preemption: When federal law overrides state law on the same subject.

BE symbol: USDA’s circular disclosure symbol featuring the word “bioengineered.”

Highly refined ingredients: Ingredients such as oils, sugars, and starches processed to the point that modified genetic material may be undetectable.

Vacatur: A court order setting aside an agency rule or provision.

The Bottom Line

The fight over GMO labels, from Vermont’s first-in-the-nation law to the federal bioengineered standard and the 2025 Ninth Circuit ruling, reflects a long debate over consumers’ right to know and how disclosure should be designed. Today, many foods carry BE disclosures, but the rule’s exemption for refined ingredients and its reliance on QR codes have been found unlawful, and USDA must revise it. Shoppers who want to avoid GE ingredients can rely on organic and non-GMO certifications, while watching for changes to BE labels in the coming years.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are GMO foods labeled in the United States?

Yes, since 2022. Under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, packaged foods containing detectable genetically engineered material must disclose it through text, a symbol, or a scannable QR code. However, many highly refined ingredients like oils and sugars are exempt, and restaurants are not covered, so the labeling is less comprehensive than many consumers expect.

What does “bioengineered” mean on a food label?

“Bioengineered” is the official U.S. term for what most people call GMO. The bioengineered disclosure indicates that a food contains detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain laboratory techniques. The government chose this term instead of “GMO,” which critics say is less familiar to consumers and may make genetically engineered ingredients harder to recognize on packaging.

Why did the federal government override Vermont’s GMO law?

After Vermont’s 2014 mandatory labeling law took effect, the food industry faced the prospect of differing state rules across the country. Congress responded in 2016 by passing a national standard that preempted state laws like Vermont’s, creating one federal approach. Supporters said this avoided a patchwork; critics argued the federal rule was weaker than Vermont’s clear on-package text.

Do GMO labels mean the food is unsafe?

No. Major scientific bodies have concluded that approved GM foods are as safe to eat as conventional foods, so a bioengineered disclosure is about informing consumers, not warning of danger. Opponents of mandatory labeling worry it implies a safety problem that does not exist, while supporters argue people have a right to know how their food is produced regardless.

How can I avoid GMOs if I want to?

To avoid genetically engineered ingredients, look for the USDA Organic seal, which prohibits GMOs, or the Non-GMO Project Verified butterfly, a third-party certification that includes testing. Reading ingredient lists helps too, since most GMOs come from corn, soy, canola, sugar beets, and cotton. These labels are more reliable for avoidance than the bioengineered disclosure alone.

References

1. Vermont General Assembly. Act 120 (2014): An act relating to the labeling of food produced with genetic engineering. legislature.vermont.gov
2. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. ams.usda.gov
3. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Natural Grocers v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 22-16770. October 31, 2025. ca9.uscourts.gov
4. Covington & Burling. Ninth Circuit Invalidates USDA’s Exemption for Highly Refined Foods Under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. November 2025. cov.com
5. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. 2016. nap.nationalacademies.org

Last updated: October 2, 2026