USDA Renames GMOs as “Bioengineered” or “BE” Foods as New National Labeling Rules Take Effect
Photo: Pexels
This article originally appeared in Presence Marketing’s February 2022 Industry Newsletter
By Steve Hoffman
Once upon a time, in 2016, the small but mighty state or Vermont implemented a law it had passed requiring companies selling food products in the state that contained genetically modified ingredients to label such products as made with “GMO” ingredients.
As a result of this first-ever GMO labeling law in the U.S., for a few months in the spring of 2016, consumers all across the country began to see GMO labeling disclosure on products containing such ingredients, as some manufacturers opted to label all packaging for the U.S. market rather than just print GMO-labeled boxes for Vermont. Such was the power of that state law mandating the consumer’s right to know.
Yet, reacting to Vermont’s GMO labeling law, Congress soon thereafter passed S. 764, sponsored in the House by former Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo and in the Senate by former Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, and signed in August 2016 by then President Barack Obama. Dubbed the DARK Act for “Deny Americans the Right to Know,” the law established voluntary labeling much less stringent than Vermont’s previous law, and it pre-empted states from mandating GMO labeling. Published in 2018, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard directed the USDA to establish a national mandatory standard for disclosing foods that are, or may be, bioengineered.
"The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard increases the transparency of our nation's food system, establishing guidelines for regulated entities on when and how to disclose bioengineered ingredients," former USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue said at the time. "This ensures clear information and labeling consistency for consumers about the ingredients in their food,” he said.
Now, as of January 1, 2022, food previously known as GMO or genetically engineered has a new name. According to USDA, such products will now display a “Bioengineered” (BE) label. Critics of the new labeling regulations are concerned that the new GMO “rebrand” may cause more confusion and less transparency, as most consumers are familiar with the term GMO, genetically modified organism or genetically engineered.
"The worst part of this law is the use of the term 'bioengineered' because that's not a term most consumers are familiar with," Gregory Jaffe, Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest's (CSPI) biotechnology project, told the Washington Post.
Companies with products made with bioengineered ingredients have a number of options to comply with the new standard, NPR reported. They can include text on food packages that says "bioengineered food" or "contains a bioengineered food ingredient," or they can choose from two friendly-looking “BE” logos created and approved by the USDA. Or, they can include a QR code for consumers to scan or a phone number for them to text that will provide more information about that food item.
In addition, according to a lawsuit filed in 2020 against the USDA in federal court by the Center for Food Safety, the new GMO labeling standard prohibits producers from using more common labeling terms such as "GMO," plus it will leave out many foods that are "highly refined" or contain levels of bioengineered ingredients that aren't detectable, such as soda and cooking oil, CSP said.
The new standard also discriminates against the poor, the elderly, people who live in rural areas and minorities who may lack access to a smartphone or the internet, CFS said. It also puts an "undue burden" on shoppers to scan food items in stores during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, critics of the new labeling standard have asserted.
"Consumers have fought for decades for their right to know what's in their food and how it's produced," said Meredith Stevenson, CFS attorney and counsel in the litigation, in a December 2021 statement. "But instead of providing meaningful labeling, USDA's final rules will only create more uncertainty for consumers, retailers, and manufacturers."
Some commonly bioengineered foods include corn, canola, soybeans and sugar beets. Most GMO crops are used for animal feed, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, they are also used to make ingredients, such as cornstarch, corn syrup, canola oil and sugar, that routinely find their way into products for human consumption.
USDA Proposal Seeks to Remove 3 Million Recipients from Food Stamps and Rescind School Lunch from Over 265,000 Children
Originally Appeared in Presence Marketing News, August 2019
By Steven Hoffman
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on July 23 proposed new rules to limit access to food stamps for households with savings and other assets, a measure that could cut benefits to 3.1 million people participating in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). According to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue in a call with reporters, the proposed SNAP rules are aimed at ending automatic eligibility for those who are already receiving federal and state assistance. “What we’ve found is some states are taking advantage of loopholes. This proposal will save money and preserve the integrity of the program. SNAP should be a temporary safety net,” said Perdue. Secretary Perdue’s “rhetoric makes it sound like there are many households out there taking advantage of this so-called ‘loophole,’” reported H. Claire Brown in New Food Economy. However, Brown points out that the Congressional Research Office (CRO) found that only 4.2% of households that received SNAP benefits in 2016 were making more than the SNAP program income limit of 130 percent of the federal poverty line, or approximately $1,307 per month for an individual.
The majority of SNAP recipients—85%—fell below the poverty line. This suggests that the number of families that make a little more money and are grandfathered in by broad-based categorical eligibility is quite small, Brown asserts. The Trump administration estimates that the new rule will rescind food assistance from about 3 million of a total 36 million SNAP participants, or about 8% of the total. Based on CRO estimates, “this seems to indicate it’s possible that many of the people who stand to lose benefits are actually eligible for SNAP under the regular rules—they just haven’t gone through the process of filling out all the paperwork,” Brown writes. “This rule seems to be inserting another layer of red tape between people entitled to food assistance and their benefits,” she adds. In addition, Brown reports, USDA’s proposed changes could potentially take free school lunch away from 265,000 students. Students are automatically eligible for free lunch if they receive SNAP benefits. If automatic SNAP eligibility is uncoupled from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, children may lose their free lunch as a result. When asked about this on the press call, Brandon Lipps, administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, said, “USDA is estimating all the children who will no longer be directly certified for school meals if their parents are not categorically eligible would qualify for free or reduced price meals through the regular application process.” What this means, Brown reports, is more paperwork for parents.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons