Bioengineered Food Disclosure

This issue tracker focuses on federal and state statutes, regulations and litigation governing the disclosure of bioengineered (BE) food and bioengineered (BE) food ingredients. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive listing of statutes and regulations, but the litigation covered is not exhaustive and focuses on selected issues receiving national attention. This issue tracker covers the period from 2016 to present. 

7.29.16 – U.S. Former President Barack Obama signed into law S. 764, which became Public Law No. 114-216 – also known as the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The Act directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to create a national bioengineered disclosure standard by July 29, 2018 for the regulation of bioengineered food labels. 

Regulations

3.15.22 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published a notice (87 FR 14440) in the Federal Register of the agency’s decision to deregulate a genetically engineered soybean variety developed by BASF Corporation. The agency’s determination applies to GMB 151, which was genetically engineered to resist soybean cyst nematodes, a parasitic worm, and to tolerate the pesticide 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD-4). APHIS stated that its decision was based on its final plant pest risk assessment and final environmental assessment, which supported the agency’s finding of no significant impact – that GMB 151 is not likely to pose a greater plant pest risk than the unaltered soybean variety from which it was created. Because of GMB 151’s deregulated status, APHIS authorizations are no longer required for the variety’s interstate movement, environmental release, or importation. However, importation of GMB 151 seeds, propagative material, and grain for consumption are subject to Federal Seed Act Regulations and APHIS foreign quarantine notices.

3.7.22 – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updated its enforcement discretion for animals with intentional genomic alterations (IGAs) to include a “low-risk” determination for two PRLR-SLICK beef cattle, an IGA developed using CRISPR gene-editing. This allows for the first time the sale of food products from animals possessing a trait produced by gene-editing which can be reproduced in offspring. The gene editing in this instance produces a “slick” haircoat that is reportedly beneficial in hot weather. After conducting a risk assessment of genome and DNA data submitted by Acceligen, Inc., FDA determined that the IGA in PRLR-SLICK cattle are equivalent to natural mutations resulting in the same trait and have a history of safe use in animal agriculture food production. FDA states that its “low-risk” determination “is not a determination of ‘safety’ under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act but is instead a determination that a product is low risk enough that it is not an FDA enforcement priority” but that FDA may reevaluate its decision should it discover new information about the risks of the PRLR-SLICK IGA. Because of FDA’s “low-risk” determination, FDA states that it does not expect entities that breed and produce PLRL-SLICK cattle using conventional methods to register with the agency. According to a press announcement by FDA, Acceligen, Inc. intends to sell PRLR-SLICK genetic material to “select customers in the global market soon and anticipates meat products will be available for purchase by general consumers as early as two years.” 

9.22.21 –The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced that it will no longer regulate the PG451 Arctic Gala, an apple variety genetically engineered by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. (OSF) to avoid browning. APHIS states that after reviewing public comments from its PG451 Arctic Gala Plant Pest Risk Similarity Assessment (PPRSA), preliminary determination, and OSF’s deregulation request, the agency has determined that the PG451 Arctic Gala apple is unlikely to present a plant pest risk. Previously, APHIS deregulated the same anti-browning trait in OSF’s GD743 Arctic Golden apple and GS784 Arctic Granny apple. The agency now extends deregulation to OSF’s PG451 Arctic Gala. 

8.25.21 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced the publication of a draft guidance for requesting a Regulatory Status Review (RSR) of genetically engineered plants. According to the guidance, APHIS will follow a two-step process upon receiving a RSR request: 1) conduct an initial review within 180 days to determine whether the plant poses an increased plant pest risk, and 2) upon finding that a plant poses an increased plant pest risk, inform the requestor of the increased risk, who may then choose to request that APHIS assess the risk, pause the RSR process, or withdraw the RSR request. The guidance has a 60-day public comment period that closes Oct. 25, 2021. APHIS will host a webinar on the RSR guidance and process on Sep. 21, 2021, at 3:00 p.m.

7.19.21 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on a proposal to add new plant exemptions to USDA’s biotechnology regulations. The notice, titled “Movement of Organisms Modified or Produced Through Genetic Engineering; Notice of Exemptions”, states that this proposal would “exempt plants with additional modifications that could otherwise be achieved through conventional breeding from the regulations that govern the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of certain organisms modified or produced through genetic engineering.”

6.30.21 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) posted notice in the Federal Register announcing publication of three documents relating to the deregulation of genetically engineered PG451 Arctic Gala apples, requested by Canada-based Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. (Okanagan): 1) Deregulation Extension Request; 2) Draft Plant Pest Risk Similarity Assessment; and 3) Preliminary Determination. APHIS has already deregulated two other genetically engineered apple varieties from Okanagan, the GD743 Arctic Golden apple and GS784 Arctic Granny apple. According to an announcement, APHIS has concluded that the PG451 Arctic Gala apples, which were genetically engineered to prevent browning, “are not more likely to pose a plant pest risk than the [two] previously deregulated … apple varieties.” APHIS is accepting comments on the assessments and Okanagan’s request until Jul. 30, 2021.

6.24.21 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) posted notice in the Federal Register announcing publication of four preliminary environmental documents, prepared in response to a petition to deregulate genetically engineered corn from Agrivida, Inc. – PY203 maize: 1) Preliminary Determination of Status, 2) Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment, 3) Draft Environmental Assessment, and 4) Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact. According to the notice, APHIS has “concluded that PY203 maize is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to the unmodified corn.” APHIS is accepting comments on the documents until Jul. 26, 2021. 

3.8.21 –The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection (APHIS) published in the Federal Register a notice reopening the comment period of its Dec. 28, 2020 proposed rule, “Regulation of the Movement of Animals Modified or Developed by Genetic Engineering,” which transfers regulatory oversight of animal biotechnology from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to USDA, specifically those animals regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act. The 60-day comment period will close on May 7, 2021. 

1.19.21 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced the availability of a guidance document titled “Guidance for Preparing Proposals to Exempt Plants with Additional Modifications from Regulation Pursuant to 7 CFR § 340.1(b)(4),” otherwise known as the Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient (SECURE) rule. Under revised regulations, effective Aug. 17, 2020, some modified plants are exempt from the SECURE rule because, as compared to conventionally bred plants they are unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk. The guidance explains the exemption proposal process and is meant for public use when preparing and submitting proposals to exempt modified plants from SECURE regulation. 

1.13.21 – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) transferring to USDA “responsibilities concerning the regulation of amenable species developed using genetic engineering that are intended for agricultural purposes (i.e. human food, fiber, and labor).” “Amenable species” include animals subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) (cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines, and catfish), and animals subject to the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.) (chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, guineas, ratites, and squabs). The MOU’s execution, announced by USDA on Jan. 19, 2021, follows USDA’s Dec. 28, 2020 proposed rule, “Regulation of the Movement of Animals Modified or Developed by Genetic Engineering” (85 FR 84269). Under the agreement, USDA will use its authorities under FMIA and PPIA to establish a new program to conduct pre- and post-market safety evaluations and monitoring for bioengineered amenable species and FDA will continue to regulate bioengineered dairy products, table and shell eggs, certain meat products, and animal feed under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Additionally, the MOU outlines the new review process for bioengineered amenable species, with USDA serving as the “single point of entry and gateway for agriculture amenable species developed using genetic engineering.” 

12.28.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) posted in the Federal Register a proposed rule titled, “Regulation of the Movement of Animals Modified or Developed by Genetic Engineering” (85 FR 84269).  Announced on December 21, 2020, the proposed rule will transfer regulatory oversight of animal biotechnology from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to USDA under the authority of the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA).  Under USDA’s proposed regulatory scheme, APHIS would conduct FMIA and PPIA safety assessments while FSIS would conduct food safety pre-slaughter and processing assessments of genetically engineered or modified animals.  The proposed rule has a comment period which is open until February 26, 2020.

12.14.20 – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it first approval of intentional genomic alteration (IGA), in so-called “GalSafe Pigs,” which eliminate[s] alpha-gal sugar on the surface of the pigs’ cells.” Alpha-gal sugar found in beef, pork, and lamb can cause mild to severe allergic reactions in people with Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS). FDA states that GalSafe pigs may potentially be used for human food or human therapeutics, such as the use of porcine-based materials in the production of human medical products. According to the announcement, FDA determined that the environmental impact from GalSafe pigs is no greater than that from conventional pigs and that GalSafe pigs pose a low risk of promoting antimicrobial resistant bacteria, particularly mitigated by the expected low number of GalSafe pigs to be introduced into the food supply. The company receiving the approval, Revivicor Inc., intends to sell GalSafe pork products initially by mail order. 

8.19.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) posted a Federal Register Notice requesting public comment on a petition from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, seeking deregulation of blight-resistant Darling 58 American Chestnut (85 FR 51008). The notice was preceded by an announcement on Aug. 18, 2020, which states that the chestnut variety was developed using genetic engineering for fungal resistance to chestnut blight. The 60-day comment period on the petition ends Oct. 19, 2020. 

7.24.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal Marketing Service (AMS) published in the Federal Register a request for comments on recommendations to update the AMS List of Bioengineered Foods. The AMS considers adding sugarcane to the list and proposes to add the modifier “virus-resistant” to summer squash. The comment period ends on Aug. 24, 2020. 

7.17.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the Federal Register a notice of availability of its Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) and Preliminary Plant Pest Risk Assessment (PPRA) for genetically engineered Enhanced Grain Yield and Glufosinate-Ammonium Resistant DP202216 Corn (DP corn), prepared in response to a Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status for DP corn from Pioneer Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. APHIS is accepting public comment on the assessment documents beginning July 20, 2020 through August 19, 2020. 

7.2.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announced the issuance of final guidance to aid in the detection of modified genetic material for entities subject to mandatory compliance with the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The final guidance consists of two separate guidance documents: i) Guidance on Testing Methods and ii) Guidance on Validation, and respective Frequently Asked Question documents outlining testing methods (FAQ) and acceptable refining process validation (FAQ). Regulated entities must be in compliance with the standard, which “is solely for marketing and not related to food safety,” by January 1, 2022. The guidance has not yet been published in the Federal Register. 

5.28.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the Federal Register a notice seeking public comment on a petition submitted by BASF Corporation for the deregulation of a genetically-engineered soybean variety for resistance to soybean cyst nematode, a microscopic parasitic worm, and for herbicide tolerance. The public comment period is set to expire on July 27, 2020.

5.18.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the Federal Register a rule titled “Movement of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms” (85 FR 29790), also called the “Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient,” or “SECURE” rule. The rule regulates the “importation, interstate movement, and environmental release” of genetically engineered organisms, and substantially overhauls the identification and review/permit process of plants subject to regulation for genetically engineered “plant pest risk” by focusing on a plant’s properties instead of “whether a plant pest was used in [its] development.” The rule becomes effective in four stages following its publication, will full implementation by October 21, 2021.

5.8.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the Federal Register a notice about the opportunity to review and comment on a petition filed by Monsanto Co. for deregulation of a corn variety intended for the production of hybrid seed for tolerance to dicamba, glufosinate, quizalofop, 2,4-D, and tissue-specific glyphosate tolerance. The public comment period expires on July 7, 2020.

4.16.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the Federal Register a notice allowing public comment on a petition filed by Agrivida, Inc. for the deregulation of a genetically-engineered corn variety used for the production of phytase enzyme for nutritionally enhanced food and feed use. The public comment period closed on June 15, 2020.

8.7.19 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the Federal Register a notice announcing the deregulation of a soybean variety genetically engineered by Verdeca, LLC for increased yield potential and resistance to the herbicide glufosinate. APHIS concluded as part of its determination dated August 1, 2019, that “Verdeca HB4 soybean for yield increased … and progeny derived from it are not likely to pose a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified organism from which it was derived and are no longer to be considered regulated articles under APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulations at Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 340 (7 CFR part 340).”

7.24.19 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the Federal Register a notice about the opportunity to comment and review on a petition submitted by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. for the deregulation of a genetically-engineered corn variety for enhanced yield potential and resistance to glufosinate-ammonium herbicide. The public comment period ended on September 23, 2019.

12.21.18 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published in the Federal Register the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Final Rule. This final rule became effective on February 19, 2019 and an implementation date is set on January 1, 2020 with an extended implementation date for small food manufacturers set on January 1, 2021.

5.4.18 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to establish the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The proposed rule would require entities that label foods for retail to disclose information regarding bioengineered foods and bioengineered food ingredients. Comments on the proposed rule must be received by July 3, 2018.

Other Federal Actions

1.9.20 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the launch of the Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation. It houses in one place all federal laws and regulations, as well as agency guidance and FAQs, from the three principal federal agencies charged with regulating agricultural biotechnology products under the 1986 U.S. Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology and its 1994, 2017 and 2018 amendments. While the website is not for “regulatory submissions by product developers,” it is intended to serve as an informational hub, allow users to submit questions about agricultural biotechnology, and to educate consumers about the safe use of biotechnology innovations.

6.11.19 – President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order on Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products. The White House declared that recent advances in biotechnology offer the potential to raise agricultural productivity, increase nutritional values, and enhance food safety. In order to do so, agricultural biotechnology product regulations must: 1) be science-based; 2) allow for timely review; 3) be transparent, predictable, and consistent; 4) allow for fair public notice; 5) be based on risks associated with a product’s end use; and 5) promote trade.

9.6.17 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announced the availability of a study undertaken to “identify potential technological challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods.” The study, entitled “Study of Electronic or Digital Disclosure,” was completed in compliance with the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.

Note: This list of cases is not exhaustive.

Natural Grocers, et al. v. Perdue, et al. 
USDC N.D. California, No. 3:20-cv-5151
Ninth Circuit, No. 22-16770

7.27.20 – A coalition of non-profit organizations–Natural Grocers, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Label GMOs, Rural Vermont, Good Earth Natural Foods, Puget Consumers Co-Op, and Center for Food Safety–filed a complaint challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard rule. Plaintiffs sought a court order to invalidate and revoke either the entirety of the rule or specific portions thereof, citing alleged violations of the Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

10.2.20 – Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against all defendants. 

11.23.21 – Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment urging the court to set aside and sever the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard while also requesting a declaration of unconstitutionality for certain provisions of the Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act. Plaintiffs claimed that these provisions allegedly conceal the disclosure of genetic engineering information and limit the right to commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. 

9.13.22 – The U.S. District Court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment regarding the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim concerning the text message disclosure regulation. The court, however, denied the motion in other aspects. In the authorizing statute, Congress outlined three options for product labeling: (1) printed text stating “Bioengineered food” or “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient,” (2) a symbol containing the term “Bioengineered,” or (3) an electronic or digital link, such as a QR code, with “additional and comparable options” as deemed necessary by USDA to ensure consumer access to information. Subsequently, a study commissioned by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) revealed that the third digital/electronic option did not adequately provide access to the bioengineered disclosure. As a result, AMS introduced a fourth compliance option: text message instructions directing consumers to “Text [command word] to [number] for bioengineered food information.” The court determined that the inclusion of the text messaging option by AMS violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as it effectively amended the controlling statute. The court stated that the separate text message disclosure option did not address the issue of inaccessible electronic disclosures but merely introduced an additional disclosure option for regulated entities to choose from. Consequently, the court remanded Section 66.106 and 66.108 of the regulation back to AMS for reassessment without vacating the optional text message disclosure regulation.

11.10.22 – Plaintiffs submitted a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the decision made by the district court.

3.3.23 – The U.S. District Court issued an order to temporarily close the docket for administrative purposes until June 1, 2023. 

3.30.23 – Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting an indicative ruling to seek clarification from the court. This motion follows the court’s prior ruling in favor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on various matters, including the labeling of bioengineered foods and restrictions on terminology. Additionally, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims pertaining to genetically engineered (GE) foods that do not contain detectable GE material. In its ruling, the court determined that the preemption provision established by Congress is in accordance with the Tenth Amendment and concluded that plaintiffs lack standing for their First Amendment claims. Plaintiffs now seek an indicative ruling that confirms the court’s denial of summary judgment on most counts as a final and appealable judgment.

6.1.23 – The U.S. District Court denied plaintiffs’ request for an indicative ruling seeking clarification of the court’s summary judgment order.

6.15.23 – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to reopen the appeal subsequent to the docket’s administrative closure in March 2023.

National Family Farm Coalition, et al. v. Vilsack, et al. 
USDC N.D. California, No. 3:21-cv-5695 

7.26.21 – A coalition of non-profit organizations–National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Environmental Health, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Biological Diversity–filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) seeking declaratory and equitable relief. The complaint challenges the decision made during the Trump administration to significantly reduce regulations pertaining to genetically engineered organisms (Movement of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms, 85 FR 29790). The central concern revolves around “whether … both experimental and commercialized genetically engineered (GE) organisms will remain regulated by the federal government, or if they will now effectively be left to the devices of their manufacturers, to experiment, plant, and sell them as they self-interestingly see fit, without any further oversight by the [USDA], regardless of their agronomic risks to U.S. agriculture or their environmental risks to soils, waterways, native ecosystems, and endangered species.”

12.6.22 – Plaintiffs filed a motion and memorandum seeking summary judgment on claims 1-4. They argued that the Revised GE Rule (Part 340 regulations) is unlawful and in violation of the Plant Protection Act (PPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the “2008 Farm Bill”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In their motion, plaintiffs request that the rule be remanded and vacated.

California

11.6.12  – California voters voted against Proposition 37, “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” (see p. 54).Proposition 37 provided that “any food offered for retail sale in California is misbranded if it is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not disclosed.”

Colorado

11.4.14  – Colorado voters voted against Proposition 105, “The Colorado Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative.” Proposition 105 would have imposed a label “Produced with genetic engineering” on any “prepackaged, processed food or raw agricultural commodity that has been produced using genetic modification.”

Connecticut

6.25.13  – Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law HB 6527, becoming Public Act 13-183. The Act establishes mandatory labeling for genetically engineered materials contained in food. The Act specifies that the statute will not become effective until after two triggers are satisfied: 1) four states, including one that borders Connecticut, must enact mandatory GMO labeling laws; and 2) the aggregate population of eight defined Northeastern states with mandatory GMO labeling laws must exceed twenty million “based on 2010 census figures.”

Note: Public Act 13-183 never became effective due to failure of conditions.

Maine

1.12.14  – Maine Governor Paul LePage signed into law HP 0490, LD 718; titled “An Act to Protect Maine Food Consumers’ Right to Know about Genetically Engineered Food.” The act imposes the labeling of genetically engineered food; however, it specifies that the Act provisions will become effective 30 days after the Commissioner of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry certifies that “at least 5 contiguous states, including Maine” adopt mandatory GMO labeling.

Note: The Maine legislation never became effective due to failure of conditions.

Oregon

11.2.02 – Oregon voters voted against Proposition 27, the Oregon Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods Act. Proposition 27 would have required a plainly visible label bearing the words “Genetically Engineered” on all foods “sold or distributed in or from Oregon” that contained genetically modified ingredients where those genetically modified ingredients comprised “more than one tenth of one percent of the weight of the product.”

Vermont

5.8.14 – Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law HB 112, becoming Act 120, known as the nation’s first mandatory GMO labeling requirements, scheduled to become effective July 1, 2016.

Note: On August 2, 2016, Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan announced on his office’s website that Act 120 ceased to apply following federal enactment of the National Bioengineered Disclosure Standard.

Washington

11.3.13 – Washington voters voted against Initiative 522, “The Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure.” The initiative would have required labeling of most genetically modified food products.

***

***