Federal Court Sides with the Public’s Right to Know in GMO/Bioengineered Food Labeling Case

PR Newswire

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 4, 2026

Center for Food Safety Prevails in Fight for Transparency on GMO/Bioengineered Labels, New Rules Expected by January 2028 Based on Court’s Order

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 4, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — In a major victory for consumers and food right-to-know advocates, a federal district handed down a final remedy decision yesterday in the long-running litigation over the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) regulations for the first-ever U.S. disclosures of genetically engineered (GE or GMO, now known as “bioengineered”) foods. A previous court of appeals decision had held several rule provisions unlawful but left the remedy implementation to the lower court to decide, which has now been issued after further legal briefing.

A shopper reads the label on a packaged food product while standing in a grocery store aisle.

“Yesterday’s decision was the final nail in the coffin of the 2021 unlawful GMO labeling regulations,” said George Kimbrell, Legal Director for CFS and counsel in the case. “We are gratified that the district court, like the court of appeals before it, has agreed with our legal arguments and struck them down.”

The litigation: The case challenged the USDA rulemaking first applying the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, a 2016 federal law that for the first time in U.S. history mandated the labeling of genetically engineered foods. But in its original rule, USDA exempted “highly refined” or ultra-processed GMO foods—such as corn and soy oils—from any disclosure. This loophole was significant, as these GMO ultra-processed foods, such as sodas and cooking oils, make up approximately 70% of all GMO food ingredients. It had also allowed companies to disclose solely through inaccessible digital “QR code” labels, instead of on-package text or symbols, despite the fact that USDA’s own report had found that such disclosures would be discriminatory by not providing the relevant information to many segments of the public. Both decisions became central to the litigation.

After over four years of litigation, in late 2025 a U.S. Federal Court of Appeals issued a detailed 50+ page opinion agreeing with the challengers and concluding that USDA had acted unlawfully in excluding ultra-processed foods from the bioengineered disclosure standard. It also held that the “QR code” labeling provision, which the lower court had held unlawful, had to be struck down.

What happens now: Yesterday’s decision clarifies the timeline for which USDA must redo the rulemaking. While the agency fought to delay updates until 2029, the district court rejected this timeline, instead agreeing with the plaintiffs that the provisions are legally void by January 1, 2028. USDA is now anticipated to issue new, redone rules to implement both provisions in the next year.

“The next chapter now shifts back to USDA,” said Dashel Murawski, Communications Manager at Center or Food Safety. “All those that care about their right to know how their food is produced—including whether it is made with pesticide-promoting, corporate-controlled GMO agriculture—need to pressure the administration to follow the law this time. People deserve the right to decide for themselves what they eat and feed their families and must not be kept in the dark about food ingredients. This is about uplifting the rights of the public over corporate loopholes.”

In the litigation, CFS represents a plaintiff coalition of nonprofits and organic retailers: Natural Grocers, PCC Natural Markets, Good Earth Natural Foods, National Organic Coalition, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Label GMOS, and Rural Vermont.

Background

Consumers want the right to know whether food is genetically engineered for a variety of health and environmental reasons, the most important of which is that the vast majority of GMO crops are commodity crops that are genetically engineered to withstand increasing amounts of pesticides. The most common pesticide used with GMOs, Monsanto’s Roundup (containing the active ingredient glyphosate), has been linked to cancer and subject to thousands of cancer lawsuits, resulting in billions of dollars in settlements and jury awards. As a result, the introduction of genetically engineered crops has dramatically increased overall pesticide use in U.S. agriculture, leading to a parallel increase in the pesticide “tolerances” the FDA permits on food products. Both ultra-processed foods and pesticides have been stated targets of the “MAHA” movement and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy, although many promises to act have not come to fruition.

Over 60 countries around the world require GMO food labeling, including Europe, Japan, China, and most U.S. trade partners. It has always been an issue that has united Americans, with polls consistently showing that over 90% of Americans support disclosures. Grassroots efforts in the U.S. to require GMO labeling began over two decades ago, with millions of Americans joining a CFS legal petition the federal government to require labeling. When those efforts were initially met with inaction, states stepped into the breach, with ballot initiatives and state legislation introduced in over 30 states in 2012-2015. After three state laws passed and CFS successfully defended in court industry efforts to challenge them, Congress finally acted, passing the first-ever U.S. law mandating GMO disclosures in 2016.

But that law’s passage turned out to be only the beginning of the next chapter in the fight for transparency, not the end. USDA, charged with writing the guidelines to implement these rules, did not write them. It took earlier successful CFS litigation to require the rules’ completion, as well as a Congressionally mandated study on the usefulness and accessibility of “QR code” disclosures, which turned out to have damning results. Nonetheless, the final USDA rule allowed QR code labeling as well as the creation of the “highly refined” loophole eliminating comprehensive labeling. CFS filed the original case against USDA in 2020 on behalf of a coalition of nonprofits and retailers, arguing that the final rule was unlawful on various grounds. A 2022 court decision found it unlawful to use inaccessible digital QR codes alone on food packages.

In 2025, the court of appeals held that USDA acted unlawfully when it excluded ultra-processed foods from the bioengineered disclosure standard. The court ordered USDA to redo the rulemaking in a new decision consistent with its order, but remanded the case back to the district court to decide on several remedy issues regarding exactly which parts of the labeling regulations are now void, and to establish the timeline for a new standard to take effect.

Yesterday’s ruling again confirms that USDA acted unlawfully in excluding ultra-processed foods from the bioengineered disclosure standard, and mandates the agency to update the standard to remedy both the ultra-processed food loophole and QR code-only disclosure issues by January 1, 2028.

Center for Food Safety’s mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. Please join our more than one million members across the country at www.centerforfoodsafety.org. Connect with us on Instagram.