Florida Organic Growers

A Step Forward for Food Transparency — and Why It Matters to Organic

August 2026

Last week, a federal district court issued its final decision in the long-running litigation over how genetically engineered foods must be labeled in the United States. The ruling closes out a case that began in 2020 and, together with an earlier appeals court decision, sets a clear path forward: USDA must revisit two provisions of its bioengineered food disclosure rule, with the current provisions becoming void as of January 1, 2028.

Florida Organic Growers was not a party to this case. But we have followed it closely, because we have spent decades on this issue — and because transparency in the food system is central to everything we do.

Where FOG Has Always Stood

FOG has never supported the use of genetic engineering in our food system. That position is not new, and it is not incidental to our work. Over the years we have organized workshops, farmer trainings, and public education programs on the risks that genetically engineered crops pose to farmers, to seed sovereignty, and to the integrity of organic production. We have devoted podcast episodes to the subject, bringing in farmers, researchers, and advocates to explain what is at stake in language that people outside the policy world can actually use.

We have also been willing to take the issue to court. FOG has participated in litigation on seed and biotechnology matters that did not end the way we hoped. Not every effort succeeds. But the arc of the last two decades — from state ballot initiatives, to the 2016 federal disclosure law, to the rulemaking now being revisited — shows that persistence in this area moves the needle. The people who said labeling would never happen in the United States were wrong. It took twenty years and it is still unfinished, but it happened.

Listen and Learn More

Our podcast episodes and recorded workshops on GMOs, seed sovereignty, and food transparency are available here:

What the Court Decided

Two aspects of the 2021 rule were at issue.

The first was an exemption for what the rule called “highly refined” ingredients — things like corn and soybean oils derived from genetically engineered crops. Because processing can remove detectable genetic material, these products were excluded from disclosure entirely. The practical effect was significant: refined ingredients of this kind account for a large share of the genetically engineered material in the American food supply, meaning many products made from bioengineered crops carried no disclosure at all.

The second was the option for companies to satisfy the disclosure requirement using a QR code alone, without on-package text or a symbol. A study commissioned by Congress had already raised concerns that digital-only disclosure would leave many consumers — those without smartphones, reliable connectivity, or the familiarity to use them — without meaningful access to the information.

The courts found both provisions unlawful. The most recent decision settles the remedy and the timeline, and USDA is now expected to undertake a new rulemaking to address them.

Why This Is Broadly Shared Ground

It is worth remembering how widely this view is held. More than 60 countries require some form of GMO labeling, including most major U.S. trading partners, and U.S. polling has consistently shown overwhelming public support for disclosure. Wanting to know how your food is produced is not a fringe position. It is close to a consensus one.

What Comes Next

The next chapter belongs to USDA, and we approach it constructively. Writing a workable disclosure rule is genuinely difficult work: it has to be scientifically defensible, administrable for businesses of very different sizes, and actually useful to the person standing in the grocery aisle. The agency now has an opportunity to get all three right, and a defined window in which to do it.

We intend to participate in that process the way we always have — by submitting comments, sharing what we hear from the farmers and handlers we work with, and advocating for rules that are clear, practical, and genuinely informative. We would encourage others in the organic and sustainable agriculture community to do the same when the comment period opens.

For Certified Organic Operations

One point worth restating for the producers and handlers we serve: nothing here changes the organic standards. Certified organic production already prohibits genetically engineered seed and inputs, and organic certification remains the most rigorous assurance available to consumers on this question. Clearer disclosure across the broader marketplace only strengthens the value of what organic certification already represents — a verified, documented, third-party-audited claim.

Transparency is not a threat to good producers. It is their advantage.

 

 The case was brought by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of a coalition of nonprofit organizations and organic retailers. Read their announcement of the decision here: centerforfoodsafety.org