USDA Must Update Genetically Modified Food Labeling Requirements: Court – NTD News

Judicial Ruling on Bioengineered Food Labeling and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Overview of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) erred in its implementation of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.
• The court found that the exclusion of foods from labeling requirements, based on the premise that modified genetic material is undetectable after processing, constituted a “flawed legal premise.”
• It was determined that the non-detectability of a substance does not legally equate to its non-presence in the context of the 2016 law passed by Congress.
• The issue has been remanded to the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) for reconsideration and to establish a standard that aligns with the court’s legal interpretation.

Impact on Food System Transparency and Consumer Information

• The ruling is a significant development for consumer rights, reinforcing the public’s access to information about the food they purchase and consume.
• It specifically challenges the regulatory exemption for highly processed products derived from bioengineered sources, such as certain cooking oils and sodas.
• The court also affirmed that the AMS illegally permitted digital codes as a standalone disclosure method, remanding this provision to be vacated, thereby ensuring more direct on-package information for consumers.
• While the term “bioengineered” was upheld as sufficient, the core of the ruling focuses on broadening the scope of what must be disclosed.

Alignment with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • This decision directly supports Target 12.8, which aims to ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles.
   • By mandating more comprehensive labeling, the ruling empowers consumers to make informed choices, fostering a market that values transparency and sustainable production methods.
   • It holds producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, from agricultural origin to the final processed good.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Enhanced labeling enables consumers to manage their dietary intake according to personal health considerations, preferences, and values.
   • Transparency in the food supply chain is a fundamental component of public health infrastructure, allowing for greater consumer autonomy and building trust in food systems.
3. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The ruling intersects with the promotion of sustainable agriculture (Target 2.4).
   • Transparent labeling of bioengineered foods is central to the public discourse on agricultural technologies and their role in creating resilient and sustainable food systems that can ensure food security.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • This case exemplifies the function of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions as outlined in Target 16.6.
   • The judicial oversight ensures that administrative regulations align with legislative intent, reinforcing the rule of law and guaranteeing public access to information as mandated by governing bodies.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the U.S. court ruling regarding GMO labeling connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by focusing on consumer rights, information transparency, institutional accountability, and public health considerations.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  This goal is central to the article’s theme. The entire legal dispute revolves around providing consumers with the necessary information to make informed choices about the food they purchase and consume. The lawsuit, initiated by “Citizens for GMO Labeling,” is a direct effort to ensure transparent production and consumption patterns.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights the functioning of legal and institutional frameworks. It details a lawsuit where citizen groups challenge a government agency’s (U.S. Department of Agriculture/AMS) regulations. The appeals court’s decision to overturn a previous ruling and remand the issue to the agency demonstrates the role of a just and effective judicial system in holding institutions accountable and ensuring laws are implemented as intended by Congress.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  While not the primary focus, this goal is implicitly connected. The push for clear labeling is driven by the public’s desire to “know what they eat and feed their families.” This desire is rooted in making conscious decisions for health and well-being. The mention that many GMOs are “genetically engineered for increased pesticide tolerance” also alludes to potential health concerns associated with pesticide residues, which consumers may wish to avoid.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion of consumer information, legal challenges, and institutional oversight, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

• Target 12.8: Ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles.

  This target is directly addressed. The core issue is the “disclosure of bioengineered, or genetically modified, ingredients in food.” The court ruling supports this target by striking down a USDA rule that excluded certain GMO products from labeling, thereby affirming the public’s “right to know” and enhancing their access to relevant information for consumption choices.

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  The article provides a clear example of this target in action. A government agency, the AMS, created rules that were found to be a “flawed legal premise.” Citizen groups used the legal system to challenge these rules, and the appeals court held the agency accountable, forcing it to reconsider its regulations. This process is a hallmark of an accountable and transparent institutional framework.

• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation.

  This target is reflected in the legal battle over the implementation of the 2016 law requiring GMO disclosure. The lawsuit fought against exceptions that limited public access to information. The court’s rejection of allowing disclosures only in the form of “digital codes on packages” for which it “improperly did not vacate that part of the labeling requirements” further reinforces the principle of ensuring information is easily and directly accessible to the public.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not cite official SDG indicator codes, but it contains information that serves as qualitative indicators for measuring progress towards the identified targets.

• Indicators for Target 12.8 (Relevant Information):

  The primary indicator is the existence and scope of mandatory food labeling regulations. The article discusses the “congressionally required labeling” and the specific requirement for companies to “include the word bioengineered on labeling.” The court’s decision to close the “loophole for ultra-processed GMO foods” where modified genetic material is undetectable serves as a measure of progress toward more comprehensive and transparent consumer information.

• Indicators for Target 16.6 (Accountable Institutions):

  An implied indicator is the ability of civil society to legally challenge government regulations. The article shows this through the lawsuit brought by “Citizens for GMO Labeling and other groups.” The successful outcome, where the “three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the judge in the new decision,” serves as a concrete measure of institutional accountability enforced by an independent judiciary.

• Indicators for Target 16.10 (Public Access to Information):

  The existence and enforcement of a national law requiring information disclosure is a key indicator. The article is centered on the “2016 law” mandating disclosure. Furthermore, the court’s action to “vacate those rules” that allowed companies to use digital codes instead of clear on-package text indicates progress in ensuring that access to information is direct and not hindered by technological barriers for the consumer.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: ntd.com