On November 5, Claudia Lewis interviewed with SupplySide Food & Beverage Journal for the article, “Breaking Bite: Ninth Circuit ruling could force ‘bioengineered’ labels onto processed foods.” The following is an excerpt:
In summary, the ruling reaffirmed USDA’s authority to set detectability thresholds and use the term “bioengineered,” but the Ninth Circuit nevertheless will require AMS to re-examine its digital disclosure demands and the exclusion of processed foods from its “bioengineered” labeling requirements.
Why it matters
Claudia Lewis, co-lead of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) group at Venable LLP, explained precisely how Natural Grocers v. Rollins could affect food and beverage brands.
“This ruling means that some highly refined or processed foods could become subject to the ‘bioengineered’ disclosure requirements,” she said. “Notably, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that AMS’s ‘only option is to require disclosure with respect to all highly processed foods made from bioengineered ingredients, without regard to any measure of detectability.’ Thus, it is still possible we may see AMS once again adopt some form of a detectability standard.”
So, industry is once again left waiting for clear guidance as AMS deliberates — not only on what qualifies as a bioengineered food but also on how to label it. Lewis added that this case could lead to new hurdles for brands.
“This decision has significant implications for traceability and labeling integrity,” she explained. “It may require companies to maintain more substantial documentation of ingredients and sourcing to substantiate non-GMO or nonbioengineered claims.”
Depending on how these regulations are revised, suppliers may need to reassess their documentation processes, as more manufacturers could suddenly need to add “bioengineered” to their labels.
For the full article, click here.