- More “GMO labels” may be attached to processed foods in the United States
- Global Food Market
-
You pick up a bottle of cooking oil at the supermarket.
Even if it’s made from ingredients such as corn or soybeans—crops that are widely grown as genetically modified varieties in the U.S.—you may not see any GMO-related labeling on the product.
The reason is that under current U.S. labeling rules, the focus is not on where the ingredients came from, but on whether detectable modified genetic material remains in the final product.
If DNA is no longer detectable after extensive refining, some cooking oils and sweeteners may be excluded from the “Bioengineered” disclosure requirement.
(*Bioengineered: The official term used in U.S. food labeling regulations to refer to foods produced using genetic engineering technology.)
But now, the U.S. is being required to revisit these rules.
In August 2026, a U.S. federal court ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to revise the current Bioengineered Food Disclosure regulations by January 1, 2028.
A new labeling rule has not been introduced yet.
However, this opens the possibility that some processed foods that currently carry no such disclosure could be labeled differently in the future.
Until Now, the Question Wasn’t “Where Did It Come From?” but “Does Anything Remain?”
The U.S. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard has been mandatory since 2022.
Under the current standard, what matters is whether detectable modified genetic material is present in the final food product.
So even if an ingredient originated from genetically modified soybeans, a highly refined product in which no DNA can be detected may be exempt from mandatory disclosure.
Consumer groups have consistently raised concerns about this standard.
Their argument is that what consumers want to know is not so much “Is there any DNA left in the final product?” but rather “Was this product made from genetically modified crops?”
Related litigation has continued, and the latest court decision means the USDA now has to revisit and establish the standard.
That doesn’t mean the labels on U.S. supermarket shelves will change immediately.
The USDA will still need to determine the scope of the new rules, as well as which products and exceptions will be covered.
Information Available Only Through a QR Code May Also Come Under Scrutiny
Another issue raised in this decision is where consumers can access the information.
Under the current U.S. system, certain disclosure methods allow companies to use a digital link that consumers can access with a smartphone instead of printing the relevant information directly on the package.
But if consumers have to scan a QR code to access mandatory information, those who have difficulty using smartphones or accessing the internet may have a harder time getting the same information.
For this reason, the use of digital disclosure methods also became part of the court’s consideration.
It has not yet been decided how the labeling format will change going forward.
Still, one question is becoming increasingly important in food labeling:
Is it really enough to put information consumers need to know when they pick up a product behind a QR code?
QR codes are certainly useful for delivering information on food packages, where space is often limited.
But how far we should distinguish between a convenient tool for providing additional information and labeling information that consumers should be able to see directly may become increasingly important in the future.
If the Changes Are Significant, Processed Foods May Be More Affected Than Produce
If the scope of disclosure expands, the changes may be more noticeable on processed-food shelves than in the produce section.
Corn and soybeans are used not only for cooking oils, but also as ingredients in a wide range of processed foods, including sweeteners, starches, snacks, and sauces.
Ingredients that have so far been excluded from disclosure requirements because of the refining process could potentially be treated differently under a new standard.
That said, it is still too early to conclude that “most food products in the U.S. will carry a GMO-related disclosure starting in 2028.”
The specific products and exceptions covered by the new regulations have not yet been determined.
What we can confirm for now is the court’s decision requiring changes to parts of the current rules, along with the deadline of January 1, 2028.
For food companies, then, rather than trying to predict how many more labels will appear,
it may be more practical to first determine how accurately they can trace the origins of the ingredients used in their products.
When a New Label Appears, New Questions Follow
The issue brands need to think about here goes beyond regulatory compliance.
A product made with the same ingredients and using the same manufacturing process could suddenly carry a new Bioengineered disclosure one day.
The product itself hasn’t changed, but from the consumer’s perspective, new information has appeared.
And that naturally raises questions.
“Did the ingredients change?” “Was a new ingredient added that wasn’t there before?”
If the brand provides no explanation, consumers could mistakenly interpret the new disclosure itself as a sign that something about the product has changed.
Once the new rules are finalized, therefore, companies may need to do more than simply add a symbol to the package.
They may also need to explain through their websites or consumer information pages why the disclosure was added in the first place.
A Bioengineered disclosure is fundamentally different from a warning label indicating that a product poses a health or safety risk.
The labeling system and food safety assessments operate under separate standards.
There’s Time Until 2028, but Packaging Changes Can Be Complicated
Since the new rules have not yet been finalized, there is no need to change packaging for products exported to the U.S. right away.
However, companies can start organizing their ingredient documentation in advance.
This is especially important for ingredients such as cooking oils, sweeteners, and starches, which may be sourced from multiple suppliers. The origin of an ingredient can vary depending on the supplier.
If new disclosure requirements are introduced, companies will also need to reconsider the amount of space available on their packaging.
Whether to create packaging specifically for the U.S. market or maintain a single global package can also affect production and inventory management.
The U.S. Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard has evolved into its current form through several stages: the law was enacted in 2016, regulations were issued in 2018, and mandatory implementation began in 2022.
Now, following the latest court decision, the system is entering another stage of revision.
This change doesn’t necessarily need to be viewed simply as a story about “more GMO labels appearing on food products.”
More broadly, it signals a movement within the U.S. food-labeling system toward giving consumers more direct information not only about what remains in the final product,
but also where those ingredients originated.
For food brands, rather than waiting until the new disclosure requirements are finalized and then scrambling to redesign their packaging,
the more important first step is to assess how accurately they can explain the origins of their ingredients and the information throughout their supply chain.
🧡 Three-Line Summary
1. A U.S. federal court has ordered the USDA to revise the current Bioengineered Food Disclosure regulations by January 1, 2028.
2. Some highly processed foods that may currently be exempt from disclosure, as well as QR code–based methods of providing information, could be subject to changes in the future.
3. The final rules have not yet been determined, but food companies preparing for the U.S. market should start organizing ingredient-origin and supply chain data in advance.
📌 Sources
Federal Court Sides with the Public's Right to Know in GMO/Bioengineered Food Labeling Case
Court orders USDA to rewrite GMO labeling by 2028
BE Frequently Asked Questions – General
Court issues decision on USDA
← Back to list