Approvals can now begin on what are termed “negative claims” on labels for meat, poultry and egg products that do not contain bioengineered ingredients or that are derived from livestock that do not consume bioengineered feed and that contain the terms “genetically modified organism” or “GMO,” according to a notice issued by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
The guidance issued by FSIS, which will also be published in the Federal Register for public comment, has come due to legislation recently enacted requiring USDA to develop and implement a mandatory national bioengineered food disclosure standard within two years. The legislation also addresses “negative” claims, FSIS noted, providing that “a food may not be considered to be ‘not bioengineered’ or ‘non-GMO,’ or any other similar claim describing the absence of bioengineering in the food solely because the food is not required to bear a disclosure that the food is bioengineered under this subtitle.”
Given that legislation, FSIS said it will “allow use of the terms ‘genetically modified organism’ or ‘GMO’ in negative claims provided that the label or labeling is otherwise truthful and not misleading.”
Background on previous policy: Under prior policy, FSIS had not allowed the use of the terms “genetically modified organism” or “GMO” in negative claims. However, the agency has allowed those terms to be used on product labels or labeling “only if the name of the third-party certifying organization contains these terms (e.g. ‘Non-GMO Project’).” The recently enacted legislation on GMO labeling has prompted FSIS to reconsider its position, the agency said.
However, FSIS it will retain the following requirements:
“Because FSIS does not have the ability to independently verify negative claims for ingredients or feed, FSIS has required establishments that make these claims to comply with standards established by a third-party certifying organization. FSIS currently requires that the third-party certifying organization’s standards be publicly available on a web site and the label or labeling disclose the web site address of the third-party certifying organization. FSIS currently requires that the establishment demonstrate that its claims of third-party certification are truthful and not misleading. FSIS will retain these requirements in this guidance.”
What the agency will accept. FSIS noted the following examples negative claims on meat or poultry component raised on feed containing non-genetically modified ingredients are as follows:
“Pasture raised beef fed a vegetarian diet with no bioengineered ingredients,”
“Chicken raised on a diet containing no genetically engineered ingredients,” or
“Derived from beef fed no GMO feed.”
With respect to acceptable claim terminology for multi-ingredient products, examples of such claims FSIS will accept are:
“Contains No GMO ingredients,”
“No genetically modified ingredients,”
“Ingredients used are not bioengineered,” or
“No genetically engineered ingredients through the use of modern biotechnology.”
Further, FSIS noted the negative claims will continue to be approved “only if the third-party certifying organization is identified and the label or labeling discloses a website address where consumers can obtain additional information regarding the claim and the certification process.”
An organic certifying organization accredited by USDA’s Agricultural Marking Service (AMS) National Organic Program (NOP) is one example of a third-party certifying organization. For products that qualify for an “organic” claim under the NOP, establishments are not required to provide FSIS with additional documentation for approval of negative claims.
FSIS is requesting comments on this guidance and said it “may update it in response to comments.” But the agency also stated that the guidance in this notice is their current position and “establishments may make label or labeling changes consistent with this guidance immediately.” Comments on the FSIS guidance are due within 60 days of publishing in the Federal Register.
COMMENTS: This marks some of the first guidance to result from the GMO labeling measure enacted into law. No doubt this will attract scrutiny by those on both sides of this issue and those who support the new law and oppose it. It is interesting the agency is taking the steps even as they note USDA is to a mandatory national bioengineered food disclosure standard within two years.
