Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

US Congress mandates silliness, USDA complies

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 497–498 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

The debate over whether to label foods that have been ‘genetically modified’ or ‘bioengineered’ has raged for decades, despite the longstanding consensus in the scientific community that mandatory labeling fails every test2—scientific, economic, legal and common-sense.

In July 2016, to preempt state-by-state initiatives that threatened to create a patchwork of labeling requirements that could prove vexing and expensive for food producers, the US Congress enacted, and President Obama signed, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NFDS)3. Congress could simply have preempted the ability of states to create their own labeling requirements, but instead it went a bridge too far, creating a federal mandate to label “bioengineered” food and delegating to the USDA responsibility for fleshing out the regulation. This regulation was published4 on 21 December 2018.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Anonymous Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 1169 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Miller, H. & Stier, J. Viewpoint: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods deserves a warning label of its own. Genetic Literacy Project https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/09/viewpoint-mandatory-labeling-of-genetically-engineered-foods-deserves-a-warning-label-of-its-own/ (2013).

  3. Public Law 114-216, 114th Congress. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ216/html/PLAW-114publ216.htm (2016).

  4. Agricultural Marketing Service. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. Federal Register https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard (2018).

  5. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. International Dairy Foods Association MIF v. Amestoy https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1210635.html (1996).

  6. Supreme Court of the United States. Reed et al v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf (2015).

  7. Liptak, A. Court’s free-speech expansion has far-reaching consequences. The New York Times A15 (17 August 2015).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Henry I. Miller

  2. University of Oklahoma College of Law, Norman, OK, USA

    Drew L. Kershen

Authors
  1. Henry I. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Drew L. Kershen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry I. Miller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

H.I.M. was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. He is at the Pacific Research Institute, which promotes policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative and limited government. H.I.M. and D.L.K. have advocated regulatory policies favorable to biotechnology companies, including those that use recombinant DNA technology for agricultural applications.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, H.I., Kershen, D.L. US Congress mandates silliness, USDA complies. Nat Biotechnol 37, 497–498 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0117-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0117-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research