C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER I—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (STANDARDS, INSPECTIONS, MARKETING PRACTICES), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER C—REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT OF 1946 AND THE EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT › PART 66—NATIONAL BIOENGINEERED FOOD DISCLOSURE STANDARD › Subpart B—Bioengineered Food Disclosure

7 C.F.R. § 66.102

Text disclosure

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A text disclosure must bear the text as described in this section. A text disclosure may use a plural form if applicable, e.g. if a food product includes more than one bioengineered food, then “bioengineered foods” or “bioengineered food ingredients” may be used.

(a) Bioengineered foods. If a food (including any ingredient produced from such food) is on the List of Bioengineered Foods, and records maintained by a regulated entity demonstrate that the food is bioengineered, the text disclosure must be one of the following, as applicable:

(1) “Bioengineered food” for bioengineered food that is a raw agricultural commodity or processed food that contains only bioengineered food ingredients; or

(2) “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient” for multi-ingredient food that is not described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section but contains one or more bioengineered food ingredients.

(b) Predominant language in U.S. Food subject to disclosure that is distributed solely in a U.S. territory may be labeled with statements equivalent to those required in this part, using the predominant language used in that territory.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2025 · leading case: Nat. Grocers v. Perdue (N.D. Cal. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat. Grocers v. Perdue (N.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “” 7 C.F.R. §§ 66.102 (a), 66.104(a). Even so, as detailed in the ensuing First 23 and Fifth Amendment discussion, regulated entities are perfectly free to make additional 24 statements about bioengineered foods so long as they are consistent with federal laws generally.”
Nat. Grocers v. Brooke Rollins (9th Cir. 2025). “” 7 C.F.R. § 66.102 (a). Thus, although regulated entities were free to add additional terms (presumably including “genetically engineered” or “GMO”) “so long as such statements are consistent with all other applicable laws and regulations,” 83 Fed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.