FDA Eyes Natural Claims and Bioengineered Disclosure Rules as Trademark Battles Intensify

04 November 2026

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) ongoing deliberations over the definition of "natural" in food labeling are converging with the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) evolving framework for bioengineered food disclosures. As these regulators grapple with the scope and limits of consumer transparency, the intersection of labeling disputes, trademark protection, and product branding is intensifying.

The FDA's Longstanding but Informal "Natural" Policy

The FDA's current guidance on "natural" food labeling, implemented as an informal policy in 1991, holds that the term means that "nothing artificial or synthetic has been included in or added to a food that would not normally be expected to be there." However, the policy does not expressly address food processing methods, leaving room for competing interpretations and potential trademark challenges. The FDA's latest guidelines describe this policy as "not an exhaustive or enforceable definition," and note that it has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition of "natural."

This lack of a clear, consistent definition has led to ongoing disputes and legal challenges over the use of the "natural" label. Competitors have increasingly challenged each other's use of the term, and litigation has ensued over how "natural" can be applied to products that have undergone genetic engineering or that use ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms.

USDA's Bioengineered Disclosure System Remains in Flux

While the FDA has struggled to establish clear guidelines for "natural," the USDA's bioengineered food disclosure system, established through the 2018 Biotechnology Regulation Rule and the 2016 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, is also facing legal scrutiny and uncertainty about its future shape.

In a unanimous decision on October 31, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered a significant ruling in the case of Natural Grocers v. Perdue. The court held that the USDA erred in excluding genetically modified food and ingredients that are rendered undetectable by processing from its definition of "bioengineered." The Ninth Circuit vacated the provision of the BIOT Rule that allows consumers to access disclosures electronically, which the court ruled would exclude many grocery shoppers.

The ruling also reaffirmed the USDA's authority to set a threshold percentage for genetically modified material that would trigger a "bioengineered" disclosure, though the USDA must now consider how to address undetectable GM ingredients. The court upheld the USDA's decision to use the term "bioengineered," rather than more familiar terms like "GMO."

In response to the decision, the USDA's 2023 Unified Agenda sets an August 2024 target date for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on revising the biotechnological food disclosure regulations.

More on this is available via 1Gambling.

Tentative timelines, including a possible January 1, 2025 vacatur of the detectability provision and a phase-out of electronic/digital disclosures by January 2026, have been discussed with the Ninth Circuit and parties to the decision.

Trademark Disputes Linked to Disclosure Confusion

As these regulatory challenges take shape, the practical consequences for food makers are intensifying. These include the potential for increased trademark battles over brand names and logos that have been associated with the "natural" label, even as the definition remains unclear. The legal status of "non-GMO" claims, which feature prominently on marketing materials, is also under review as USDA reshapes the bioengineered disclosure model.

Food makers and consumer advocacy groups are expected to challenge any new rule proposed by the USDA, as they have done with previous attempts to shape food labeling. One key issue is balancing the labeling needs of small independent brands, who may lack resources to invest in full disclosure systems, with the requirements of larger firms. The link between food labels and product composition is also tightening, as the focus shifts from a single ingredient to the full product supply chain.

In the short term, food companies may favor increased private label regulation as a way to reduce the risk of trademark litigation and to restore consumer confidence in promoting genetically modified and conventional foods.

Ultimately, food makers will be watching closely for the result of USDA's upcoming rulemaking process, which could take years, and should not be surprised if the Biden administration seeks to assert its own perspective on the public interest in more transparent food labels.