This used to be a hot-button issue. MA readers will recall years ago consumers and advocacy groups were pushing hard for mandatory labeling at the state level. The tiny but mighty state of Vermont actually implemented such a policy for a hot second — a move that had food and ag companies thoroughly freaked out. To avoid a regulatory patchwork, Congress intervened in the 11th hour to create a uniform national standard, and attention has since waned considerably. Now, the disclosure rule takes effect with barely a whimper of notice.

A refresher: Food makers covered by USDA’s rule have several disclosure options, including text, a symbol, electronic (like a QR code), and/or a note to receive a text message. Small food companies have the option of instead including a phone number or a website to make it easier to comply.

There’s also an ongoing legal challenge: A few months into the pandemic, the Center for Food Safety and a handful of co-plaintiffs, including some niche grocers, filed a lawsuit against USDA over the rule.

What is bioengineered? The groups have a long list of reasons for suing the department, but the most fundamental is the argument that the rule straight up doesn’t follow the law. One biggie, they argue, is use of the term “bioengineered” while prohibiting other, more familiar monikers like GE and GMO. (Brush up on all of this from The Counter here.)

A truck-sized exemption: There’s also the fact that USDA deemed “highly refined” ingredients exempt from disclosure if they no longer contain detectable modified genetic material (think high fructose corn syrup or soybean oil). That means many processed foods made with ingredients derived from GMO crops aren’t covered.

Supply chain woes be damned: Some leaders in the food industry had asked that USDA push the regulatory deadline back because supply chains are already so strained, but that did not happen.

What’s next? Keep an eye out for more litigation in this space as plaintiffs attorneys and consumer groups start poking around to see if food companies are complying, even with the exemptions in place.

WAS THIS AN EXPENSIVE LOW-STAKES FIGHT? It’s almost hard to recall a time when GMO labeling was a major, mainstream political fight. The food industry, for its part, spent massive amounts of money fighting labeling initiatives at the state level.

The Consumer Brands Association as recently as last year was still fighting in court over an $18 million fine it faced in Washington state for violating campaign finance rules (CBA was still the Grocery Manufacturers Association at the time). This battle also helped fuel the implosion of GMA, as POLITICO chronicled. But what was actually at stake?

Research from Cornell University suggests that in the brief time Vermont had mandatory GMO labeling in place, nothing really changed: “The mandatory GMO label itself did not have any direct effect on demand, which suggests that voluntary non-GMO labels may already provide an efficient disclosure mechanism in the absence of mandatory GMO labels,” the researchers conclude. Read up on that here.