Natural Grocers Wins GMO Labeling Appeal; Supplement Industry Under Pressure
This article first appeared in the February 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
In January 2026, the regulatory framework governing the natural products industry encountered significant developments affecting how food and dietary supplements are labeled and regulated. Through a combination of judicial rulings, agency guidance, and legislative proposals, the requirements for transparency and product disclosure are shifting, presenting new compliance considerations for manufacturers and retailers alike.
For CPG brands, ingredient suppliers, and compliance officers, these updates signal a continued move toward explicit, on-package disclosure. Recent events indicate that both the courts and legislators are increasingly prioritizing clear, accessible information for consumers, challenging previous standards that allowed for digital or abbreviated disclosures.
This report outlines two primary developments from the start of the year: the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Natural Grocers regarding Bioengineered (BE) disclosures, and a dual-front regulatory discussion involving the FDA and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) regarding the dietary supplement sector.
Federal Appeals Court Sides with Natural Grocers in GMO Ruling
In a decision delivered on Jan. 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a coalition of plaintiffs led by the Lakewood, CO-based retailer Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage (NYSE: NGVC) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The court’s decision effectively strikes down key portions of the USDA’s Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, addressing industry arguments that the previous rules contained exemptions that limited consumer access to information.
The "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard" (NBFDS) has been a subject of debate since its inception. Critics, including the plaintiffs, argued that the USDA’s implementation allowed manufacturers to obscure the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the use of digital links and unfamiliar terminology.
According to a Natural Grocers press release, the court’s ruling necessitates a significant revision of USDA rules. The outcome aligns with a long-standing position of Natural Grocers, the nation’s largest family-operated organic and natural grocery retailer, which has prohibited most GMO ingredients in its stores since 2012 and advocated for clearer labeling standards.
The court’s decision focused on three specific areas where the USDA’s previous rules were found to be insufficient or unlawful. Food and beverage manufacturers must now prepare for a regulatory environment that will likely require strategic adjustments in the next rulemaking cycle.
The "Bioengineered" Terminology Battle
First among the court's findings was the rejection of the USDA’s mandate that strictly required the use of the term "bioengineered." Plaintiffs successfully argued that this term is unfamiliar to the average shopper and infringed on free speech rights by prohibiting the use of terms consumers actually understand.
Under the overturned rules, a manufacturer was forced to use "bioengineered" even if their customer base was far more familiar with "GMO" or "Genetically Engineered." According to the Non-GMO Project, recent market research indicates that while 63% of consumers recognize the term "GMO," only 36% are familiar with "bioengineering." By mandating the lesser-known term, the USDA was seen as complicating disclosure. The ruling now paves the way for retailers and brands to use terms that resonate more clearly with their customers, potentially returning the familiar "GMO" acronym to federal disclosures.
Closing the Digital Divide: The End of QR Code Exclusivity
Operationally, a significant aspect of the ruling is the rejection of standalone QR codes as a sufficient means of disclosure. The USDA had previously allowed companies to forgo on-package text disclosures entirely in favor of a scannable code. Natural Grocers and the Center for Food Safety argued that this practice excluded consumers without smartphones, reliable internet access, or technical literacy—demographics that often include the elderly and rural populations.
The court agreed, ruling that companies cannot rely solely on digital disclosures. This decision impacts the "scan to learn more" approach that some large CPG companies had adopted. Brands that utilized digital links to manage label space must now redesign packaging to include clear, on-pack text or symbols accessible to the naked eye.
Highly Processed Ingredients: No More Hiding
Finally, the court found the USDA was incorrect in exempting highly processed foods—such as sugar from sugar beets or oil from canola—simply because the genetic material might not be detectable in the final refined product.
This "highly refined" exemption had been a major point of contention. Natural Grocers argued that even if the DNA is denatured or removed during processing, the ingredient still originates from a bioengineered crop system. The environmental and agricultural impacts remain, regardless of the final chemical structure of the sugar or oil.
"The court’s rejection of the ‘highly refined’ exemption reinforces an important principle: how food is made matters," noted Charlene Guzman, Communications Director of the Non-GMO Project, in a statement to Nosh. Brands that have relied on this exemption should expect closer scrutiny as the USDA revises its rules, particularly for ubiquitous ingredients like oils, sugars, and starches derived from GMO crops.
Heather Isely, Executive Vice President of Natural Grocers, stated that the decision reflects congressional intent. "Congress never intended to require the use of specific terms, the sole use of QR codes, or the exclusion of ingredients made from highly processed GMO crops," she said. "We are pleased the court recognized the shortcomings of the final rule and mandated corrections. Natural Grocers will remain actively engaged in the GMO regulatory process."
George Kimbrell, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety, added that the ruling ensures consumers will eventually see "clear and accurate GMO label information."
The legal victory is consistent with Natural Grocers' long history of rigorous product standards. Founded in 1955 and with 168 stores across 21 states, the company has utilized a dynamic list—"Things We Won't Carry and Why"—to screen products. As stated in WholeFoods Magazine, if a company cannot verify non-GMO status, Natural Grocers will not stock the item.
The Supplement Industry’s Regulatory Tug-of-War
While the food industry assesses the implications of the GMO ruling, the dietary supplement sector is navigating a complex regulatory landscape. On one hand, the FDA is signaling potential flexibility regarding labeling requirements. On the other, Senator Dick Durbin has reintroduced legislation that could impose new registration requirements.
In a letter to the industry issued on Dec. 11, 2025, the FDA announced it is considering amendments to 21 C.F.R. § 101.93(d). This regulation currently governs the placement of the disclaimer required for structure/function claims under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).
Under current rules, supplements making claims such as "Supports heart health" must carry the standard disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Regulations have historically required this disclaimer to appear on every single panel where a claim is made. For small bottles, this often leads to "label clutter," where the same disclaimer is repeated multiple times.
According to the National Law Review, the FDA is looking to remove the "each panel" requirement. Kyle Diamantas, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, noted in the letter that revising this regulation would "reduce label clutter and unnecessary costs," aligning with the agency's historical enforcement posture.
Effective immediately, the FDA is exercising "enforcement discretion." The agency will not prioritize penalizing companies that do not repeat the disclaimer on every panel, provided the disclaimer appears at least once and is properly linked to the claims. However, companies should proceed with caution; this is a relaxation of placement frequency, not a removal of the disclaimer itself.
Not all experts view this relaxation as positive. Pieter Cohen, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School expressed concern to Nutraceutical Business Review, warning that reducing disclaimer visibility could mislead consumers. "Then you start saying things such as, ‘We only need it on the actual bottle.’ Then you let the print get smaller," Cohen noted, highlighting the tension between industry simplification and consumer protection.
Durbin Reintroduces the Dietary Supplement Listing Act
While the FDA offers potential labeling flexibility, Congress is considering increased oversight. On Jan. 17, 2026, Senator Dick Durbin reintroduced the Dietary Supplement Listing Act, aimed at modernizing FDA oversight through Mandatory Product Listing (MPL).
The core of the bill would require manufacturers to register products with the FDA, providing product names, ingredient lists, electronic copies of labels, allergen statements, and structure/function claims. This data would populate a public database accessible to consumers.
Senator Durbin’s argument is rooted in the growth of the sector. When DSHEA passed in 1994, there were approximately 4,000 supplements on the market. Today, the FDA estimates there are over 100,000. Durbin argues that the FDA cannot effectively regulate a market it cannot track. "FDA—and consumers—should know what dietary supplements are on the market and what ingredients are included in them. This is FDA’s most basic function," Durbin stated.
As reported by RiverBender, the bill has garnered endorsements from the American Medical Association, US Pharmacopeia, and Consumer Reports. However, the industry itself remains divided, illustrating a strategic difference between its two major trade associations.
A House Divided: CRN vs. NPA
The reintroduction of the Listing Act has reignited a debate between the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and the Natural Products Association (NPA).
The CRN supports the legislation, viewing transparency as a path to legitimacy and consumer trust. Steve Mister, President and CEO of CRN, stated, "In an era when the Administration has rightly called for more transparency about what we eat and how food is made, it makes sense to apply that same transparency to dietary supplements." The CRN views the registry as a tool to distinguish legitimate, responsible brands from "fly-by-night" actors selling tainted products, arguing that a federal registry is "a transparency tool—not a barrier to innovation."
Conversely, the NPA opposes the bill. Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., President and CEO of NPA, characterizes it as unnecessary bureaucracy that burdens lawful companies while failing to stop bad actors. Fabricant argues that DSHEA already gives the FDA ample authority; the agency simply fails to use it.
As detailed in Nutrition Insight, NPA fears that the FDA could use the list to arbitrarily challenge ingredients, citing the recent (and reversed) attempt to ban NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide) as an example of regulatory overreach. "This proposal will hand bureaucrats new leverage over lawful products, cool innovation, and punish companies investing in new science," Fabricant warned.
Conclusion: The Transparency Mandate
As the year progresses, the common thread connecting the Natural Grocers victory and the Durbin bill is transparency. In the food aisle, the courts have ruled that accessibility is key—labels must be readable without a smartphone and use terms the public understands. In the supplement aisle, the debate continues over whether transparency requires a federal database of every product on the market.
For business leaders, the takeaway is operational agility. Packaging workflows must be adaptable, supply chain documentation must be robust, and regulatory monitoring must be constant. The "clean label" trend is extending beyond ingredients to include the regulatory integrity of the package itself.
Natural Grocers has signaled it will remain active, with executive Heather Isely stating, "Natural Grocers will remain actively engaged in the GMO regulatory process." Brands wishing to remain on the shelves of such high-standard retailers must ensure their transparency efforts meet these rising expectations.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.
Non-UPF Verified Sets a New Standard for Ultra-Processed Foods
This article first appeared in the December 2025 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
In mid-November, an international team of 43 scientists released a landmark series of papers in The Lancet concluding that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) now pose a “clear global threat” to public health. Drawing on more than 100 long-term studies, Reuters reported that the series links higher UPF intake to increased risk of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, depression, and all-cause mortality.
Coverage in outlets from The Guardian and ABC News to NPR underscores the gravity of the findings. One analysis noted that UPFs are associated with harm to every major organ system in the body, and that these products are rapidly displacing fresh and minimally processed foods worldwide. University of North Carolina nutrition researcher and Lancet series coauthor Barry Popkin told NPR, “We can say now that truly ultra-processed food represents a clear global threat to our health—not only our physical health but also mental health in terms of its impacts on depression.”
At the same time, a growing body of consumer and market research points to a widening trust gap. Many shoppers want to avoid UPFs but say they can’t easily tell what qualifies. A recent New York Times Well column explored why ultra-processed products are so hard to resist and so ubiquitous in modern diets, and highlighted the way industrial formulations can override normal satiety signals and blur the line between “food” and “edible product.”
Against this backdrop, the Non-GMO Project’s new Non-UPF Verified Standard lands at a pivotal moment for CPG brands, retailers, and the entire natural and organic products ecosystem.
From GMOs to UPFs: The Non-GMO Project widens its lens
On Nov. 12, the Non-GMO Project formally announced Version 1.0 of its Non-UPF Verified Standard, described as “the nation’s first comprehensive framework” for defining and verifying foods that are not ultra-processed, and called it the “first Non-UPF Verified standard to address the ultra-processed foods crisis.”
The new certification builds on the Non-GMO Project’s 18-year record of third-party verification and its iconic butterfly seal, now found on more than 63,000 products that represent an estimated $50 billion in annual sales.
“Around the world, more people are waking up to the realization that much of what fills our grocery carts is no longer truly food,” said Megan Westgate, founder and CEO of the Non-GMO Project and Non-UPF Verified, at a recent webinar unveiling the new standard. “Doctors and researchers increasingly describe these products as ‘processed edible substances’—industrial formulations engineered for palatability and shelf life rather than nutrition.”
Westgate is careful to say this is not an attack on processing per se. As she told Food Business News: “Processing itself isn’t the enemy. It’s how and why it’s done that matters. The Non-UPF Standard defines a middle ground where convenience and nourishment can genuinely coexist.”
In practice, that “middle ground” is defined by a rigorous ingredient and processing criteria, which are detailed in the Non-UPF Verified Standard v1.0.
Why ultra-processed foods are under fire
The Lancet series and surrounding news coverage sharpen a distinction many in the natural channel have understood for decades: It’s not just what’s in food, but also how it’s made.
The Guardian’s coverage of the Lancet research noted that more than half of the average diet in the U.S. and U.K. now consists of UPFs, with some low-income and younger populations getting up to 80% of their calories from these products. Citing CDC data, ABC News reported that Americans on average consume over half of their daily calories from UPFs.
The Lancet authors point to several mechanisms by which UPFs drive harm:
Disrupted food structure and “hyper-palatability” that encourage overeating and rapid absorption of refined starches and sugars.
High levels of added sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats.
Widespread use of cosmetic additives and ultra-refined ingredients, some of which may alter gut microbiota or expose consumers to contaminants such as phthalates.
Aggressive marketing and product design that exploit biological reward pathways, particularly in children (MAHA Commission).
In the NPR report, Lancet series coauthor Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition and food studies at NYU and author of “Food Politics,” drew a direct line between the science and the need for policy and marketplace action. She noted that some countries, including Chile, have already shown that warning labels, marketing restrictions, and school food reforms can curb UPF intake. “It’s time to take on the industry,” Nestle said. “They’ve got to stop.”
The Lancet series and recent media reporting all make the point: Ultra-processed foods are not just one more dietary risk factor. They are a structural driver of global chronic disease—and the food system will not change without clear definitions, strong incentives, and credible labels.
‘Disconnected’: What consumers are telling us
In October, the Non-GMO Project released a consumer research report titled “Disconnected,” which summarized the attitudes of U.S. shoppers toward UPFs and the modern food system. Some of the topline numbers from “Disconnected” and related research are striking:
A 2024 Non-GMO Project survey found that 85% of Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but most say they feel overwhelmed and unsupported in trying to do so.
Internal research from the Non-GMO Project’s Food Integrity Collective showed that 68% of shoppers actively try to avoid UPFs, and 70% say they need clearer labeling or third-party verification.
New Hope Network reported that 72% of Americans say they are trying to avoid ultra-processed foods, signaling a powerful demand across mainstream and natural retail.
“Disconnected” emphasized that consumers feel the food system is “out of their hands” — dominated by large corporations using engineered ingredients that are disconnected from natural food sources.
In other words, shoppers are ahead of policy. They are already looking for ways to opt out of UPFs, but they lack tools they can trust. That, more than anything, is the market gap the Non-UPF Verified Standard aims to fill.
The architecture of the Non-UPF Verified Standard
The Non-UPF Verified Standard approaches ultra-processing through two essential frameworks: ingredient integrity and formulation, and processing limits.
1. Ingredient integrity and formulation
The standard targets ingredients that are either emblematic of ultra-processed formulations or under scientific scrutiny for metabolic, neurological, or gut impacts. Collectively, these criteria are designed to protect what the standard calls structural integrity, nourishment, and transparency, steering innovation away from “cosmetic” ingredients and toward minimally processed building blocks:
Non-nutritive and bio-transformed sweeteners (such as aspartame, sucralose, stevia extracts, erythritol, and other sugar alcohols) are prohibited as sugar substitutes. Minimally processed stevia leaf preparations may be allowed only at flavor-level use, not as a core sweetener.
Added sugars are capped by category, typically ranging from low single-digit percentages (by dry weight) for soups, sauces, snack foods, and proteins, to stricter limits for beverages and breakfast foods, and up to roughly 20% for desserts and 40% for some confectionery categories.
Gums, thickeners, hydrocolloids, and texturizers produced via industrial degradation or fermentation—such as carrageenan, microcrystalline cellulose, polysorbates, polydextrose, xanthan gum, and maltodextrin— are largely prohibited.
Artificial colors and certain processed oils are excluded.
Natural flavors are confined to use cases where the corresponding “real” ingredient is present and may not be used to mask the absence of whole foods.
2. Processing limits and food structure
Not all processing is equal. The Non-UPF Verified Standard distinguishes among permissible, conditional, and prohibited methods and requires that:
At least 70% of a product’s weight (or dry weight, for certain categories) must be minimally or moderately processed using permissible methods that preserve the food matrix.
Up to 30% may be “conditionally processed”—for example, certain protein isolates or powders—if they meet specific criteria.
High-impact chemical, structural, thermal, or biological modifications are not allowed, including synthetic biology and 3D-printed ingredients.
The intent is to address the very features UPF critics highlight: extensive fractionation and recombination of ingredients, aggressive “engineering” of texture and flavor, and techniques that break down food structure to the point where the body no longer recognizes the substance as food.
As the standard notes, UPF is as much about the degree and purpose of processing as about individual ingredients. The Non-UPF framework is one of the first to operationalize that insight in a way that is auditable at the product level.
The full standard is publicly posted at NonUltraProcessed.org. The Project has signaled that it will update its prohibited ingredient list annually based on emerging science and pilot feedback.
Pilot brands, early adopters and the reformulation challenge
If Non-UPF Verified is to matter, it has to show up on shelves. The early signs are promising.
A pilot cohort of 16 brands—including both mission-driven emerging companies and established names—has been working with the Non-GMO Project and independent technical administrators to test the Non-UPF verification model across nearly every aisle. In addition, New Hope Network reported that 200 brands are already on the wait list, and that the Non-UPF Verified seal is expected to begin appearing on packages in 2026.
In Douglas Brown’s New Hope Network feature, “Non-UPF Verified: Must-Knows for Natural Brands,” Westgate characterized the program as “a movement, not just a mark,” and noted that reformulation will be essential in categories dependent on gums, stabilizers, and added sugars. “We have some cleaning up to do in this industry,” she said. “Reformulations are needed. We need less sugars and gums. It’s going to be a process. But it does seem like brands are really paying attention.”
For many natural and organic manufacturers, the reformulation challenge may feel familiar. Non-GMO and organic standards forced reevaluation of supply chains and ingredient decks; Non-UPF now pushes deeper into how those ingredients are combined and processed.
For mission-driven brands backed by retailers that cater to ingredient-savvy shoppers, the upside could be substantial:
Differentiation in crowded categories such as ready-to-eat meals, plant-based meats, beverages, and snacks, where formulations can drift toward UPF territory even in “natural” sets.
Alignment with policy trends, as HHS, USDA, and FDA explore definitions and potential regulatory approaches to UPFs.
Deeper consumer trust, particularly among shoppers who already use Non-GMO Project and organic seals as navigational tools in the aisle.
For contract manufacturers and ingredient suppliers, however, this is more than a marketing play—it’s a roadmap for where formulation business is likely headed.
Industry response: Caution, criticism, and opportunity
The Non-UPF standard does not exist in a vacuum. Trade groups and conventional food manufacturers are watching closely and some are pushing back.
Food Business News noted that while states such as California have begun to legislate around certain additives and ultra-processed foods, groups like the Grain Foods Foundation argue that some UPFs can fit into healthy dietary patterns, especially when fortified or reformulated.
More broadly, many industry stakeholders have urged federal agencies to avoid definitions that hinge on processing intensity, arguing that frameworks like the NOVA classification system paint with too broad a brush and risk demonizing shelf-stable, affordable foods.
Westgate and her team acknowledge these debates. In FoodNavigator-USA’s report on the standard, she described the NOVA system as foundational but “not built to solve at the product level,” and emphasized that Non-UPF Verified is designed to be auditable, enforceable, and feasible within current food system realities.
At the same time, the Lancet series and global media coverage are shifting the terms of the debate. ABC News quoted experts who warn that global UPF proliferation is a major public health threat and that voluntary, incremental steps are unlikely to be enough.
In that context, voluntary third-party standards such as Non-UPF Verified may serve a dual role as a pre-regulatory signal to policymakers that industry is capable of responding to the science, and as a competitive differentiator for brands and retailers.
What it means for natural & organic CPG leadership
For marketers in the natural and organic products community, the Non-UPF Verified Standard is not just another badge on the front of the pack. It is a concrete response to three converging forces:
Escalating science: The Lancet series, joined by years of epidemiology, clinical research, and meta-analyses, makes a compelling case that UPFs are a unique risk category and that their impact is global.
Consumer anxiety and demand for coherence: Shoppers are hungry for standards that make sense of conflicting information and give them real agency.
Regulatory and reputational risk: As HHS and USDA gather input on UPF definitions, and as advocacy groups press for action, companies that stay tethered to hyper-processed formulations may find themselves on the wrong side of both policy and public opinion.
For natural and organic brands—many of which built their identity on getting ahead of GMO, pesticide, and synthetic additive concerns—Non-UPF Verified is an invitation to lead again. That leadership could take several forms:
Portfolio mapping: Assess where current SKUs fall on the processing spectrum, and identify quick wins for reformulation versus long-term R&D projects.
Supplier engagement: Challenge ingredient partners to develop minimally processed alternatives to emulsifiers, texturizers, and refined oils that violate the Non-UPF criteria.
Retailer collaboration: Work with retailers to pilot Non-UPF assortments, shelf tags, and consumer education in key categories.
Storytelling and transparency: Use packaging, digital channels, PR, and in-store activations to explain how Non-UPF Verified complements existing organic, non-GMO, regenerative and other claims.
A call to action
The publication of the Non-UPF Verified Standard is not the final word on ultra-processed foods; however, it is the opening of a new chapter. Science will continue to evolve. Policymakers will debate definitions and regulatory levers. Industry groups will push back, negotiate, and in some cases innovate.
But the direction is clear. When The Lancet, The New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, ABC News, and the natural products trade press all make the same point—that ultra-processed foods are undermining global health and consumer trust—the question for our industry is not whether to respond, but how quickly.
For brands that built their business on “better for you,” Non-UPF Verified offers a unique opportunity to help redefine what “better” means at the level of processing itself, and to align product portfolios with a future in which real food—and the integrity of how it’s made—once again takes center stage.
For more information on the standard, please refer to the full Non-UPF Verified Standard v1.0, the Non-GMO Project’s launch announcement, and the Disconnected research report, available via the Non-UPF team’s Google Drive link.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.