Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 95
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEREDITH STEVENSON (CA Bar No. 328712)
`GEORGE KIMBRELL (Pro Hac Vice pending)
`AMY VAN SAUN (Pro Hac Vice pending)
`Center for Food Safety
`2009 NE Alberta St., Suite 207
`Portland, OR 97211
`Ph: (971) 271-7372
`Emails: meredith@centerforfoodsafety.org
` gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org
`avansaun@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`NATURAL GROCERS, CITIZENS
`FOR GMO LABELING, LABEL
`GMOS, RURAL VERMONT, GOOD
`EARTH NATURAL FOODS, PUGET
`CONSUMERS CO-OP, AND CENTER
`FOR FOOD SAFETY
`
`
`Case No. 20-5151
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SONNY PERDUE, Secretary of the
`United States Department of
`Agriculture; BRUCE SUMMERS,
`Administrator of the Agricultural
`Marketing Service; and the UNITED
`STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`AGRICULTURE,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 95
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF ACTION ................................................................ 1
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE .............................................................................................. 3
`
`THE PARTIES ........................................................................................................................... 4
`
`LEGAL AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................. 10
`
`GENERAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 13
`
`CLAIMS ..................................................................................................................................... 18
`
`I.
`
`Claim 1: Electronic or Digital Disclosures ................................................. 18
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ................................................................................................. 39
`
`II.
`
`Claim 2: USDA’s Exclusion of Common, Similar Terms ........................ 42
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ............................................................................................ 61
`
`III. Claim 3: Exclusion of “Highly Refined” Bioengineered
`Foods ................................................................................................................... 63
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ................................................................................................ 77
`
`IV. Claim 4: First Amendment Freedom of Speech ........................................ 80
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ............................................................................................ 88
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................................................... 91
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 95
`
`Plaintiffs Natural Grocers, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Label GMOs, Rural
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vermont, Good Earth Natural Foods, Puget Consumers Co-op, and Center for Food
`
`Safety, on behalf of themselves and their members allege as follows:
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This case is about ensuring meaningful food product labeling, the
`
`public’s right to know how their food is produced, and producers’ and retailers’
`
`rights to provide it to them. Throughout U.S. history, government mandated food
`
`and ingredient information has always been the same: on packages and in language
`
`consumers could understand. This rulemaking is a significant departure from that
`
`standard.
`
`2.
`
`Genetically engineered (GE) organisms have been a controversial topic
`
`in the public arena since their introduction into the food supply nearly three
`
`decades ago. Advocates, including plaintiffs, sought their labeling, like the labeling
`
`mandated by 64 other countries around the world. After several states passed
`
`labeling laws, Congress finally passed the Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act
`
`(Disclosure Act) in 2016.
`
`3.
`
`The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), charged with writing the
`
`implementing rules, finished them in 2019. Unfortunately, in its final decision the
`
`agency fell far short of fulfilling the promise of meaningful labeling of GE foods. In
`
`fact in many ways the result is in the direct or de facto concealment of these foods
`
`and avoidance their labeling.
`
`4.
`
`There are four claims in this action. First is the issue of how the
`
`disclosure is provided under the final rule: electronic or digital forms of labeling,
`
`also known as “QR code” or “smartphone” labeling. Congress included this potential
`
`form of disclosure in the new law, but, recognizing its untested nature, made USDA
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 95
`
`
`
`
`undertake a study of its potential efficacy to eventually use it alone as a means of
`
`labeling. The study showed undeniably what opponents told the agency: (a) it was
`
`not realistic to have customers in a grocery store use their phone to scan barcodes
`
`for dozens of products, and (b) this form of disclosure would discriminate against
`
`major portions of the population—the poor, elderly, rural, and minorities—with
`
`lower percentages of smartphone ownership, digital expertise, or ability to afford
`
`data, or who live in areas in which grocery stores do not have internet bandwidth.
`
`Defendants’ decision nonetheless to greenlight QR codes without other forms of
`
`labeling on products was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law, in violation
`
`of the Disclosure Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
`
`5.
`
`Second is the issue of what terminology is permitted. For 25 years, all
`
`aspects of the public dialog around GE foods—scientific, policy, market, legislative,
`
`consumer—have used either “genetically engineered” (GE) or “genetically modified”
`
`(GMO) to refer to genetically engineered foods.1 Those are terms that all federal
`
`agencies, including USDA during this very rulemaking, used. They are what the
`
`public knows, understands, and expects, and what is currently used in the
`
`marketplace by producers. They are what other countries and U.S. trade partners
`
`use internationally. And, Congress used the new term “bioengineered” in the Act, at
`
`the same time, it instructed USDA to also include “any similar term” in its new
`
`standard. Despite that instruction and the overwhelming support from stakeholders
`
`to allow continued use of the far more well-known “GE”/ “GMO” terms, in its final
`
`rule USDA instead excluded “GE” and “GMO,” prohibiting them from use in the on-
`
`package text or symbol labeling, only allowing use of the term bioengineered. That
`
`decision was arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the Act’s plain language and the
`
`
`1 For clarity sake, we will use the term “GE” in this complaint to refer to genetically
`engineered foods.
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 5 of 95
`
`
`
`
`APA and failed to fulfill the Act’s fundamental purpose of informing consumers. It is
`
`antithetical to the Act’s purpose because it will confuse and mislead consumers.
`
`6.
`
`Third is the issue of what foods are covered (or not covered) under the
`
`scope. The vast majority of GE foods are not whole foods but rather highly processed
`
`foods with GE ingredients like sodas and oils, which by some estimates account for
`
`over 70% of all GE foods. The Act provided broad scope to USDA to cover all GE
`
`foods, and the legislative history shows that USDA and Congress made assurances
`
`that the majority of GE foods—those highly refined GE foods—would be covered.
`
`Yet in the final rulemaking, USDA decided to exclude highly refined GE foods,
`
`creating a new extra-statutory limitation. That decision was contrary to the Act and
`
`the APA, and again failed to fulfill the Act’s core purpose of informing consumers.
`
`7.
`
`Fourth is the right of improving on the limited and flawed disclosure
`
`the rules provide, particularly important given all the problems explained above.
`
`Manufacturers and retailers have a fundamental 1st Amendment Right to provide
`
`truthful commercial information to consumers, and consumers have a right to
`
`receive it. In this context, manufacturers and retailers have the right to label foods
`
`as produced through genetic engineering or as genetically engineered. Yet the final
`
`rule attempts to restrict that right in multiple ways, providing only limited and
`
`restricted voluntary labeling beyond its narrow scope. Those speech chilling
`
`restrictions violate the statute’s text and purposes as well as the 1st Amendment’s
`
`guarantees.
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United
`
`States, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Jurisdiction is conferred
`
`on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, & 1346.
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 6 of 95
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs have a right to bring this action pursuant to the APA, 5
`
`U.S.C. § 702.
`
`10. This Court has authority to grant declaratory and equitable relief
`
`herein requested pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (setting aside agency action that is
`
`arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
`
`law) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202, and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`11. An actual controversy exists between the parties within the meaning of
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgments).
`
`12. Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`13. Plaintiff Center for Food Safety (CFS) brings this action on behalf of
`
`itself and its members. CFS is a public interest, non-profit, membership
`
`organization that has offices in San Francisco, CA; Portland, OR; and Washington,
`
`D.C. CFS represents over 950,000 members, from every state in the country. The
`
`Disclosure Act and USDA’s final rule implementing it adversely affect CFS and its
`
`members.
`
`14. CFS’s mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the
`
`environment from the harms of industrial agriculture. A large part of that mission
`
`is championing transparency in the food system and preserving informed consumer
`
`choice. For that reason a major CFS program area has always been improving food
`
`labeling and protecting the consumers’ right to know what’s in their food and what
`
`they feed their families.
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 7 of 95
`
`
`
`
`15. For over two decades CFS has worked to ensure that GE organisms
`
`that could adversely affect public health, agriculture, and the environment are
`
`adequately labeled and properly regulated. CFS has a major program area specific
`
`to GE organism oversight, and numerous staff members—scientific, policy,
`
`campaign, and legal—whose work encompasses the topic. CFS staff members are
`
`recognized experts in the field and are intimately familiar with the issue of GE
`
`foods, their inadequate oversight, their risks, and their adverse impacts.
`
`16. As part of both of these missions and programs, CFS has long been
`
`committed to securing mandatory GE food labeling across the country. To that end
`
`CFS has worked closely with dozens of state legislatures and leaders in U.S.
`
`Congress on GE food issues and GE food labeling legislation. For example, in 2011,
`
`CFS drafted and filed a rulemaking petition with the Food and Drug
`
`Administration (FDA), on behalf of over 650 companies and organizations, calling
`
`on FDA to require the mandatory labeling of all GE foods, which garnered over 1.4
`
`million individual public comments in support. In the void of federal leadership, in
`
`2012-2016, several states stepped in to protect the public’s right to know, and to
`
`that end, CFS also assisted in the successful passage of several state labeling laws,
`
`including the passage of state GE labeling laws in Vermont, Connecticut, and
`
`Maine.
`
`17. CFS takes a multi-faceted approach in pursuing its mission, utilizing
`
`legal, political, and grassroots strategies, including public and policymaker
`
`education, outreach, and campaigning. For instance, CFS disseminates a wide
`
`array of informational materials to government agencies, lawmakers, nonprofits,
`
`and the general public regarding the adverse effects of industrial food production—
`
`such as genetically engineered agricultural products and pesticides—on human
`
`health, the environment, and farmers and on the transparency of the food system.
`
`These educational and informational materials include, but are not limited to, news
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 8 of 95
`
`
`
`
`articles, videos, and other multimedia, policy reports, white papers, legal briefs,
`
`press releases, newsletters, product guides, action alerts, and fact sheets. One
`
`example is the book Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret
`
`Changes in Your Food (Earth Aware Press, 2007).
`
`18. Plaintiff Rural Vermont is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded
`
`in 1985 and based in Montpelier, Vermont. Rural Vermont is a grassroots
`
`membership organization that has worked for 35 years to bring the voices of the
`
`people who are affected by public policy decisions into the process of creating public
`
`policy. Its mission is to lead the resurgence of community-scale agriculture, through
`
`education, advocacy, and organizing.
`
`19. From 2011 to 2016, Rural Vermont was a founder and leading member
`
`of the “Vermont Right to Know GMOs” Coalition. The Coalition led the grassroots
`
`effort that resulted in the successful passage of the first law in the United States
`
`that required the labeling of food produced through genetic engineering. That effort
`
`brought over 10,000 citizens into the legislative campaign as well as built a
`
`supporting coalition of scores of farms, food producers, restaurants, food co-ops,
`
`schools and other businesses and organizations who supported Vermonters’ right to
`
`know how their food is produced.
`
`20. Plaintiff Citizens for GMO Labeling is a nonprofit organization
`
`based in Connecticut with a mission of working across the country to pass state
`
`legislation to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. In 2013
`
`Connecticut passed one of the first GMO labeling laws. However, it required other
`
`states to pass similar laws prior to taking effect. From 2013-2016, Citizens for GMO
`
`Labeling provided support to over thirty state-based campaigns to label genetically
`
`engineered foods and helped pass similar labeling laws in other states.
`
`21. While working to pass these laws, staff members were located in MA
`
`and RI and board members in CT, PA, MA, NJ, RI, and NY. The organization
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 9 of 95
`
`
`
`
`testified at state legislative hearings in NH, MA, and RI. In 2015 it hosted an
`
`advocate training for 80 GMO labeling advocates from states including, CT, MA,
`
`NJ, RI, PA, NH, VT, ME, NY, CA, ID, WA, AZ, FL, CO, HA, IA, MI, IL, NC, VA,
`
`DC, OR, NV, OH, DE, MD and GA. The organization’s entire budget went toward
`
`passing these state level GMO laws and protecting the laws that CT, VT, and ME
`
`passed.
`
`22. The Disclosure Act preempted all current and future state labeling
`
`laws, and did so far beyond the scope and substance of what the law offered the
`
`public. In doing so it undid all the work the organization had undertaken prior to its
`
`passage and made it impossible to continue that work absent judicial review.
`
`23. Plaintiff Label GMOs is a California-based nonprofit organization
`
`that spearheaded California Prop 37 (2012), a state ballot initiative to require the
`
`mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food. Prop 37 was the first major
`
`state-wide effort at GMO labeling, and was narrowly defeated (51%-49%) after
`
`opponents of disclosure broke the state record for spending in their opposition to it
`
`($44 million). However Prop 37 galvanized a grassroots movement across the
`
`United States for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food, and
`
`inspired and sent off a chain of aligned future ballot initiatives in Washington
`
`(2013) and Oregon (2014) as well as state legislative efforts, including those that
`
`eventually passed into law in Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine. All of those
`
`disclosure laws and efforts were substantially identical. Label GMOs also worked to
`
`pass Senate Bill 1381 (2014) and other California legislative GMO labeling efforts
`
`prior to the preemption of those efforts by the 2016 Disclosure Act.
`
`24. Plaintiff Good Earth Natural Foods is an independent natural and
`
`organic grocer based in Marin, California since 1969. Good Earth is committed to
`
`advocating for a healthier and more sustainable food system. Historically Good
`
`Earth was one of the original pioneers and creators of the organic farming
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 10 of 95
`
`
`
`
`standards and labeling, at the state level and then at the federal level, and has
`
`since that time worked to ensure the organic standard retains its original integrity.
`
`Later Good Earth helped start the Non-GMO project and its Non-GMO verified
`
`label. In 2011, Good Earth launched its own in-store labeling of products, including
`
`locally produced and non-GMO verified. In 2012, Good Earth supported Prop 37, the
`
`California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative. Good Earth is committed to full
`
`transparency for its customers, including ensuring that foods produced with genetic
`
`engineering are labeled as such.
`
`25.
`
` Plaintiff Puget Consumers Co-op, which operates stores under the
`
`tradename “PCC Community Markets,” is the nation’s largest community-owned
`
`food market based in Seattle, Washington. Founded in 1953 and with an active
`
`membership of just over 80,000 households, PCC operates 14 stores in the Puget
`
`Sound area and is a Certified Organic retailer.
`
`26. PCC aims to create a cooperative, sustainable environment in which
`
`sustainable and organic supply chains thrive. A critical part of that work includes
`
`increasing transparency for consumers on how their food is grown and raised and
`
`what is in their food. To that end, PCC has been a dedicated advocate of GMO
`
`labeling and supporter of GMO absence certification programs, such as Certified
`
`USDA Organic and Non-GMO Project Verified.
`
`27. As far back as in 2000, PCC members wrote over 12,000 letters to
`
`Congress in support of GMO transparency in foods. In 2012-2013, PCC led the effort
`
`for statewide GMO labeling as a steering committee member for I-522, the People’s
`
`Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. Although the ballot initiative was
`
`narrowly defeated by record spending, it helped build the momentum for labeling
`
`transparency nationwide and the successful passage of other state labeling laws.
`
`In 2011, PCC pledged to label all GMO items in its stores by 2018. In 2016-2018,
`
`PCC undertook substantial planning and actions to complete this pledge, including
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 11 of 95
`
`
`
`
`after the passage of the 2016 Disclosure Act. However, the final USDA rules forced
`
`PCC to shelve its store labeling plans because of the speech restrictions created by
`
`the disclosure scheme, legal uncertainty from its lack of clarity, and potential
`
`consumer confusion.
`
`28. Plaintiff Natural Grocers is a Colorado-based specialty retailer of
`
`natural, organic groceries, body care products and dietary supplements since 1955,
`
`currently operating 157 stores in 20 states. Natural Grocers is committed to
`
`educating communities on nutrition and providing only natural and organic
`
`products that meet high standards for ecological sustainability. As part of these
`
`efforts, all Natural Grocers brand products are organic or non-GMO if organic is not
`
`available, and Natural Grocers sells only certified organic produce. Across all stores,
`
`Natural Grocers carries over 9,000 Non-GMO Project Verified products and over
`
`10,000 organic grocery products.
`
`29. Natural Grocers has long been a supporter of GMO labeling at both the
`
`state and federal level. In 2014, Natural Grocers supported the Right to Know
`
`Colorado Proposition 105 to label GMO foods and hosted Proposition 105 petition
`
`gatherers in all of its 34 Colorado stores. Natural Grocers is committed to providing
`
`transparency for its customers and consistently posts information on GMOs on its
`
`website to assist its customers in avoiding GMO products.
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`30. Defendant Sonny Perdue is sued in his official capacity as USDA
`
`Secretary. As Secretary, Mr. Perdue has the ultimate responsibility for USDA’s
`
`implementation of the Disclosure Act.
`
`31. Defendant Bruce Summers is sued in his official capacity as
`
`Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), an agency of the
`
`United States Department of Agriculture. The AMS administers programs at USDA
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 12 of 95
`
`
`
`
`related to the marketing of food and agricultural products. As Administrator, Mr.
`
`Summers has ultimate responsibility for AMS’s implementation of the Disclosure
`
`Act.
`
`32. Defendant United States Department of Agriculture is a federal
`
`agency of the U.S., which is charged with acquiring and providing to the people of
`
`the United States useful information on subjects connected with, among other
`
`things, agriculture and food labeling. As relevant here, USDA, including AMS, is
`
`the Agency that Congress made responsible for the implementation of the
`
`Disclosure Act, including its implementing regulations.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
`
`LEGAL AUTHORITY
`
`33. The 1st Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law . . .
`
`abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” U.S. Const., Amend. I.
`
`
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
`
`34. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that “[a] person
`
`suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by
`
`agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review
`
`thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`35. The definition of agency action within this statute “includes the whole
`
`or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or
`
`denial thereof, or failure to act.” Id. § 551(13).
`
`36. The APA instructs that reviewing courts “shall . . . hold unlawful and
`
`set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary,
`
`capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law…[or]
`
`contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity.” Id. § 706(2)(A).
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 13 of 95
`
`
`
`
`37. Under the APA’s standard of review, the Court evaluates whether the
`
`agency “examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation
`
`for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice
`
`made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S.
`
`29, 43 (1983). An action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency “has relied on
`
`factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an
`
`important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs
`
`counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be
`
`ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id. at 43.
`
`
`
`THE BIOENGINEERED FOOD DISCLOSURE ACT
`
`38. The purpose of the Disclosure Act is to “establish a national mandatory
`
`bioengineered food disclosure standard with respect to any bioengineered food and
`
`any food that may be bioengineered” within two years following its enactment. 7
`
`U.S.C. § 1639b(a).
`
`39. Bioengineering and any similar term is defined to be food “(A) that
`
`contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant
`
`deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and (B) for which the modification could
`
`not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.” 7
`
`U.S.C. § 1639(1).
`
`40. While the Act generally uses the term, “bioengineered,” it expressly
`
`includes “and any similar term” when it defines the “bioengineering” classification.
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639(1).
`
`41. A food may “bear a disclosure that a food is bioengineered only in
`
`accordance” with the Act’s implementing regulations. 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(1).
`
`42. The Act requires USDA to “establish such requirements and
`
`procedures as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the standard.” 7
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 14 of 95
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1639b(a)(2). The Act mandates that USDA also “establish a process for
`
`requesting and granting a determination by the Secretary regarding other factors
`
`and conditions under which a food is considered a bioengineered food” beyond those
`
`set out by the statute elsewhere in the agency’s implementing regulations. 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1639b.
`
`43. While the Act permits the disclosure to be in the form of on-package
`
`text, symbol, or electronic or digital link, it required USDA to first study the efficacy
`
`of the electronic or digital disclosures, “to identify potential technological challenges
`
`that may impact whether consumers would have access to the bioengineering
`
`disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods.” 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(c)(1).
`
`44. The Act sets forth detailed factors USDA was required to analyze in
`
`the study: the availability of wireless Internet or cellular networks; the availability
`
`of landline telephones in stores; the challenges facing small retailer and rural
`
`retailers; efforts that retailers and other entities have taken to address potential
`
`technological and infrastructure challenges; and the costs and benefits of installing
`
`in retail stores stand-alone electronic or digital link scanners or other technology to
`
`provide disclosure information. 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(c)(3)(A)‐(E).
`
`45. The Act also requires that USDA “shall” solicit and consider public
`
`comments on the Study, underscoring its importance to the rulemaking process. 7
`
`U.S.C. 1639b(c)(2).
`
`46. The Act further specifies that any QR codes used for disclosure must be
`
`accompanied with the text “scan here for more food information” or similar
`
`language as well as include an accompanying phone number. 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(d)(1),
`
`(d)(4).QR codes must provide access “in a consistent and conspicuous manner, on
`
`the first product information page that appears for the product on a mobile device,
`
`Internet website, or other landing page, which shall exclude marketing and
`
`promotional information.” 7 U.S.C. 1639b(d)(2).
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 15 of 95
`
`
`
`
`47. The Act prohibits USDA from requiring a food to be “considered a
`
`bioengineered food solely because the animal consumed feed from” a bioengineered
`
`source. 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(2)(A). The Act further provides that USDA’s regulations
`
`shall exclude “food served in a restaurant or similar retail establishment.” 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1639b(G)(i).
`
`48. The Act includes an express admonition that it is not stripping FDA of
`
`any Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authority or any party of any
`
`FFDCA obligation, meaning that the duty to not label in a false and misleading way
`
`still applies and there is no regulatory shield simply because a product is classified
`
`and labeled under the Act. 7 U.S.C. § 1639c(b)(1).
`
`49. The statute provides that, if USDA determines in the study that
`
`“consumers, while shopping, would not have sufficient access to the bioengineering
`
`disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods,” then USDA “shall
`
`provide additional and comparable options” for accessing the disclosure for
`
`consumers. 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(c)(4).
`
`50. The Act has a savings provision that requires that USDA “shall” apply
`
`the law “in a manner consistent with the United States obligations under
`
`international treaties.” 7 U.S.C. § 1639c(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I. Americans Have Long Asserted Their Right To Know Which
`Products Are Produced With Genetic Engineering, For a Multitude
`of Reasons
`
`51. American consumers have called upon the U.S. government to label
`
`genetically engineered foods for many years, to secure access to the same
`
`information as residents of 64 other countries around the world. Polls consistently
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY & EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 16 of 95
`
`
`
`
`show that nearly 90 percent of Americans