Skip to content
Agricultural legislative activity is proving to be busy this year for biotech as we move out of Q1 and into the summer. GMO labeling, animal vaccination, and foreign ownership of land bills are taking center stage across state legislatures.
To understand the biotechnology perspective, Bio.News sat down to talk with Patrick Plues, Senior Vice President, State Government Affairs & Affiliate Relations, and Gene Harrington, Senior Director, State Government Affairs, Agriculture & Environment at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO).
“While we face challenges in the states related to the ag-biotech sector, I think the states offer some real opportunities, especially as it relates to uptake of certain agricultural biotech inputs such as plant biostimulants and the creation of clean fuel standards,” said Plues.
Here is the top agricultural legislation happening at the state level that BIO is watching.
Animal vaccinations
Vaccination legislation is as big an issue in the agricultural space as it is in the human health space this year, with bills being introduced to limit the sale of livestock that has been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines, even though there is no mRNA vaccine currently available for animals. But it was not until 2023 that there was a surge in measures seeking to curb, disincentivize, or criminalize animal vaccinations. To that end, there have been even more bills in 2024 and 2025.
So far, only one bill has passed in 2025—a Utah bill defining food that contains any intentionally added vaccine, or vaccine material intended for humans, as a drug. The result of this would be that if vaccines are ever added to a particular food, it would be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This bill mimics a Tennessee measure that passed in 2024.
There are a number of other pending bills in Alabama, Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. BIO is working closely with state allies to beat back all of these measures.
GMO labeling
Genetically modified organism (GMO) food labeling has been a contentious issue at the state level for years, and while Congress addressed this matter in 2016, there are still a number of GMO labeling bills (as well as other GMO-related legislation) popping up and/or moving through state legislatures.
These bills often relate to GMO produce. however. In New York, there were two GMO salmon-related bills introduced in New York: one labeling bill and one prohibiting its sale. In Oregon, a bill proposing a ban on the production of genetically-engineered aquaculture in the state died.
This year four other states are taking aim at GMO labeling: Illinois, Maine, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
Illinois introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Act in mid-January, which deems any food offered for retail sale in the state misbranded if the food was produced with genetic engineering (GE) and it is not labeled as such. Similarly, Maine and Oklahoma introduced legislation requiring GMO food or food products to be labeled as containing GMOs.
Missouri introduced legislation that would establish labeling requirements for various food products, including food derived from animals immunized with an mRNA vaccine and food containing GE ingredients. The mRNA labeling provisions were later removed, but the GE labeling provisions remain in the current bill.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel
In more optimistic news, there are a number of bills aimed at incentivizing sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production in the states. This, in part, is a result of September 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act establishing a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit.
While SAF incentivization bills in Hawaii and Kentucky failed, a SAF measure was enacted in Arkansas, and there is still pending legislation in California, Minnesota, New York, and Washington.
Other legislation
There are a number of newer issues popping up in the states as well, either as a result of increased technology or the political climate.
For example, plant biostimulant legislation is appearing more and more on the state level. This relatively new category of agricultural input technology enhances plant growth and development by improving the efficiency of plant nutrients, as measured by either increased nutrient uptake or reduced nutrient losses to the environment, or both. It also acts as soil amendments, with demonstrated ability to help improve soil structure, health, function, or performance and thus augment plant response.
This technology, as such, promises to reduce nutrient runoff and improve water quality and can be derived from natural or biological sources such as bacterial or microbial inoculants, biochemical materials, amino acids, humic acids, fulvic acid, seaweed extract, and similar materials. Much of the legislation was oriented around giving products using plant biostimulants the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) beneficial substances label.
BIO has helped spearhead plant biostimulant legislation in several states, including bills that have been enacted in Mississippi, North Dakota, and Utah, and legislation moving through legislatures in Iowa, Oregon, and Vermont.
Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) legislation is touching agriculture as well as health this year. Bills have popped up in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia (and resolutions in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee), under the MAHA label.
Many of the developing bills target seed oils (soybean, canola, etc.) or vaccines, or propose state labeling requirements. Some bills are broader and apply to all consumer food products, while others focus on school lunches.
Although the top target for these bills appears to be food dyes and SNAP food purchase restrictions, many of these bills include a long list of things (including the pesticides glyphosate and atrazine) subject to labeling requirements.
Another legislative theme of note is the prohibition or restriction of foreign ownership of agricultural land, which has been an increasing concern for legislators over the last handful of years.
These bills restrict foreign-owned biotechnology companies from purchasing land for research and development work that could result in products benefitting U.S. farmers.
“This is a particularly busy time in the states, but working with national, regional, and state partners and policymakers, BIO is successfully defending, protecting, and helping to expand markets in the states for agriculture biotechnology and bio-based products,” said Harrington.
