The Debate Over the Term “Bio”: Why the 2026 Farm Bill Threatens Consumer Trust

By Ramani Narayan
Special to The Digest

Words are the building blocks of public trust. For a marketplace to function efficiently, the language used on packaging must carry a clear, universally understood meaning.

Yet, deep within the machinery of the 2026 Farm Bill, a seemingly minor provision threatens to muddy the waters. Section 9004 in Energy Title IX, attempts to redefine the term “bio”-a move that may sound like inside-the-Beltway semantics, but one that has the potential to fundamentally alter how every American shops.

The Good Intentions of Section 9004

The underlying intent of Section 9004 is undeniably commendable. It seeks to expand the energy dominance and growth of American agriculture by encouraging manufacturers to use agricultural materials and renewable feedstocks during production.

Advancing and protecting American agriculture is vital. As Europe and China aggressively subsidize and promote their own agricultural sectors, American farmers need new global and domestic markets to prosper.

Furthermore, it is entirely reasonable that manufacturers using these renewable feedstocks should receive credit in their labeling and marketing. Incentivizing green manufacturing is a win for both the economy and the environment.

The Loophole: “Bio-Attributed” vs. “Biobased”

However, the current wording of Section 9004 introduces a deceptive loophole. It allows manufacturers to label products as “bio-attributed” or “biobased” simply because agricultural (bio) materials were used somewhere in the supply chain -even if that final product contains absolutely zero biological material (zero bio carbon content).

There is a fundamental difference between the process of manufacturing and the ingredients of the final product:

Manufacturing Inputs: Heat, energy, binders, and chemical reactions used to convert raw materials.
Final Product Ingredients: The actual physical matter that a consumer takes home.
The Core Problem: Under the proposed wording, a purely fossil carbon containing plastic product with zero physical bio (carbon) content could legally be labeled “bio-attributed.”

Imagine walking into a store and seeing a shelf full of products labeled “bio-attributed,” “bio-based,” and “BioPreferred.” Most consumers won’t have a clue what the difference is. They will understandably reach for a “bio-attributed” product assuming it contains biological/renewable materials (i.e., contains bio carbon), when in reality, it is entirely petroleum-based (containing only fossil carbon). This isn’t just confusing-it is actively deceptive, misleading and green washing.

Undermining a Proven Standard

The terms “biobased product” and “biobased content” are already clearly defined in federal statute (7 U.S.C. § 8101 and 7 C.F.R. § 4270.2). The law states that these products must be composed “in whole or in significant part” of biological products or renewable agricultural materials.

The USDA’s BioPreferred program is a glowing example of this policy working as Congress intended. Created in the 2002 Farm Bill to stimulate the use of agricultural materials and rural economies, it now boasts:

BioPreferred Program Metrics Current Scope

Registered Products: Nearly 16,000 across 143 categories
Estimated Market Presence: Up to 40,000 broader biobased products
Verification Method: Strict, third-party international ASTM D6866 radiocarbon testing

Every single product carrying the BioPreferred label has undergone rigorous scientific experimental testing using approved ASTM standards to prove it actually contains renewable biological ingredients (along with its percent of bio carbon content).

Allowing unverified, fossil-based products to co-opt the “bio” prefix completely dilutes the integrity of this program. It creates an unfair marketplace, punishing authentic bio-manufacturers who pay more for renewable feedstocks and rigorous testing, while rewarding fossil-fuel products that hide behind clever marketing.

Let Science Dictate the Label

What this comes down to is basic scientific integrity. Biocarbon content of a “product” can be experimentally proven (verified) using established ASTM and ISO test method standards; corporate bookkeeping (using a book and claim approach) cannot.

If Congress wants to create a program that rewards manufacturers for using renewable energy or agricultural feedstocks in their factories, they should do so. But manufacturers should be required to state this on their labels using clear, alternative language-without hijacking the word “bio.”

The solution is simple: If the term “bio” appears anywhere on a product’s name, label, or marketing-including any hyphenated or blended variations-the manufacturer must be legally required to prove it via ASTM D6866 experimental testing and prominently display the actual biobased content percentage.

Congress must fix Section 9004. If we allow marketing spin to override verifiable science, both American consumers and American farmers will pay the price.

About the author: Professor Ramani Narayan was named MSU University Distinguished Professor in 2007, the highest honor that can be bestowed on a faculty member by the university. He has also received the Governor’s (State of Michigan) University Award for commercialization excellence; Michigan Green Chemistry Governor’s Award for biofoams technology, 2011; University Distinguished Faculty Award, 2006, Withrow Distinguished Scholar award 2005; Fulbright Distinguished Lectureship Chair in Science & Technology Management & Commercialization (University of Lisbon, Portugal);and DuPont’s Packaging Award for excellence in Innovation & Sustainability, 2010 as part of the Coca Cola Plant bottle team.

He is the founding Chair of ASTM subcommittee D20.96 that developed biodegradable-compostable plastics Specification Standards D6400, and D6868, and D6866 radiocarbon analysis for biobased carbon content. These are used world-wide by regulators, industry, and academic researchers. He is the first recipient of the William N. Findley Award for “significant contributions to the application of new technologies within the scope of ASTM Committee D20 on Plastic; Award of Excellence from ASTM D20 on Plastics for exemplary technical contributions, and valued leadership” and recipient of the ASTM award of merit — the highest award given by the society to an individual member.

See https://engineering.msu.edu/directory/faculty/narayan and  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ramani-narayan-00120247/

Category: Top Stories