Public Law 114-216
Federal law regulating GMO food labeling
Public Law 114-216 is a federal law of the United States that regulates GMO food labeling. It was enacted on July 29, 2016 when President Obama signed then Senate Bill 764 (S.764) and is codified at 7 U.S.C. ch. 38, subch. V and VI. While the law is officially termed A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes, it evolved over time into "the legislative vehicle for a measure concerning bioengineered food disclosure", which opponents have called the "DARK Act", an acronym for "Deny Americans the Right to Know Act".
Legislative history
The bill was crafted by Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The "GMO labeling bill" was introduced on 17 March 2015 by its sponsor, Sen. Roger F. Wicker (R-MS), cosponsored by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and passed Senate and House in June 2016. The law overturned relevant state laws such as Vermont's GMO labeling law that had called for strict and transparent GMO food labeling in Vermont after July 1, 2016.
Labeling of GMO food is mandated in at least 64 countries, including most European countries, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, and Australia.
The public source identifies “Public Law 114-216” as federal law regulating GMO food labeling. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Public, 114-216 and Federal.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Public Law 114-216”, the useful work is to connect “federal law regulating GMO food labeling” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q28135811. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2016 and 2015.
Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Public Law 114-216”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Public Law 114-216 primary sources, Public Law 114-216 archive and Public research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Public Law 114-216”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Public Law 114-216” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.