Title: New GMO Labeling Regulations in the U.S.: Consumer Reactions and Market Trends

As of this week, most food products sold in the United States that contain ingredients with detectable genetically modified DNA must now indicate this on their labels. Although GMO labeling has been a contentious issue for years, a recent study suggests that consumer reactions to the mandated on-package disclosures may not be significant. Conducted by Cornell University researchers Aaron Adalja and Jura Liaukonyte, the study analyzed sales data from cereal products in Vermont after the state implemented its own GMO labeling law. This law, which was briefly in effect starting in July 2016, was invalidated later that year by federal legislation. The researchers found that the purchase rates for GMO-containing products did not significantly change once the labeling requirement was enforced.

However, this does not imply that GMO labeling has no influence on consumer attitudes and buying patterns. Adalja and Liaukonyte also investigated Google search trends in seven states that contemplated their own labeling laws and noted an increase in public interest regarding GMO information and the Non-GMO Project—an independent nonprofit organization with a rigorous verification program—thanks to heightened public discourse on the subject. Additionally, data from Vermont indicated a slight rise in purchases of products bearing the Non-GMO Project Verified label during legislative discussions about GMOs, and these buying trends remained relatively stable after the issue faded from media attention. “Any changes in behavior that we observed were facilitated by the rulemaking process and the existence of Non-GMO [Project] labels that had already been in the market for the past decade,” stated Adalja. “Many consumers had already adjusted their purchasing habits before the law was enacted.”

In contrast to earlier studies suggesting that mandatory labels for bioengineered food would lead to significant shifts in consumer preferences and purchasing, this new research reveals a more subdued effect. It highlights that the most influential labeling for consumers is not the compulsory indication that a product contains bioengineered ingredients, but rather the voluntary certification from the Non-GMO Project, according to Liaukonyte. “For those who care about the distinction between GMO and non-GMO, the information they need is already available on the shelves,” Liaukonyte explained. “For those who are indifferent, this [mandatory] label is unlikely to alter their behavior.”

Both Adalja and Liaukonyte were motivated to examine actual shopping and web search data related to GMO labeling after observing the debate in various states and Congress. Many previous studies on GMO labeling’s impact were conducted in controlled environments—showing consumers hypothetical product packages and gauging their preferences. “In lab settings, we often test in isolation,” Liaukonyte remarked. “What was notably different in this field study was the presence of various signals in the marketplace, including GMO labeling, non-GMO labeling, and other related factors.”

Thanks largely to the efforts of the Non-GMO Project, which has provided its distinctive butterfly certification since 2010, there is increased awareness of GMO products and labeling. Conversely, very few products disclosed the use of genetically modified or bioengineered ingredients on their packaging until it became mandatory. When Vermont’s GMO labeling law was introduced in 2013, several cereal manufacturers began pursuing Non-GMO Project verification for both new and existing products. Following the law’s passage in 2014, researchers observed a spike in new Non-GMO Project certifications. The highest number of certified products hit the shelves in January 2016, well ahead of the Vermont law’s implementation. The study indicated that at that time, the average number of non-GMO products per grocery store increased by 29.5%, and the number of stores offering at least one non-GMO product rose by 39%.

Furthermore, researchers found that the market share of both GMO and non-GMO products in Vermont remained stable throughout 2016, with approximately 75% and 12% respectively. Consumer behavior changes were primarily driven by news surrounding GMO food. In states where GMO labeling was discussed in their legislatures—thus bringing the issue into news coverage and public conversation—researchers noticed spikes in Google searches related to GMO food during legislative sessions. Once these sessions concluded, interest in those search terms declined. However, market share for Non-GMO Project Verified products in those states experienced a slight increase compared to states that did not take any action on the matter.

Leading up to Vermont’s GMO labeling law implementation, there was considerable opposition from manufacturers and industry groups. Nevertheless, since President Barack Obama signed the federal law requiring the disclosure of bioengineered ingredients on all products sold in the United States in 2016, GMO labeling has become less contentious within the food and beverage industry. Manufacturers have generally complied, with the primary complaints focusing on the intricacies of labeling requirements. Most manufacturers quietly adopted the mandatory disclosures over the past year, according to Jesse Zuehlke, president of food label consulting firm Prime Label Consultants. The law allows for disclosures in simple text, via scannable QR codes, through symbols, or by providing a phone number or text message. Zuehlke noted that the majority of disclosures he has encountered utilize simple text or QR codes, both of which occupy minimal space on product labels.

What has captured more consumer attention are Non-GMO Project Verified labels. Although this is a voluntary disclosure, products must adhere to much stricter standards to receive the butterfly seal. Many products without federally required bioengineered ingredient disclosures would not qualify for Non-GMO Project verification. However, this certification has proven effective in communicating GMO ingredient information to consumers. Adalja pointed out that the focus on Non-GMO Project disclosures presents a unique opportunity for manufacturers. Just as some consumers actively seek organic products and are willing to pay a premium for them, the non-GMO movement has demonstrated a similar consumer interest in non-GMO offerings. “We could view this policy initiative not merely as a burdensome regulation but as an opportunity for companies to diversify their product lines and capture a share of this market,” he said.

In summary, with the increased awareness surrounding GMO products and labeling, including the growing popularity of options like calcium citrate in liquid form, manufacturers have the chance to respond effectively to consumer demands. This evolving landscape suggests that informed consumers are more engaged than ever, and businesses can leverage these trends to enhance their product offerings and meet the needs of a discerning market.