Skip to main content


Log in

Non-GMO vs organic labels: purity or process guarantees in a GMO contaminated landscape

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript


Since 2010, demand for non-GMO food products has grown dramatically. Two non-GMO labels dominate the market: USDA Organic and the Non-GMO Project Verified (the Project). However, the non-GMO status of Organic is not obvious from the label and many consumers are unaware of this. As sales of products carrying the Project’s non-GMO label have exploded, concern has increased among some Organic proponents that demand for non-GMO threatens the organic market. In response, both sides are seeking to build legitimacy and authority for their label by emphasizing the value of their standards for determining a food product’s non-GMO status within a GMO contaminated agrifood system. Drawing on in-depth interviews with key informants with knowledge of non-GMO standards and labels, we examine the knowledge systems, discourses and actors that proponents of the Project and USDA Organic privilege in their effort to legitimize their standards. Here, the Project emphasizes its application of technoscientific norms, especially thresholds and testing, which they argue provide the best means for preventing GMO contamination and helping consumers find (relative) non-GMO ‘purity’. In contrast, proponents of Organic favor a process standard that excludes GMOs, arguing that non-GMO ‘purity’ is unrealistic in today’s agrifood system that is widely contaminated by GMOs and where mandatory testing would unnecessarily harm organic producers. We conclude that tensions between the two groups are unlikely to be easily reconciled since these two distinct marketing labels rely on different knowledge and verification claims to vie for consumers and increase market share.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. SPINS is an analytical and consulting company for the natural, organic and specialty products industries.

  2. These figures do not include Whole Foods, which is a major retailer of non-GMO products.



Genetically modified organism


National Organic Program Proposed Rule


National Organic Standards Board


Organic Food Production Act


Organic Trade Association


United States Department of Agriculture


Download references


This research was supported by the USDA-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) under Grant No. 2013-68004-20374. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USDA. The authors would like to thank Hannah Fisher for her research assistance. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this article. Finally, we wish to express our appreciation to all those who kindly agreed to participate in this research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmen Bain.



See Table 2.

Table 2 Interviewee Participants

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bain, C., Selfa, T. Non-GMO vs organic labels: purity or process guarantees in a GMO contaminated landscape. Agric Hum Values 34, 805–818 (2017).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: