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. 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 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. (shrink)

Scholarly debate over the transformative potential of neoliberal, market-based, food movement strategies historically contrasts those who value their potential to reform the food-system from the inside against those who argue that their use concedes the primacy of the market, creates citizen-consumers, and undermines overall movement goals. While narrow case studies have provided important amendments, the legacy of such strategies requires impacts to be evaluated both contextually and more broadly than the specific activism. This study thus conceptualizes the ‘case’ of U.S. (...) biotechnology market activism expansively, drawing on interviews with 25 activists from diverse organizations to investigate the legacy of two food-labeling movement strategies (one public and mandatory, one private and voluntary). The results support that the legacy of market strategies extends more broadly than the immediate initiative. They also confirm that the consequences of such neoliberalized strategies are most productively assessed contextually and applied, rather than categorically—as most clearly illustrated by the counterintuitive results of the failed mandatory labeling effort. Of the two market strategies, voluntary labeling demonstrated the most problematic relationship to broader movement goals of food system transformation, in part because of the greater potential for overlapping credence claims and in part due to the risks of niche market logic. (shrink)