Reviewers
Dr. Valerie Kilders, Assistant Professor, Purdue University
Dr. Vincenzina Caputo, Professor and Homer Nowlin Endowed Chair in Consumer and Food Economics, Michigan State University
Article
What do consumers think about the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS)? by Vincenzina Caputo, Valerie Kilders and Jayson L. Lusk
Source
Caputo, V., Kilders, V., & Lusk, J. L. (2025). The effect of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) on consumer preferences and acceptance of bioengineered and gene-edited food. Food Policy, 130, 102770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102770
Summary
Since January 2022, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) has required that foods sold in retail spaces clearly indicate whether bioengineered ingredients have been used. However, this new standard has led to considerable public confusion in three main areas. First, the definition of “bioengineered” now covers many products that were previously known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), yet debate continues over whether modern gene-edited techniques should also be included under the labeling requirement. Second, the term “bioengineered” is relatively new for most consumers when compared with the well-known term “GMO,” leaving many consumers unsure about what the label really means. Third, the standard allows companies to disclose this information in various ways – for example by using plain text, a distinct symbol (the BE label) or a QR code. Each of these methods requires a different level of effort from the consumer, which might influence their perception of the product.
In our recent study, we experimentally tested these issues using a case study focused on romaine lettuce. Consumers were presented with choices between bioengineered and gene-edited lettuce and alternatives such as organic, conventional and non-GMO options.
The experiment not only evaluated how different disclosure methods affected consumer preferences but also tested the role of providing additional information about production methods. Results indicated that while consumers generally favored organic, conventional and non-GMO lettuce, the way in which bioengineered and gene-edited statuses were disclosed made a significant difference. For example, when the BE label was used, consumers sometimes showed a higher willingness to pay – sometimes even exceeding that for conventional lettuce. Meanwhile, when a QR code was displayed, only a small fraction of consumers actually scanned it indicating that the extra effort might represent a hurdle for accessing product information.
What does this mean for food and agricultural business?
The study’s findings offer nuanced insights into how different labeling methods influence consumer perceptions. While the BE label is generally well-received – likely because it is clear and immediately visible – the willingness to pay for bioengineered products remains lower than that for conventional options. This suggests that although consumers may appreciate the transparency and straightforward presentation provided by the BE label, the inherent skepticism or lower valuation of bioengineered foods persists.
Consequently, the impact of a given labeling method may depend on the broader marketing objective. For example, if the goal is to enhance transparency and appeal to informed, information-seeking consumers, a BE label or even additional digital information might be appropriate. However, if the aim is to maximize premium pricing, the inherent lower willingness to pay for bioengineered products suggests that marketers must carefully consider how much emphasis to place on bioengineering status versus other product attributes.
These findings imply that the regulatory disclosure format is not simply a matter of compliance but also factors that can subtly shift consumer preferences and purchase behavior. The optimal labeling strategy may thus vary depending on whether a business aims to highlight product innovation and transparency or position its product in a premium market segment where conventional, organic, or non-GMO alternatives are more highly valued.
