A researcher in the Department of Agricultural Economics leads a multi-university collaboration in exploring food labels’ overall influence on informing consumers in their decision-making.

The University of Kentucky Martin-Gatton College of Agriculture, Food and Environment has been awarded a $799,481 grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). An in-depth study will be conducted on the impacts of bioengineered (BE) and non-GMO food labeling on consumer preferences and producer outcomes. 

The three-year project, “A Comprehensive Study of Non-GMO and Bioengineered Disclosures: Consumer Preference, Producer Impact and Certifier Choice,” aims to provide critical insights for policymakers, producers and certifiers as bioengineered labeling becomes mandatory for certain food products in the U.S. 

“Consumers today are more aware of what’s in their food than ever before and at the same time are faced with a myriad of food labels,” said Yuqing Zheng, principal investigator and professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Martin-Gatton CAFE. “Our study aims to uncover whether different labeling methods are helping consumers make informed decisions.” 

The team includes UK researchers Shuoli Zhao, Tyler Mark and Yawotse Nouve along with researchers Lijiao Hu from Chico State University and Jane Kolodinsky from Colorado State University. Together, they will analyze extensive data and conduct experimental research to explore the relationships between food labeling, consumer purchasing behavior and producer sales. 

Background and Objectives 

With the implementation of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in 2020, food manufacturers are required to disclose the presence of bioengineered ingredients in products. This can be done through various methods, including text on packaging, USDA-designed seals or QR codes. The regulation aims to increase transparency in food systems and give consumers information about the bioengineered status of foods.  

“This study comes at a time when consumers are demanding more transparency in food labeling,” Zheng said. “With the introduction of mandatory bioengineered labeling, we want to understand better how these labels impact consumer choices and how they influence the market.” 

The research will focus on three key objectives: 

1. Consumer preferences: The study will assess how consumers respond to different types of bioengineered food labeling, from direct text disclosures to QR codes, examining whether these labels influence purchasing behavior. By leveraging household scanner data from major retailers, along with collecting primary data from a sample of 300 consumers, the team aims to quantify consumer reactions and the perceived value of these labels. 

2. Producer impacts: By investigating how bioengineered and non-GMO labels affect food manufacturers, the study will evaluate whether certain labels influence product sales —determining the cost-benefit analysis of adopting bioengineered or non-GMO certification. The research will utilize a generalized statistical model to compare sales data across a five-year period (2017–2022) from products labeled as bioengineered or certified non-GMO. This will provide insights into how labeling impacts profitability and the broader market. 

3. Certifier choices and costs: The final objective focuses on producers’ price sensitivity to non-GMO certification and the dynamics between producers and certifiers. As certification costs vary significantly, the research will explore how these costs affect producer decisions and how certifiers influence market behavior.  

Implications for policy and market efficiency 

As bioengineered labeling becomes more prevalent, understanding its effects on both consumers and producers is important for the development of effective food policies. This research will provide evidence-based insights to help policymakers refine regulations around bioengineered and non-GMO food disclosures.  

“One of the key questions we aim to answer is how consumers react to the different disclosure formats and whether these labels provide the clarity needed to make informed decisions,” Zheng said. “We’re also going to be looking at how these labels impact food manufacturers, especially as they navigate the complexities of certification and consumer preferences.” 

The project aims to provide guidance for producers deciding between bioengineered ingredient or non-GMO certification, identifying the financial impacts of each option. With the growing demand for transparency in food labeling, the study’s findings will be important for producers seeking to balance certification costs with consumer demands. 

“With bioengineered and non-GMO labels becoming more common, there’s a lot to study for producers and consumers,” Zheng said. “We hope that our findings will help bring clarity and empirical evidence to the market, allowing both sides to make more informed decisions that could ultimately benefit the entire food supply chain.” 

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2024-67023-42730. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.   

Writer: Jordan Strickler, jstrickler@uky.edu    

Source