Agreed. And that's the mechanism many consumers want to know isn't employed -- because consumer suspicion is centered on that mechanism -- and quiet use of that

Agreed. And that's the mechanism many consumers want to know isn't employed -- because consumer suspicion is centered on that mechanism -- and quiet use of that mechanism is generally speaking advantageous for the producer. Producers of food products may benefit in many ways and the consumer may benefit from a lower price and sure in other ways, but the consumer may suffer "because GMO" (not saying this is true, but this is the popular objection to GMO). Hence, the non-GMO label makes sense because it informs the consumer of something actionable that they want to know about, which otherwise they cannot easily reason about. A great example of this is: how many people really know that oats are never today GMO? The label isn't useful because oats aren't typically GMO, but rather because people don't readily know this -- and consumers want a direct answer to their call to know if this mechanism is at work in their food. And again, this is not because consumers know for a fact that GMO is harmful, but rather because they perceive it as a poignant risk to their health. Placebo effect has a negative twin in nocebo [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo