Competing claims muddy the organic messageCompeting claims muddy the organic message
Shopper confusion about the differences between USDA Organic, non-GMO, natural and sustainable claims reduces potential sales. Learn how to clarify claims for consumers.

At a Glance
- Organic Trade Association survey revealed consumer claim confusion.
- The “non-GMO” claim may be especially baffling.
- “USDA Organic” remains the most prevalent certification in the U.S.
The popularity of organic produce is escalating.
With volume sales growing more than 7% over the past year, a rate that is more than double that of conventional fruits and vegetables, organic is having an increasingly larger impact in supermarket produce merchandising.
Yet, uncertainty over the definition of organic and how it differs from other product claims is reducing potential sales while causing many shoppers to favor lower-cost conventional products that they perceive as having equal benefits, analysts say.
A 2024 consumer survey by the Washington, D.C.-based Organic Trade Association (OTA) found that the “non-GMO” claim may be especially misunderstood. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) consist of foods that have been created through genetic engineering.
While an organic certification also indicates the produce is GMO-free, that attribute may be lost to shoppers, analysts say. Organic selections are free of toxic synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic hormones and artificial ingredients as well. A non-GMO project verified certification “does not verify practices that protect human health or require chemical avoidance,” the OTA states.
Other claims, such as “natural” and “sustainable,” also can generate false perceptions about product attributes and safety, says Russell Zwanka, director of the food marketing program and assistant professor of food marketing at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo.
“A health-conscious consumer in a hurry to buy for their family could look quickly at labels and assume that ‘organic,’ ‘natural’ and ‘sustainable’ are interchangeable,” he states. “But the terms ‘natural’ and ‘sustainable’ are not certifiable and do not follow USDA standards.”
While most companies that label products “natural” or “sustainable” have a positive intent, issues happen when marketers greenwash selections and use buzzwords to create a healthy halo effect, Zwanka says. “Confusion can occur when consumers do not do research and depend solely upon labeling to drive purchase decisions,” he states.

Separating organic produce from non-organic options makes things simpler and more clear for consumers, experts say.
Organic leads the way
Despite uncertainty by some shoppers over the exact meaning of produce claims, the OTA survey reveals that the largest amount of individuals, 88%, are familiar or somewhat familiar with the organic claim and 59% indicate that it justifies a higher price. Most shoppers also are familiar with such claims as natural (86%), local (85%), raised without antibiotics (82%) and pesticide free (80%).
USDA organic also is the most prevalent certification in the U.S. with 59% of respondents noting they remember commonly encountering the claim over the previous six months, the survey found. Next were non-GMO project verified (56%), the heart-check mark (44%), and gluten-free (35%). Produce-related claims remembered less often include regenerative organic certified (7%) and carbon neutral (5%).
The nationally representative online survey from the OTA and Euromonitor International Ltd., a London-based market research firm, features responses from 1,201 individuals.
Retailers can reduce claim-related misunderstandings by using in-store signage and website messaging to explain the meaning of each attribute, Zwanka said.
Onsite registered dietitians and nutritionists can further educate shoppers on claim differences, he states. “Customers inherently trust that their stores are doing research and due diligence in ensuring the products are what they say they are,” Zwanka notes. “The more the retailer can affirm that, the more benefit there is to both the merchandiser and shopper.”
Keep them apart
Produce department operators can further accentuate the differences between organic and conventional produce with claims by situating all organic selections together in the case, he says. Such segregation has the bonus of enabling shoppers to easily locate organic fruits and vegetables, while making it simpler for retailers to monitor inventory and determine if stocks of key items are running low, Zwanka notes. “If intermixed with non-organic, the assortment can be lost,” he says. (Under USDA Organic rules, organic and non-organic products that aren't packaged cannot be co-mingled.)
Though consumer ignorance about produce claims can cut into organic sales, organic still may receive some residual advantages from the shopper confusion, Zwanka says.
“Organic foods are benefitting from being grouped under the sustainability halo, and many of the foods would not qualify as sustainable due to the use of water during production and subsequent transportation,” he states. “Likewise, sustainable and natural products benefit from the organic halo.”