Non-GMO Project Verified
INGREDIENTS
CONFIDENCE HIGH · ANALYSIS ONLY, NOT AN AUDIT OR CERTIFICATION
Our read
A single-attribute mark, executed carefully. The standard is specific about what it measures: GMO content, tested by PCR against numeric Action Thresholds that vary by product class, with segregation, cleanout and traceability requirements behind them and a market surveillance programme that retests verified product. That is more machinery than most single-attribute schemes carry, and it is why independence scores well above the rigor. The rigor score is low because the bar is narrow, not because it is sloppy. Two things readers get wrong. First, the butterfly is not an organic or pesticide claim; verified crops may be grown with synthetic pesticides and synthetic fertiliser, and glyphosate residue is outside the standard. Second, the mark still appears on products with no realistic GMO exposure, because ingredients classed Low-Risk, meaning no commercially available GM counterpart, are fully eligible. Version 16.1 closed part of that gap by making goods composed entirely of Non-Risk inputs ineligible, naming 100% salt goods and unflavoured beverages specifically, but a wheat or oat product can still carry the mark.
What it covers
- GMO content of every input and ingredient in the product, evaluated against a defined Action Threshold
- Action Thresholds: 0.25% for seed and propagation material, 0.9% for ingested and topically applied goods, 1.5% for non-ingested goods including packaging and textiles, 5% for livestock, poultry, bee and seafood feed
- PCR molecular testing mandatory for testable high-risk inputs; immunological methods permitted only for animal feed
- Ongoing statistically designed sampling and testing of major high-risk inputs, not one-off testing
- Affidavits and country-of-origin evidence for non-testable high-risk inputs where no valid test exists
- Chain of custody: segregation, equipment cleanout and traceability records
- Onsite inspection of producing facilities at least annually where parallel processing of a major high-risk input occurs; unannounced inspection at the Technical Administrator's discretion
- A Project-run surveillance programme that routinely retests verified products in market
- Annual renewal evaluation of every verified product, with removal from the programme for unresolved major non-conformities
What it leaves out
Not a criticism of the scheme. A standard is a scope, and this is where this one ends.
- No organic requirement: synthetic pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilisers are permitted on verified crops
- No pesticide residue limit; glyphosate and other residues are outside the standard entirely
- No greenhouse gas, energy or emissions requirement
- No labour, wage or worker-safety standard
- No animal welfare requirement beyond the GMO content of feed
- No packaging sustainability requirement; packaging is assessed only for GMO-derived content where directly combined with the product
- No claim of zero GMO content; the standard sets thresholds, not absence, and prohibits participants making 100% GMO-absence claims
- Low-Risk ingredients with no commercially available GM counterpart, such as wheat and oats, remain fully eligible, so the mark appears on products that could not contain GMOs in the first place
- No requirement to trace back to tested seed for general product verification
- Not eligible: goods making a disclosure under the USDA National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, so the mark and the federal BE label are mutually exclusive
The scheme
| Issued by | Non-GMO Project |
|---|---|
| Where it applies | North America (United States and Canada) for the market claim; verified supply chains extend globally |
| Audit and renewal | Annual: renewal evaluation of every verified product at least once a year, with more frequent updates required where a pattern of major non-conformities exists |
| Cost | Not published. The Project charges a licence fee and each Technical Administrator sets its own fees; the Project directs applicants to contact the TAs individually for pricing. Independent estimates commonly put first-year cost in the low thousands of USD per product line, but no figure could be sourced to the Project. |
What we read
Non-GMO Project Standard Version 16.1, published and effective 31 March 2023
- standard_version_read — Version 16.1 of the Non-GMO Project Standard was published and took effect on March 31, 2023.
- Action Thresholds — Table 6-1 Action Thresholds: Seed and vegetative propagation materials 0.25%; Wholesale or retail goods for human or pet use that are either ingested or topically applied 0.9%; Livestock, poultry, bee, and seafood feed and supplements 5%; g
- testing regime — For Testable High-Risk Inputs and Ingredients (including for use in pet food) other than animal feed, the molecular method polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the only acceptable testing methodology.
- no 100% absence claim — Products must comply, on an ongoing basis, with the labeling requirements outlined in the Standard and cannot carry competing claims or 100% GMO absence claims.
- products with no GMO counterpart, Non-Risk exclusion in v16.1 — Goods composed entirely of Non-Risk Inputs and Ingredients and that are part of a Non-Risk Category... Non-Risk Categories include, but are not limited to, 100% salt goods, unflavored still beverages, unflavored carbonated beverages, and un
- Low-Risk ingredients remain eligible — Low Risk: Organisms and the Inputs and Ingredients derived from them that are not classified as Monitored Risk or High Risk.
- independence_score, third-party Technical Administrators and surveillance — Technical Administrator (TA) - A certification body approved by the Project to assess compliance with the Standard on behalf of the Project... the Non-GMO Project maintains surveillance and auditing programs. The surveillance program routin
- independence_score, unannounced inspection discretion — At the TA's discretion, unannounced inspections may be used to ensure compliance with the Standard.
- enforcement_score, removal from the programme — Any known Major Non-conformity that goes unreported or uncorrected or keeps recurring... will be cause for the Product or the Participant to be removed from the PVP.
- renewal_period — Renewal evaluation of every Verified Product will be required at least annually.
- Technical Administrators named, cost not published — NSF, FoodChain ID, Where Food Comes From, Inc., SCS Global Services... We encourage you to explore each company's website and contact them to determine the best fit for you.
What we could not establish
Scores are the fixed calibration anchors from the brief, not independently derived. Fee levels are genuinely unpublished: neither the Project nor its Technical Administrators post a schedule, so no cost figure is asserted. The Project does not publish a register of products removed from the programme, so the enforcement score reflects a documented removal mechanism in the standard rather than an observed public record of removals. Version 16.1 is the version linked from the Project's own standard page as of July 2026; whether a later revision is in public comment was not confirmed.
Who holds it
Scored companies carrying this mark, highest first. Holding it is not the same as scoring well — the mark is one input of six.
| Company | Scope held | YKO score |
|---|---|---|
| Nature's Promise | Not stated | 41.3 |
| Lundberg Family Farms | Not stated | 34.7 |
| Safe Catch | Not stated | 20.3 |
| Caboo | Not stated | 17 |
| Tazo | Not stated | 16.8 |
| Wild Planet | Not stated | 16.3 |
| Chocolove | Not stated | 11.4 |
| JUST | Not stated | 8.5 |
If you hold this certification, it is already on your record. What a buyer cannot see there yet is the evidence behind the parts this standard does not reach.