The rapid global development of agricultural production systems using seeds derived from genetic modification (GM) has been paralleled by the growth of attempts to keep at least a part of the world's agriculture and food as free from GM-crops and their products as possible. The ideal for some proponents of such "GM-free" activity would be a total absence, usually styled "zero content"; others, perhaps more realistically, opt for a definition usually not precisely defined that allows for minimal trace levels of GM material. The reasons for wanting "GM-free" agriculture and its products are varied; they include philosophical and religious beliefs, concern for human (and animal) health--and for "the environment"-as well as commercial and political interests. With such a variety of motivations, and in the absence of legal rulings, the definitions of "GM-free" vary according to inclination and circumstances. Whatever the precise meaning, the maintenance of a "GM-free" product stream in a world where GM crop production is widespread requires the establishment of identity preservation and segregation systems in which traceability and testing are cornerstones. Inevitably these have cost implications for the supply chain and/or the ultimate consumer. In a number of countries different forms of "GM-free" labels exist for some products; the style of such labels is variable with schemes and labels typically voluntary or privately organized. In more recent years, some governments have begun to regularize the definition and meaning of "GM-free." We conclude our analysis by exploring consumer reactions both to "GM-free" and to "GM-free" labels, and ask who ultimately benefits from preserving a product stream substantially or entirely devoid of GM-content.
Keywords: "GM-free" in practice; problems with “GM-free”; the meaning of "GM-free"; “GM-free” criteria; “GM-free” labels.