In recent years, the food industry has increased its use of labels. Whether the labels say ‘non-GMO (非转基因的)’ or ‘no sugar’, or ‘zero carbohydrates’, consumers are increasingly demanding more information about what’s in their food. One report found that 39 percent of consumers would switch from the brands they currently buy to others that provide clearer, more accurate product information. Food manufacturers are responding to the report with new labels to meet that demand, and they’re doing so with an eye towards giving their products an advantage over the competition, and bolstering profits.

        This strategy makes intuitive sense. If consumers say they want transparency, tell them exactly what is in your product. That is simply supplying a certain demand. But the marketing strategy in response to this consumer demand has gone beyond articulating what is in a product, to labeling what is NOT in the food. These labels are known as “absence claims” labels, and they represent an emerging labeling trend that is detrimental both to the consumers who purchase the products and the industry that supplies them.

        For example, Hunt’s put a “non-GMO” label on its canned crushed tomatoes a few years ago—despite the fact that at the time there was no such thing as a GMO tomato on the market. Some dairy companies are using the “non-GMO” label on their milk, despite the fact that all milk is naturally GMO-free, another label that creates unnecessary fear around food.

        While creating labels that play on consumer fears and misconceptions about their food may give a company a temporary marketing advantage over competing products on the grocery aisle, in the long term this strategy will have just the opposite effect: by injecting fear into the discourse about our food, we run the risk of eroding consumer trust in not just a single product, but the entire food business.

        Eventually, it becomes a question in consumers’ minds: Were these foods ever safe? By purchasing and consuming these types of products, have I already done some kind of harm to my family or the planet? For food manufacturers, it will mean damaged consumer trust and lower sales for everyone. And this isn’t just supposition. A recent study found that absence claims labels can create a stigma around foods even when there is no scientific evidence that they cause harm.

        It’s clear that food manufacturers must tread carefully when it comes to using absence claims. In addition to the likely negative long-term impact on sales, this verbal trick sends a message that innovations in farming and food processing are unwelcome, eventually leading to less efficiency, fewer choices for consumers, and ultimately more costly food products. If we allow this kind of labeling to continue, we will all lose.

解析：D。根据a report可定位至第一段第三句。该句提到，一份报告发现，39%的消费者会从目前购买的品牌，转而购买能够提供更清晰、更准确产品信息的其他品牌，这是对前面一句话“消费者对于知晓食物中成分信息的需求日益增长”的例证，因此报告中得出的趋势就是consumers are increasingly demanding more information about what’s in their food，D项是对此内容的同义转述，故正确。

错项排除：原文第一段最后提到食品生产商使用新标签来满足这一需求，但他们这样做是想让自己的产品在竞争中占据优势，提高利润，并不是说他们的食品安全意识提高了，故A项排除。B项利用第一段最后一句的Food manufacturers和bolstering profits进行干扰，但原文是说这是针对报告做出的反应，并非报告中观察到的趋势，故B项排除。C项利用第一段第二句的consumers are increasingly demanding进行干扰，但eye-catching food labels在文中无依据，故C项排除。