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：A。根据题干中的marketing strategy可定位至原文第二段。该段第二句提到，如果消费者说他们想要透明，告诉他们产品中到底有什么，根据前面一句说的这种策略具有直观的意义可知，这是“旧”的营销策略，而第四句中说到，针对这种消费者需求的营销策略已经超越了明确说明产品中含有什么，而是标明食品中不含什么，根据But可知前后是两种策略的对比，后面一种是“新”的营销策略。也就是说新营销策略标明食品中不含什么（what is NOT in the food），A项与此内容相符，其中的the absence of certain elements对应该句的what is NOT in the food，故A项为正确答案。

错项排除：B项利用第二段第四句中的articulating进行干扰，但原文是说“标明产品中含有什么”，并不是说产品的独特营养价值，故B项排除。C项说的是“旧”的营销策略，故排除。D项利用第二段第二句的transparency进行干扰，但原文表达的是消费者想要信息透明，而非透明的标签，D项语义理解偏差，故排除。