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：B。根据题干中的food manufacturers和题文同序原则可定位至原文最后一段。该段第一句指出，食品制造商（food manufacturers）在使用“不含声明”标签时必须小心谨慎。B项与此内容相符，其中的Exercise caution是该句中tread carefully的同义替换，the use of absence claims是句中when it comes to using absence claims的同义改写，故B项为正确答案。

错项排除：文章最后一段提到，使用“不含声明”这种文字游戏还传递了一个信息，即农业和食品加工方面的创新（innovations）是不受欢迎的，结果会导致效率降低（less efficiency），消费者的选择减少，最终导致食品价格上涨（more costly food products）。A项的cost of food products，C项的new innovations，D项的Promote efficiency是针对最后一段中“不含声明”的负面影响展开的，并不是作者的建议，属于主观臆测，故均可排除。