Should there be a cheer for Cheerios, which soon will label its venerable O’s as being free of ingredients containing genetically modified organisms? Is this a concern-for-the-consumer thing, or just a marketing ploy?

The answer seems to be a little bit of both. The label is an indication that the consumer has won a battle for more information and transparency. That’s worth cheering.

But it does not mean that Cheerios are any more or less healthy than they were before.

It’s all about the labeling. The decision to label may mollify the anti-GMO activists, but for most of us, it probably won’t matter much.

We eat. We read labels that for the most part we don’t understand. Or we don’t read labels, because for the most part we don’t understand them. Still, we eat.

Most big seed producers, like Monsanto, favor voluntary labeling. They know they face a future that involves labeling — consumers are demanding it — and they want to control it from the start. They’ve also spent millions of dollars defeating two state efforts to have mandatory labeling, in California and Washington, and they don’t want to continue having to fight those battles.

The best solution from the seed producers’ point of view is a federally mandated voluntary labeling process. And just in case the states don’t understand this, the producers want legislation that would prohibit the states from trying to mandate labels on their own.

The Food and Drug Administration says that foods from GMOs have been in the food supply for about 20 years. The FDA notes that people have been modifying plants for thousands of years through breeding and selection. The FDA says the main difference is that genetically engineered plants are modified through modern biotechnology instead of traditional breeding methods.

Further, the FDA says, the producer or manufacturer still has the obligation to ensure that the food is safe.

Studies have shown that 90 percent of Americans say they want GMO labels on their food. But other information suggests that consumers don’t pay much attention to the labels. In the 60 countries that currently mandate labeling, labels have barely altered the buying habits of consumers.

What is it that consumers are looking for?

Power, in a word. Consumers like the idea that they can force companies to bend to their will. They like the idea that they are making well-informed purchases. They like the idea that they can make easy decisions that don’t involve hard work like exercise or dieting and that they believe may result in a health benefit.

Making food GMO-free, like in the case of Cheerios, was not a lot of work, according to Mark Bittman, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times and the Times magazine’s food columnist.

Mr. Bittman explained in an op-ed column last month that Cheerios are mostly made of oats and that there are no GMO oats. The other ingredients in the cereal are small amounts of cornstarch and sugar. General Mills sourced non-GMO cornstarch and cane, rather than beet sugar, to produce non-GMO Cheerios.

Mr. Bittman goes on to say that this was not a principled decision by General Mills, because other varieties of Cheerios, such as Apple Cinnamon and Multi Grain, will continue to use ingredients that contain GMOs, including corn, corn syrup, beet sugar and others.

People want to make informed decisions. They want to know how their food is being produced and processed, even if their buying decisions don’t reflect that. Putting the non-GMO label on a box of Cheerios may make consumers feel like they are buying a purer product.

The reality is that we are far from developing diets that don’t include GMOs. Almost all corn and soybeans grown in the United States are grown with GMO seeds, and most processed food contains those products.

Labeling won’t change farming, and that’s where the real impact of GMOs has been felt. Seed producers, like Monsanto, are the main beneficiaries of GMOs, not farmers. The Monsantos of the world contend that GMO seeds increase yields and keep food costs down, but farmers argue that they have made traditional farming more expensive.

One of the negatives of GMOs is that they have hurt efforts to use ecologically friendly methods to combat weeds and bugs in industrial farming. They don’t make food unhealthy, although about half the populations thinks so.

The real battle over GMOs is between the farmers and the seed producers. Labels that provide more information are a modest victory for consumers who care about their food quality, but foods that don’t contain GMOs should not be perceived as health food.

Those seeking healthier food may want to look for the organic label on foods, showing they are free of antibiotics and pesticides. Generally that means a higher price, too. Some consumers think it’s worth it. Whether you can feed a planet of 7 billion people that kind of food is a different question.