The number that decides pass or fail isn't picked by the company that profits from certifications passing.
A certification threshold is only as credible as the process that set it. A specific-sounding number with no public derivation is a liability, not a strength: it invites — and can't answer — the question "how was this derived?"
The MPFREE Standard's numeric thresholds are set and periodically reviewed by an independent Scientific Advisory Board: a majority-non-employee body with published conflict-of-interest disclosures, where no member sets a threshold for a certification they also audit. Thresholds are based on published, peer-reviewed literature as it exists at the time of review, and every threshold ships with a dated rationale document, publicly linked from the Standards page.
This isn't a novel structure. The Non-GMO Project, one of the benchmark schemes MPFREE is modeled against, publishes a specific numeric action threshold (0.9% for products intended for human consumption) along with the reasoning behind it, rather than an unqualified "GMO-free" claim [1]. A defensible threshold-based standard and an absolute-claim standard are structurally different things, and the credible schemes in this space have consistently chosen the former.
Thresholds are reviewed on a fixed cadence — at minimum every 24 months, or immediately on material new published evidence — and a threshold revision doesn't silently reclassify existing certifications; affected products get a defined re-test window instead.