Sean Moloughney, Editor04.01.16
Consumer demand for transparency and visibility into foods, beverages and dietary supplements has been building up for years, as evidenced by surging demand for non-GMO products.
A sure sign that businesses are starting to get the message, in January Campbell Soup was the first major food company to support mandatory national labeling of products that contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. “We put the consumer at the center of everything we do,” the company said in a blog post. “We have always believed that consumers have the right to know what’s in their food.”
A broad victory for the right-to-know movement, in March the U.S. Senate blocked a bill dubbed by critics as the DARK Act, which would have preempted state GMO labeling laws, like the one in Vermont that’s set to go into effect in July, and would have codified a voluntary labeling standard. The food industry has fought GMO labeling for years, spending millions of dollars to defeat ballot measures in California, Washington, Colorado and Oregon, arguing that a state-by-state patchwork of laws is untenable. While it’s not yet clear what may happen next on the legislative front, lacking a national standard for GMO labeling, companies are beginning to take it upon themselves to change their labels across the board.
For example, General Mills, Kellogg and Mars have recently committed to labeling products that contain GE ingredients. While Mars maintained its position that GE ingredients are safe, it went on to say the company has two overriding concerns: “to manufacture and sell products that meet the highest standards of quality and food safety; and to satisfy our consumers’ needs … At Mars, we not only ensure the safety of all raw materials in our products, we’re also committed to being transparent with our consumers so they can understand what’s in the products they love.”
While a recent study argued that changing labels would be a costly endeavor that companies would pass on to consumers, food processors regularly make changes to their product labels, as they anticipate and meet changing consumer demands and for other marketing or regulatory reasons.
Experts have also cast doubt on fears that GMO labels would increase consumer concern and deter sales of safe products. According to Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), studies from agricultural economists who analyzed consumer behavior in countries that require GMO labeling, like Brazil, showed no negative impact on sales. “More importantly, food prices in Brazil—and the 63 other countries that have adopted GMO labeling—did not rise,” Mr. Faber noted.
Ultimately, a national labeling solution is the best option going forward, but leaving consumers in the dark is not a sound or smart strategy.
A sure sign that businesses are starting to get the message, in January Campbell Soup was the first major food company to support mandatory national labeling of products that contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. “We put the consumer at the center of everything we do,” the company said in a blog post. “We have always believed that consumers have the right to know what’s in their food.”
A broad victory for the right-to-know movement, in March the U.S. Senate blocked a bill dubbed by critics as the DARK Act, which would have preempted state GMO labeling laws, like the one in Vermont that’s set to go into effect in July, and would have codified a voluntary labeling standard. The food industry has fought GMO labeling for years, spending millions of dollars to defeat ballot measures in California, Washington, Colorado and Oregon, arguing that a state-by-state patchwork of laws is untenable. While it’s not yet clear what may happen next on the legislative front, lacking a national standard for GMO labeling, companies are beginning to take it upon themselves to change their labels across the board.
For example, General Mills, Kellogg and Mars have recently committed to labeling products that contain GE ingredients. While Mars maintained its position that GE ingredients are safe, it went on to say the company has two overriding concerns: “to manufacture and sell products that meet the highest standards of quality and food safety; and to satisfy our consumers’ needs … At Mars, we not only ensure the safety of all raw materials in our products, we’re also committed to being transparent with our consumers so they can understand what’s in the products they love.”
While a recent study argued that changing labels would be a costly endeavor that companies would pass on to consumers, food processors regularly make changes to their product labels, as they anticipate and meet changing consumer demands and for other marketing or regulatory reasons.
Experts have also cast doubt on fears that GMO labels would increase consumer concern and deter sales of safe products. According to Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), studies from agricultural economists who analyzed consumer behavior in countries that require GMO labeling, like Brazil, showed no negative impact on sales. “More importantly, food prices in Brazil—and the 63 other countries that have adopted GMO labeling—did not rise,” Mr. Faber noted.
Ultimately, a national labeling solution is the best option going forward, but leaving consumers in the dark is not a sound or smart strategy.
