Month / October 2017

by Frank Maduri

Follow Up: The GMO Labeling Debate Continues

The GMO labeling debate continues on, now almost eighteen months after the 2016 bill was signed to require food producers to disclose genetically engineered or genetically modified ingredients on the labels of consumer products.

The debate at this point centers around new legislation in Congress that the big lobbying groups, such as GMA (Grocery Manufacturers of America), are advocating for which will allow some loopholes to the disclosure of genetically altered ingredients.

This week in the news, the GMA suffered a setback when Nestle decided to join The Campbell Soup Company and withdraw from the GMA over the issue. Nestle and Campbell Soup disbanded their membership in the group over this contentious issue of GMO labeling.

Both Nestle and Campbell Soup favor more transparent disclosure of genetically modified or engineered ingredients. In a previous article I produced, the decision by The Campbell Soup Company to make a full disclosure of GMO ingredients before it was required by law brought significant traction and attention to the legislation that eventually gained passage in 2016.

The GMA group wants less transparency in the process, and the opinion of the Nestle and Campbell Soup is that direction will damage the relationship with the consumer more than just disclosing the presence of GMO ingredients up front. The average consumer today has far more information available to them and many shoppers are significantly more health conscious than in prior generations.

However, at the same time, some consumers do not care about GMO or genetically engineered ingredients in their food. Some consumers have a favorable view of GMO ingredients and feel they are safe. Many consumers are making purchasing decisions strictly based on price, and they cannot afford to stretch their budget to buy products that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The other force at play here is that depending on the type of grocery item on the list, the non-GMO versions are either difficult to find or do not exist. The second most important attribute to shoppers in grocery channel surveys after price/value is time/convenience. The average shopper has a very busy lifestyle and most people have what they would term “time sensitivity” and that is a huge component in some shoppers just doing the “grab and go” without reading labels.

It should be noted that the majority of Americans have a negative opinion of GMO and genetically altered or engineered ingredients in food products. It has become an issue where the consumer is making purchasing decisions based on that one factor, which makes the labeling transparency crucial.

Some food companies have noted sluggish sales of certain product categories and are rapidly designing alternative versions that are either organic, gluten free, soy free, or GMO-free.

The current legislation regarding GMO labeling has a few different options for the food producing company with regard to the design of their label deck. The first option is to highlight the ingredient(s) that are genetically modified and then put a disclaimer below the ingredients list that the highlighted items are made with genetic engineering.

The second option is to place an asterisk next to the ingredient(s) that are modified or genetically altered and then below the ingredient list have a similar disclaimer as option one: made with genetic engineering/modification.

The third option is to not highlight or asterisk any individual ingredients on the label and put some type of bold or highlighted statement reading: this product contains ingredients made with genetic engineering.

Then what is known in the industry as “option four” which is going to become more prevalent on packaging and label decks for companies who want to be less transparent about their ingredient statement. This option allows the food producer to put the disclaimer of the genetically altered or engineered ingredients on a document that can only be found if the consumer scans the QR code on the package.

The lobbying and special interest groups for the GMO free or those against the use of genetically engineered ingredients in our food products have several issues with this option for disclosure.

The first point of contention being the obvious one, the consumer has limited time and yet they are going to have to scan a QR code on individual packages and then read the disclosure statement to determine whether or not it is genetically modified, that is an unrealistic expectation.

The other major point of concern is the elderly, the economically disadvantaged, and those with other physical handicaps do not have access to the technology needed to scan the QR code to find this information.

The option four labeling is also being used on items that the average consumer would not anticipate being genetically engineered: such as grapes, certain types of juice products, and bottled spices. This option, just at face value, seems dishonest to the consumer as well.

The role of the QR codes in the labeling of food products and disclosures in any future legislation remains to be determined. It is definitely going to be one point of contention moving forward.

The labeling of food products and GMOs took another on another aspect in the news this week, with a major news organization publishing a story based on the results of a study published in JAMA where scientists analyzed the effects of the pesticide called Roundup.

The study found that people living in Southern California in recent years have had an increased level of glyphosate in their system which is the active ingredient in that pesticide product (see my earlier article on the effects of this product and the food supply) it is increased about 500%.

The study in Great Britain of the effects of glyphosate on rats demonstrated an increased level of liver disease and liver cancer. This is something that the scientists will monitor in California with their study participants. In fair balance, it is not known whether the increased levels in Southern California are due to the ingestion of foods with higher levels of GMOs, or if the participants breathed in particles of the pesticide from nearby farms.

The use of pesticides, herbicides, and genetic engineering has altered our food and our crops. It is trending in lockstep with an increased rate of illness in Americans from higher rates of cancer, to autoimmune diseases, autism, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia.
The American public should have the right to know if the products they buy to feed themselves and their families contain ingredients that are genetically modified or altered. It should be up to the consumer to make their own choices based on having all the facts in front of them.

The debate on GMO labeling and whether or not genetically modified foods are safe will continue on, and what is left is for you to decide which side you will be on.

by Frank Maduri

Inconceivable: MLB Realignment Proposal Gets Leaked

The award -winning publication, Baseball America, ran a story on Wednesday with a leaked proposal being considered by Major League Baseball that would realign the divisions, shorten the regular season, and add more playoff teams. The theory being that the reduction in travel costs will offset the revenue lost from the shortened schedule.

The proposal would eliminate the American League and National League as baseball fans have grown accustomed to throughout the history of the sport. The new realignment would group the teams geographically without allegiances to the current divisional groupings.

The new realignment concept would include expansion of the league by two teams to bring the total number of teams to 32; allowing the realigned proposal to divide the teams evenly. The new plan would create four divisions with eight teams each, and the two teams mentioned in the expansion component are Montreal and Portland, Oregon.

I have covered the expansion plans for all the major sports leagues for about four years now. I completed a huge series of articles on expansion about two years ago which considered several factors for different potential markets for new teams in each sport. These two cities are not surprising as top expansion destinations for baseball to consider at this point.

The support to bring back the Montreal Expos has been growing in the past few years and they have a potential ownership group and a few different sites identified for a downtown ballpark which I covered in a piece I wrote last year. Montreal makes sense because they have a built-in fan base from their first iteration that MLB can draw from and grow. The trepidation that some will have, and it is understandable, is that the city had a team and lost it already, that same type of fan apathy can happen again. That situation would be obviously very unideal for the league.

Portland came in “second place” in the race to get the relocated Expos in the early 2000s. The city has some solid demographic evidence to support a team and some potentially problematic detracting factors (media market size, weak potential corporate sponsorship) and they have no current stadium to support a team.

However, according to this report and some other research, the ownership group in Portland can still access a state grant for funding for a portion of the new stadium which was approved for the pursuit of the Expos relocation and still has not expired.

The last time MLB expanded was in the late 1990s and the valuations on those teams have gone through the roof relative to their initial expansion entry fees. The formula for the expansion fee for the two teams added in this proposal would apply the average franchise valuation and factor in the increased value based on revenue models as well as the average value increase over the past twenty years.

The new expansion fees will provide significant revenue to each owner and would be incentive enough for them to add two new members to the ranks. The newly proposed alignment would put teams like the New York Mets and New York Yankees in the same division. The format would put the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox in the same division, and would break up certain rivalries that the average fan has grown to enjoy.

The Mets would be in a division without any of the other members of their current division, the NL East, and the Minnesota Twins would play all of their road games in the Eastern time zone. The questions will almost certainly arise around the designated hitter rule with the dissolution being proposed of the two league structure in place currently.

The purists are going to have several issues with this proposal including the marked increase in the number of playoff teams. The realigned league would have 12 playoff teams: the four division winners, and eight “wild card” teams that would play each other to determine who plays the four division winners in the Division Series, then the final four teams would compete to determine the World Series participants.

The shortened regular season would lead to more playoff games which would invariably increase the value of the television and media rights deals that MLB would seek to broker with their broadcast partners in the future.

The debate will most certainly be spirited regarding the expanded playoffs and the value of “making the playoffs” only to play a winner takes all one game elimination wild card game. The other side will defend the decision with the rationale that the league will have two more teams, and the expanded number of postseason slots should keep more teams in contention. This will translate into better interest in late season games in more markets which should help attendance levels in late season games with a reduced regular season.

The detractors to this proposal will inevitably feel that the elimination of the divisions we have grown traditionally accustomed to (i.e. AL East, NL West) in favor of a completely different / highly geographic setup which eliminates some historic rivalries will damage the television ratings for the sport.

In my view, baseball is different than the other major sports because it does not have the same national appeal. The television ratings for MLB have proven that it is a regional sport and while the nationally televised “Game of the Week” is nice, that game does not generate ratings the way a national broadcast for the NBA or NFL “Game of the Week”.

The argument could be made that this new proposal will become too specifically focused which could hurt the interest in the sport. A good example is who is going to care about a Baltimore Orioles versus New York Mets game outside of those two markets? Not that many people.

The new proposal is also going to face resistance from certain team owners especially in the western regions and some of the small market teams which will be placed into divisions with several larger market teams. The team owners in the eastern regions and the southern areas will most likely support this type of proposal because it will drastically reduce their travel costs, which is becoming a growing concern for team owners across Major League Baseball.

The league has other issues though that this proposal, or one of similar type, will not repair. The pace of play situation is a huge problem for the sport. The league has been looking at ways to speed up the length of games because millennials and younger people are not interested in anything that takes three to four hours out of their life to do. The average length of a game went down a couple of years ago and this season is up over three hours and five minutes. That needs to get resolved or else they will have a more difficult time maintaining fan interest in the future.

The long- term viability of certain franchises, namely the Oakland A’s and Tampa Bay Rays needs to be clarified before they expand and add two new teams to the league. Those two franchises are struggling to generate attendance and revenue and their respective owners are trying to get new stadiums built for them thinking that will solve all of their issues.

The proposal is radical, it is inconceivable to me that they would alter and eliminate the National League and American League and dissolve the current division structure and playoff structure. Then, I think of the changes to the league structures when they moved Houston to the American League which made necessary an interleague series all year long because of the unbalanced number of teams. The MLB offices did that to slowly dissolve the lines between the two leagues, to prepare the fans for something else in the future: one league.

The debate will continue as the months move forward. It should be noted that MLB knew what it was doing when it “leaked” this proposal. This was a calculated move to soften the ground around making these types of changes. It is a test sample, this does not mean this proposal for realignment is set in stone.

Conversely, the league has certain issues that you might consider giving them credit for recognizing: the cost of travel for a whole roster of players and support staff is getting very expensive, the amount of games in different time zones is draining the players, and the season is a six month grind with not enough off days (this proposal would give one day off a week to players and allow for travel the next day rather than overnight flights which can be a safety issue).

Major League Baseball has some issues that they must resolve and they are also trying to adapt to a changing landscape for the viewing of sports content and for maintaining fan interest in a world full of other distractions. This proposal seems radical, bizarre, and doomed to a baseball purist like myself.

However, we must all realize that this was just a test, the real changes are coming down the road, and I cannot imagine how inconceivable the actual realignment will be when it rolls out in the future.

by Frank Maduri

The Next Battleground: Gene-Editing & Food Products

The vigorous pushback that GMO (genetically modified) or genetically engineered ingredients in our food supply have received is a topic that I have covered here on Frank’s Forum as well as for other news websites for about four years.

My position regarding this issue is well documented as being against the use of genetically modified organisms or genetically engineered ingredients in our food. I have also detailed the problems inherently built into our food supply chain with genetically modified seeds. This scenario has fostered conditions where it is very difficult in the agricultural realities of today to avoid GMOs or genetic engineering in certain staple crops: corn, soybean, wheat, and sugar beet.

In those cases, I am a staunch proponent of the need for clear labeling practices for food production companies to notify the consumer of whether or not the item in question is made with genetically modified/engineered ingredients. I believe in the movement and the slogan fostered by another group, we have “a right to know if it is GMO”.

I was researching a set of different resources last week in the library for a GMO related piece, and I stumbled upon some research on genetic editing, or gene-editing, used in crops. This particular data set was on a study using genetic editing in corn for commercial use and not for human consumption.

The process of gene-editing inserts desired traits into the genetic pathways of crops and livestock. This trend is alarming to some, and intriguing to others; it certainly presents an ethical set of questions.
The intent, according to some published reports, is for gene-editing to be used in the human food supply in the future. The large corporate players in the industry have already made statements to the media indicating that their expectation is for gene-editing to be integrated into food production.

This raises some very important ethical questions about the alteration of the DNA of food which is grown in the earth. It raises serious questions about the line of division between man and God.

The process of genetic editing in food is also generating a new oracle within certain circles as “GMO 2.0” ; an inference to this scientific method being simply a continuation or new version of GMO ingredients in food. The use of the CRISPR method allows large chemical companies such as Dow/DuPont the capability to splice the genetic makeup of the food source.

The agricultural science and seed suppliers have become increasingly enmeshed over the course of the last two to three years due to mergers and acquisitions activity. The repercussions of that activity translate to molding scientific advances into what could be marketed to generate profits. This is a dangerous trend particularly when it is connected to the food supply.

These same agricultural/chemical giants: Dow/DuPont, Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, and others are “softening the ground” (all irony aside) with campaigns designed to almost condition the consumer to accept genetically edited products. They seek to avoid the public backlash that GMOs and products with genetically engineered ingredients have faced within the marketplace.

The key to that campaign objective is to position the genetic editing as more closely related to science and the scientific makeup of the crop or produce involved. The splice at the DNA level is going to be marketed as “more natural” than the process of GMO – which has an overwhelmingly negative public perception surrounding it.

This method of direct to consumer marketing is certainly nothing new, and is an increasingly common trend in marketing. The obstacles that face the agricultural titans mentioned earlier is that the public has access to so much information now than it did twenty or thirty years ago when the genetic engineering experiments began.

The other fact that is neglected in all of this, is that the process of CRISPR and genetic editing still modifies the DNA and the chemical structure of the crop in question. The process still alters what God created with something that mankind engineered. The questions will persist that if they are moving toward genetic editing to clone a “super crop” – where does it end?

The inevitable and controversial topic of cloning will take a renewed position within the national dialogue in America. The question of human cloning will be soon to follow. The debate will again be brought to the surface and the concept of genetic editing will have higher stakes than just the food supply.

In the end analysis, the responsibility shifts back to us to educate ourselves on the concept of genetic editing, and there are numerous sources of information on this subject. The central question will remain: should man be involved in the alteration of the DNA of something that was created long before we had any technology available? Should mankind use science to change what God created?

Those answers will not be concluded easily but those are the issues we will confront in the months ahead. The battle lines are drawn: which side wiil you be on?