Follow Up: Toys R Us Comeback / Mergers Roundup

In a follow up to a recent post, bankrupt Toys R Us may make a comeback under a new plan outlined by a former CEO of their company, Jerry Storch, who is working to revive the brand.

Mr. Storch, according to CNBC, has been in talks with Credit Suisse and Fairfax (the group which successfully bid for the Toys R Us Canada division) to put together financing and a strategic plan to bring back a “few hundred” Toys R Us stores. The chain had 800 locations in the U.S. that are all in the final stages of shutting down at this time.

The plan being formulated by Mr. Storch would include former executives from the company in a new leadership team. It would, according to reports, place Toys R Us and Babies R Us in the same physical retail space under one large floorplan. The original way that the company operated was with two separate physical retail locations for each of those brands.

This would streamline operations, shipping, and receiving. It would also streamline hiring and provide other cost controls which were lacking in the original version of the brand.

The former Toys R Us corporation will be holding the final piece of business before it fully dissolves: an auction for their intellectual property. That auction will be held next week, and Mr. Storch plans to win the auction so that he can utilize that intellectual property in the “reboot” of the brand.

This situation merits watching as the entire toy industry would benefit from some sort of presence from Toys R Us in the future. The impact of the revival of Babies R Us would be helpful to parents, particularly new parents, and toddlers throughout our country.

Mergers Roundup

In other mergers and acquisitions news, the rumor that Kraft Heinz was looking to purchase Campbell Soup sent the share price of Campbell up significantly on Tuesday. The analysts on Wall Street, for the most part, feel that this merger does not make sense for Kraft Heinz or Campbell to do at this point.

The view of “the Street” is that Kraft Heinz needs to grow internationally and should focus their next acquisition on expanding their global business presence. The expense needed to purchase and recalibrate Campbell would be better used on a different purchase in the view of many analysts.

My own perspective is very different, in my experience in the food industry and having worked for a supplier to both those major companies, Kraft Heinz has some definite synergies with Campbell that would help both parties to grow. The expertise of Kraft and their distribution system could absolutely take Campbell in a whole new direction and create some great new product innovations for the consumer.

Furthermore, I think that Kraft Heinz can do both: they could purchase Campbell and still obtain a Mondelez or another company with a large international footprint.

The other aspect to watch here is that there are powers within Campbell that may not want to sell off the entire company, it may sell a piece to Kraft instead. This rumor is worth paying attention to because then the whole other area involved is what do you call the company? Do they part ways with the Campbell name that has been around since just after the Civil War?

Campbell is in disarray and has no CEO, the company is in need of a major overhaul and Kraft Heinz could be the right fit for them to ensure their survival.

ConAgra and Pinnacle Foods merged today in a deal worth somewhere between $8 and $10 billion depending on what report you access. That proposal came up quickly to the public (no doubt the behind the scenes channels have been at work here for a while) and it became finalized relatively fast.

This merger represents an aggressive push from ConAgra to keep expanding into the frozen foods area. They have made other smaller consolidation moves to support this new strategic growth area, but this Pinnacle move is a major gain by ConAgra.

I have watched ConAgra closely the last several months as they look to recalibrate their brand portfolio. They are chasing Nestle in the frozen food space, and this supports demographic trend data that reflects that millennial consumers are more likely to purchase frozen products.

Pinnacle has some other brands that make this move interesting from shelf stable products, and gluten free options because they purchased Boulder Foods recently who is a big producer of bread for those seeking gluten free alternatives.

The final merger rumor in the roundup today is the news of CBS and Amazon potentially joining forces. The news comes as a surprise to some, as no surprise to others, and as a “long shot” to still others with knowledge of that situation.

The “face value” of the proposal makes sense, Amazon needs more video content it is losing out to competitors for that reason. CBS has some of the most watched TV content in the mainstream broadcast categories, and would be the most cost effective merger target. CBS wants to merge with someone in “new media” to survive in the new TV landscape.

The acquisition of CBS would be the largest deal Amazon would have done to this point, if it does indeed ever come to fruition. The roadblock is the court activity surrounding the lawsuit between CBS and their parent company, National Amusements, (which I have covered previously on Frank’s Forum) over the Viacom merger.

The general industry sentiment is that CBS is going to have a hard time winning that suit to get out from under National Amusements in order to negotiate their own deal for acquisition.

The alternative way this could go is that the situation gets so acrimonious between CBS and their parent company (we are basically there now) that National Amusements may choose to sell off CBS. They would then take that money and invest it either into Viacom and their other holdings or make a series of other smaller moves to restructure their holdings.

The CBS – Amazon potential, in my view, has some merit to it. I still maintain though as I have for a while now that CBS is still more likely to become part of Verizon. That could be a very good merger for both parties involved.

These and other mergers will be covered as the summer rolls on. I can express one sentiment most will agree with me on: I am rooting for Toys R Us to come back for the next generation of kids.

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.

Know If It Is GMO: Campbell Soup Label Disclosure

It has been about a week and a half since The NY Times and other mainstream news sources reported that Campbell Soup Company has announced that it will disclose on their product labeling all genetically modified or genetically engineered ingredients across every entry in all their product lines. I have reported on the GMO labeling issue in the past, especially with the situation in California, where all the huge food companies joined together to defeat that proposed ballot initiative.


This choice by Campbell’s Soup at this time will certainly apply pressure to other food industry players to comply in disclosing their GMO containing products. In the process, the federal government will also be under scrutiny, particularly the FDA, to initiate fundamental and substantive progress on a labeling requirement system for genetically modified ingredients in consumer food products.


The component of the decision by Campbell Soup that is significantly newsworthy is the size and scope of the amount of products it covers. This food industry giant has several brands encompassing the full range of the grocery channel from Prego sauces, Swanson broths, V8 beverages, and Pepperidge Farms bakery products.


The iconic Campbell’s Soup brand alone has an enormous amount of products especially with the line extensions of recent years to add lower sodium and gluten free soups for an increasingly health conscious American consumer. The reality of the consequences for this move sent shockwaves through the food industry and through the Wall Street analysts who evaluate the factors which will potentially impact a given publicly-traded corporation such as Campbell.


In some of the media reports I researched, it was noted that some investment analysts believe that this choice toward full disclosure by Campbell’s is going to “scare the consumer” when they pick up a can of soup and read that it contains genetically engineered ingredients. These same reports indicate that a drop in sales which will cause a chain reaction to a decrease in revenue will cause a drop in the stock price. The competition in the soup aisle and the other grocery aisles could stand to benefit from this decision by Campbell’s.


The move to full disclosure of these ingredients will serve as a stark dose of reality to the average American consumer of just how widespread the use of genetically engineered products is within the food supply currently. The average consumer may, at that point, start to question whether the competition in the aisle also contains GMO ingredients. The impact of this decision on the sales of healthier trending grocery outlets such as Whole Foods, Wegman’s, or Trader Joe’s remains to be seen.


Furthermore, this decision will inevitably shift the focus onto the fact that the key ingredients in many of our food products: corn, soybeans, and sugar beets are all genetically engineered. The alternative sources of these staple commodities which are grown currently in conditions that are organic or GMO free are produced in nowhere near the quantities needed to sustain the entire food supply. The global farming system could not produce those crop yields of GMO free food ingredients if they wanted to because the seeds are genetically modified and the soil of so much farmland is contaminated with pesticides and chemicals such as Roundup.


Green Mountain Debate


Vermont passed legislation on the state level requiring food sold there to have a full disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients on every product label. This is thought to have been the driving factor behind the decision by Campbell’s Soup Company to make the change to their labels across the board.


The legislation passed in the Green Mountain State also brought about renewed vigor in the food industry regarding the debate over the GMO disclosure laws. One side of this discourse feels that the food industry should be insulated from having to disclosure this information fully, yet another group feels that the disclosure should be limited in scope. Further still, a third faction of this argument believes that the federal government needs to pass legislation that supersedes the state government level activity on this issue.


In fact, I believe that the motivation behind Campbell’s Soup and their decision to fully disclosure the GMO ingredients in their respective products is to push the federal government to adopt a coherent policy for the entire industry. This new label disclosure by a major player such as Campbell’s “moves the needle” on the conversation with the federal government and food industry leaders. When asked about the motivation for the decision in an interview with the NY Times, Campbell Soup Company CEO, Denise Morrison, explained that the consumer has “the right to know” if a product contains genetically modified components.


In the view of the food industry players involved, most of them would rather deal with a federal mandate on how to label GMO ingredients than the alternative, which is to deal with each individual state passing their own procedures relative to the labeling of these ingredients. The rationale behind this viewpoint is due to the fact that changes to any food product label are expensive and time consuming for the food companies involved.


A system for GMO disclosure which is reliant on the legal activity of 50 separate state governments that could come up with 50 different procedures or sets of requirements for a label on a food product is a recipe for disaster. It will dominate the time for numerous departments in the respective food company, it will drive up labor costs because the labels will have to be switched out during the production runs depending upon which state the product is being distributed to, and it will increase the cost to the consumer as well.


Conversely, the federal system would allow for one universal change to the label of a given product which would be effective across the country and be far more efficient for everyone involved. However the system has to be done in the right way, it should be cohesive and inclusive so that circumvention is not attainable. Some consumer advocacy groups linked to the “no GMO” movement have voiced concerns that the federal system may provide loopholes for the food industry to get around fully disclosing the specific genetically engineered ingredients in their products.


The argument could be made that this situation is not a clear victory for the “no GMO” movement because we still have no federal mandate on a universal labeling system, the state level legislation is still active which forces those groups who are advocating for “right to know if it’s GMO” to fight separate lobbying battles in each state, and the bottom line is that the GMOs are still in our food we will just be told what they are exactly.


This choice by Campbell’s is clearly an indication of the strength of the healthy eating and wellness trends in the American consumer landscape. In the months to come it will be interesting to see which companies within the consumer packaged goods industry will follow suit with label disclosures on GMO ingredients.


In my professional experience in the food industry working with product line extensions across a variety of segments and dealing with label declarations, Campbell Soup Company was bold in this move and correct in their assessment that we need a federal system for GMO disclosure. A state-by-state format for this type of consumer labeling situation is a nightmare scenario for all parties involved. The need for a decision by federal regulatory entities needs to become a high priority in 2016, the American people and the food industry need it to happen sooner rather than later.


The next round in this fight is to eliminate GMOs which is an entirely different challenge with its own set of issues.



(Frank J. Maduri is a freelance writer and journalist with a professional background in marketing for the food, pharmaceutical, and healthcare industries. He has experience with food and beverage line extensions for national consumer products brands involving compliance with federal and state labeling requirements.)