Honeybees & Zika: The Spray That Saves Humans Kills Bees

The mainstream news cycle has featured the stories related to the Zika virus for a few months now. In the past two weeks a couple of those stories gained some rather significant importance in the overall context of the costs of fighting the spread of the virus.

The first was in South Carolina where government officials from both the state and county levels failed to warn the local beekeeping communities regarding a massive spraying they were carrying out to prevent the spread of Zika. The result was that those chemicals sprayed to kill the mosquitoes that potentially carry the Zika virus also killed about 1 million bees.

I have written previously on the importance of the honeybee to our domestic food supply and about the epidemic of entire colonies of bees dying in America. The honeybee population could ill afford a situation such as the one which took place in South Carolina.

Due to the fact that we are a reactionary society, the government there (and in other states) have stated that they will introduce protocols to give advanced notice to beekeepers in the future regarding the scheduling of these massive chemical spraying projects.
That change does not reverse the damage already done by the spraying in South Carolina for many beekeepers who lost their livelihood, and for the farming community there which is looking at lost crop yields. The lost yields are due to the honeybees being unable to pollinate because of the massive depletion in their numbers.

The lost crop yields translates into higher costs for the consumer on certain food products. The chemicals being sprayed may save humans from the greater risk of contracting the Zika virus, but it will come at a cost to the food supply. That is certainly a consequence that must be curtailed in the future.

The second story in the news cycle with an impact on this situation is the announced merger of two petrochemical giants, Bayer and Monsanto, which is going to have a profound effect on the honeybee population. This merged conglomerate will produce increased amounts of herbicides and pesticides which the honeybees will ingest during the course of pollination which can cause the death of the entire colony.

The impact of the widespread use of chemical agents such as Roundup has a detrimental impact on the honeybee population, and this merger will increase the availability of this and other products of similar agricultural use.

In fact, a study was just released which concluded that American farmers had increased their usage of this product by more than 20% from the prior years examined. The rationale is mainly from the resistance that some weeds had established when treated by other products. This will have detrimental consequences to the American food supply, as the main ingredient, glyphosate has been linked to all sorts of health issues in humans and animals alike.

In addition, the use of the Roundup product by the average consumer for lawn care has led to active lawsuits against Monsanto regarding the potential link to the spraying of the product and Non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Some research has also indicated that insects which fed on the leaves of corn stalks sprayed with this product have died in large numbers. The merger of the two companies will only increase the marketing efforts around this and other products which will cause harm to humans.

The data behind many of these studies is both revealing and troubling at the same time. I encourage all of you to take a closer look at the impact of pesticides and other petrochemical products, GMOs, and other agricultural products which will have an impact on you and your family.

The use of these products also merits increased consideration because we need to protect the population of honeybees, or our food supply will face a crisis level situation.

I understand the need to protect the population from the potential spread of the Zika virus, but all of these chemicals and their consequences and effects should be examined more closely as well. It certainly bears close observation as the regulators make a determination on this merger and the federal government weighs the GMO labeling laws in the coming months.

Follow Up: Dow – DuPont Merger Hits Snag

The proposed merger between two global industrial chemical giants, Dow and DuPont, has reportedly hit a snag with the top European regulatory board. In a follow up to my prior article on this topic, this proposed merger had some issues from the outset, which is to be expected whenever two companies of that size are in the mix.

The European regulatory board has some significant concerns regarding the agricultural product lines particularly the seed products for crops involved in this proposal. The combined Dow-DuPont would be a major rival to the market leader, Monsanto, and if the deal was approved it would consolidate a huge majority of the seed industry into the hands of two companies.

I had mentioned this area in my prior work on this merger as being an area that should be of huge interest to the majority of the general public regarding this deal because it would place a monopoly on the seeds used to grow the global food supply. This will inevitably cause some very dangerous potential ramifications regarding the cost to grow and manufacture food and agricultural products.

The European regulators were correct in raising this concern at this point and to investigating this situation further. They also raised concerns about certain petrochemical products and the overall impact that this merger could have on innovation. The regulators explained to the media that the farmers have a reliance on the capability of being able to obtain seeds at a competitive price in order to maintain their livelihood. The statement essentially indicates that this proposed merger could leave the farmers in a situation where that cost competiveness is gone, forcing them to buy the seeds at whatever price the two top companies on the supply side dictate that price to be.

The anti-trust laws were established both in the U.S., in Europe, and in other parts of the world to provide safeguards against the very type of situations that this proposed merger presents in the context of competitive balance. The control of any commodity into the hands of the few is a problematic situation given the predisposition toward greed displayed by the large majority of publicly traded corporations.

The likely defense from Dow-DuPont is, as they alluded to when the CEOs made the rounds on the financial news networks back at the start of this circus, that they plan to split the company into three separate companies. In the reports I have read regarding the European regulatory decision today, it appears that will not be enough to satisfy their concerns because that accounting split into three companies does not change the controlling market share in seeds or petrochemicals that Dow-DuPont would maintain.

It remains to be seen what the investigation will yield, it could result in the European board “recommendation” that the proposed merged entity must divest their holdings in the seed industry segment and potential other industry segments. This would deal strictly with the European divisions of the proposed new Dow-DuPont and would be required of them to clear the hurdles to that M&A proposal in Europe.

The impact of that recommendation or the finding of this investigation could have an impact on the regulatory process in the United States. However, there is a chance that the regulators here view this as a European issue and they may have other concerns about this gigantic merger proposal.

The agricultural lobbies, both those who have interests in lobbying for farmers in the US and those who lobby for the petrochemical and agricultural supply companies, will certainly be active in the run up to the regulatory review process here in America.
This new emphasis on “clean” eating and healthy food will have interest groups from the GMO free side of the food industry certainly weighing in on this proposal as well. The renewed focus on GMO seed that companies such as Monsanto, Dow, and DuPont push for all the main staple crops in America is something that all of us should be concerned about, and the implications for the consolidation of that seed industry could deal a crushing blow to the GMO free lobby.

This investigation by European regulators could set the bar for American regulators to follow suit, which could very well lead to the breakup of the existing brand lines controlled by Dow- DuPont and lead to some significant changes to the agricultural industrial marketplace and the petrochemical marketplace globally. This matter is far from over, in fact, it looks like the process has finally started to feel like it has actually begun.

Dannon Launches GMO- Free Yogurt

Dannon announced today that the company has launched yogurt products which are free of GMOs in the United States. The changes have been made to the Dannon main brand product line and to the Oikos Greek yogurt brand product line. The company, according to industry and financial media reports, also plans on launching GMO free product versions of the Dannimals product line geared toward children.

The products that cannot be made with GMO free ingredients or GMO free milk will be labeled very distinctly that they contain genetically modified ingredients. The products that are now GMO-free have a new packaging and a distinct label indicating GMO-free.

I discovered this while shopping in my local grocery store today and picking up some Greek yogurt I noticed that the Oikos products had a new package that was clear plastic so that I could see the product. I picked it up to see what the new package indicated and noticed the GMO free label right away. I have advocated for GMO labeling on food products for a long time now, so I was very happy to see this change today.

Dannon is making an effort to source all of their milk from non-GMO sources by either late 2017 or 2018 depending on what reports you may see on this topic. I think that latitude in the time frame is also predicated on demand for the products potentially increasing and the need for more adequate supply to catch up and flatten out that curve.

Dannon is certainly going to gain customers from this change, even if it is incremental, because not all the products in the brand lines I mentioned above have hit the shelves with their GMO free versions yet. However, those that have certainly will get the attention of the consumer in a positive way.

The groups that advocate for GMO labeling and for a change to non-GMO sourcing in food products have been hammering Chobani and General Mills (Yoplait) for a long time now to make this change. The fact that Dannon was the first to market with this concept in this food product category that has exploded with the trend toward healthier eating in the U.S. bodes well for their brand image and reputation. That is all going to translate into increased sales and revenues for Dannon.

The decision to label the products that cannot be made GMO-free (at least at this point in time) is another constructive step that will push their competition to consider similar measures. The American consumer tends to look favorably upon transparency and this willingness by Dannon to comply by telling the consumer what is and what is not GMO free is a step in the right direction for proponents of stricter food labeling measures.

In the case of Dannon, my earlier article on their acquisition of White Wave Foods will only serve to enhance their capabilities in offering further GMO free product options across all their brand lines in the future, should that transaction be approved.

It is going to be interesting to see how the rest of the yogurt market responds to this move by Dannon today. It certainly sets the playing field on a bold new path. I know the consumer is going to find it favorable. In time we will know how the rest of the industry tries to respond to an ever growing trend of GMO free product demand.

Supermarket Shock: GMO Labeling & Consumers

Some of the major food companies such as Campbell’s and General Mills among others, have begun the process of labeling some of their products with disclosures relative to genetically modified ingredients. In your local grocery stores, depending on what state you live in, you may have also seen similar product labeling.

The label on the packaging will have a disclosure with a statement such as: “contains genetically engineered corn” or “made from genetically engineered soybeans”, or “contains genetically modified ingredients”. The surprising component to this scenario was that with all the reporting and commentary writing I have done regarding the subject of GMOs and the need for stricter food labeling, and knowing that this was actually going to appear on products on the shelves in stores: my wife, friends and colleagues, as well as myself all were still shocked by it.

We were all shocked by the appearance of the words on the box of cereal or the can of soup that we have purchased regularly over the years. The words, seeing them in print, make it that much more impressionable and have a pronounced impact. I wrote about this in a previous article on GMO labeling for the site known as Medium where I explored the potential consumer reaction and subsequent ramifications for the food industry.

One of the potential responses that was mentioned in other news coverage on GMO labeling of food products was most troubling to consumer packaged goods company executives: the shock value to the shopper. This shock factor with shoppers was also detailed in articles regarding the financial segment’s valuation of Campbell Soup Company stock after they determined that the consumer reaction would adversely impact product sales.
It is certainly a shock for many consumers to see the widespread presence of GMOs in the food supply. Then, there are other consumers who are more knowledgeable and shop at health food type stores and websites to obtain locally sourced, GMO free products.

There are still others, and that will encompass a huge group of consumers, that know and understand the fact that GMO corn, sugar beet, and soybean are the most prevalent supply in American domestic food products. We do not have much choice because of the expense of buying alternative products that are GMO free to feed multiple people or a family. The cost factor associated with removing GMO containing products from our respective diets is not feasible when coupled with other rising standard of living costs.

It is my opinion, and I am in agreement with the analysts’ data from the financial valuation on Campbell Soup, that there will be some shoppers that will be so shocked by the GMO labeling that they will put the product back on the shelf and make another product choice. Then there are other consumers who will see the label and purchase the product anyway in a state of resignation to the fact that GMOs are part of our current food supply chain.

The fact remains that the seed used to grow the staple crops such as corn, wheat, soybean, and sugar beet are genetically engineered. There is not enough non-GMO seed to support more than a fraction of the amount of food needed in production for our population. This is the inherent problem with sourcing sustainable “clean” food products.

The debate over whether the food labeling should be done federally or on a state-by-state basis will only cease when the federal authorities make a final determination. In the event that labeling guidelines become mandated by law, then this shopper shock will only become more intense because it will effect such a large amount of products in our stores.
In my own perspective, I have had the most difficulty with reading it on boxes of breakfast cereal. I think it is the understanding that for several years I have been eating cold cereal for breakfast, and that basically all of them contain some sort of genetically engineered ingredient. There is something very stark about coming to that realization.

In the end analysis, as the labeling of the GMO or genetically engineered ingredients becomes more commonplace I am interested to see whether this “shopper shock” will wear off, similar to the initial “sticker shock” we might get on a price of a higher ticket item. In many cases, over time, we become desensitized to many external factors within our human condition. I am interested to see if this will be another example of that type of behavioral response.

In the interim, we as consumers will continue to get jolted whenever we pick up a can of soup or a bottle of juice and find that it contains genetically engineered ingredients. We, as consumers, will continue to try to drive the progress towards the “right to know if it is GMO”. We will continue to have conversations with people we may have only just met, in one of the last places to do so in an increasingly isolative and online shopping obsessed society: in the aisle of the local grocery store. In that case, if nothing else, at least we are talking about something.

Tainted: Academies of Science GMO Report

The report issued today from the Academies of Science which essentially stated that GMOs in our food supply are safe for humans to consume came under fire by several consumer advocacy groups. The media coverage of the report can easily be found, and in fact, USA Today did fair and balanced overviews of both sides of this argument.

The focus of this commentary on my own blog here is to not delve into the specifics of the report from this organization, but rather to focus on the facts and implications that still remain in the “great GMO debate” in America. Most of you know as readers of my prior work on the topic of GMOs that I am very strongly anti-GMO. That stance has been honed by researching tons of scientific studies and empirical data from trusted sources and reading accounts of the effects of herbicides such as Roundup and their impact on the soil and crops in our country over a period of roughly 20 years.

Despite what this report released today states, GMOs are not safe for humans to consume, products such as herbicides and pesticides have caused all sorts of illnesses in children and adults. The use of genetically engineered seeds and other products in our agricultural production processes has a direct correlation to increased incidences of gastrointestinal, autoimmune, cancers, and other diseases.

Several other consumer advocacy groups and others involved in the food industry agree with my view on this report and on this situation. The reason: the Academies of Science report is tainted, it is skewed because the scientists and other members of the organization are linked with the large biotech companies and the agricultural production giants such as Monsanto. This effectively caused one group, Food & Water Watch (which is a respected consumer advocacy group) to call the results “watered down”.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the biotech and big agricultural giants like Dow Chemical and Monsanto got involved to directly or indirectly influence a report or a legislative measure when it comes to GMOs. I have written numerous articles over the past few years on this same subject with political donations being linked to high powered politicians who then change the course of a particular bill so that it is favorable to the big business interests involved.

This should come as no surprise to anyone in the audience because the genetic engineering of food has always at the core been inherently about pure greed. The ability to grow more product or make the food last longer so that stores had less perishable or expired inventory has been the catalyst behind a “make it GMO or bust” mentality.

The evidence of that is clear in the U.S. according to reports published in USA Today, Yahoo! News, and other trusted sources the following numbers for 2015 are staggering with regard to the prevalent nature of genetically engineered produce in our food supply. I have listed below the percentage of each crop that is genetically engineered:
Sugar beets = 99%
Soybeans = 94%
Cotton = 94%
Feed corn = 92%

I have written previously about the pervasive and persistent nature of the GMO problem in the U.S. based on these numbers above. It has created conditions where now the staple products are genetically modified and the soil has been degraded to a point where it is not capable of growing non-GMO produce. The other issue which is just as troubling is that the seed used in so many crops are genetically modified and two main companies – Dow and Monsanto control a huge market share in the seed business for our food supply.

The amount of feed corn that is genetically modified is also a tremendous problem because it has a direct impact on so many areas of agriculture which impacts the food that is provided to many of our sources of animal protein. In turn that creates a scenario where it is very difficult to avoid GMO containing products in your given daily food intake.

In any case, despite your view on the situation, God created all that we have been given here on Earth, every living thing, the soil, the seeds, the water, and the Sun. Then mankind came along and decided that they knew better than God and they decided to alter what God created in the name of enhanced profit margins. There are many other people and groups out there that also agree with this component of my argument against GMOs.

The incidences of increased levels of autoimmune diseases such as celiac, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, certain types of cancers, and other gastrointestinal diseases all jumped up in the past 20 years since man decided that they would alter the crops and the seeds and the soil with chemical ingredients and herbicides.

I cannot emphasize enough that the ties to the Academies of Science and the biotech and agricultural products suppliers casts a huge cloud of suspicion over the validity of the report issued today. It certainly was a far cry from an independent analysis on this issue.

National Geographic put together a really informative and well done piece on the effect of Roundup brand herbicide on the crops and the soil in the American farming system. The results, and the amount that we do not know about such a widely used chemical are alarming.

The final subtopic I will touch on with regard to this issue is the labeling of GMO product which is a debate that I have covered vigorously over the past few years as well. The consumer groups today stated that the majority of Americans still believe strongly that they have the right to know if the food they are consuming is GMO containing. That fight over labeling standards and a national protocol for labeling food products is not going away with this announcement today.

The basic premise being that even if a group states that GMOs are safe, the majority of people, whether they believe those ingredients are bad or unhealthy or not, still maintain that they should know whether the product they are going to purchase contains genetically engineered components.

The fact that so many of the staple food crops that I referenced earlier in this piece are genetically engineered creates a potentially very negative situation for certain large food producing companies such as Nestle and ConAgra just to name two. The consumer will most definitely think twice about buying a can of soup with genetically modified soy in the ingredients.

The federal government has to get involved with a standard protocol because each individual state cannot have their own separate ways of declaring GMOs on labeling for grocery products, it will become a complete nightmare for interstate commerce.

In the end, the report today did nothing to quell the debate over GMOs in the food we eat, instead it stoked the fire. This debate will continue because there is a mountain of evidence to refute what this report claimed today. The trend toward healthy and fresh/ organic eating habits in the American consumer will not change because of this report today. The distrust of the government, the disdain for lobbyists, and the general skepticism towards large corporations will continue in America, and in fact was emboldened by this report today. I urge you to educate yourself on this topic because it can have a dramatic impact on your health and that of the rest of your family. This report cannot change that fact.

Senate Rejects Anti-GMO Food Labeling Bill

In a landmark victory for the American consumer, the United States Senate voted on Wednesday to reject S-2609, a measure aimed at making the labeling of GMOs “voluntary” for food producers. This bill was also known by some consumer groups as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, and it represented a rare pushback by the Senate against big corporate interests such as Monsanto, who were trying to advance this measure into passage as the law.

This bill, S-2609, if passed, would have nullified the food labeling law approved in Vermont that requires the disclosure of genetically modified ingredients in all food products sold in that state (effective in July – see my previous article). The Senate cited the recent poll data that demonstrated that 9 of 10 Americans want GMOs to be labeled on food products. This bill (2609) was introduced by Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, and his response to the defeat of the measure was, and I am paraphrasing, that he presented a solution and that the opposition should present a solution to address this problem.

In fact, that is where this issue is headed in political terms, since the vote was so close and the votes are not there for cloture to be achieved, the debate is headed for a compromise version of the bill. In my view, after covering this issue for years now and having worked in the food industry, that compromise version is going to center on balancing the multiple components involved. The compromise bill will focus on the determination of a fair policy for the food producers, the farmers, and the consumer.

Opposition View

The contention by Senator Roberts regarding the absence of an opposition solution is also not a completely accurate statement. In March, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon proposed a separate bill which would make the labeling of GMO ingredients mandatory, but it gave food producers several options on how to disclose that information. I wrote a piece a few months back about the Campbell Soup Company decision to disclose the genetically engineered ingredients in all their products. The Merkley bill proposal was similar in that the food company had the option to put an asterisk by the ingredients that are modified and then put the following statement on the bottom of the label: “produced with genetic engineering”.

The debate can (and will) continue about a universal food labeling policy because it is needed to streamline costs. I have covered this topic previously in that as much as I agree with the law passed in Vermont and the ambition displayed there, we cannot have a system of interstate commerce where each state has their own individual food labeling laws. That will increase costs for the food producing companies and most likely those costs will be passed along to the consumer.

In general, I believe in the state level being able to mandate their own individual legislation, but in this scenario, a federal standard for food labeling of GMOs is needed. The big corporate interests such as Monsanto do not want to see that happen because it will be bad for their business, pure and simple. The bill, S-2609, was in some degree a misnomer, because it would make the labeling voluntary, which begs the question: what food companies would volunteer the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in their products? The answer is few to none.

The simple fact remains that an overwhelming majority of American consumers feel that they have the right to know what is in their food. That sentiment gave rise to the “right to know if it’s GMO” slogan used at several public rallies and on social media platforms. The political system is going to have to determine how it will mediate this situation to determine a solution that works for all parties involved.

Tip of the Iceberg

However, I believe, and others have echoed this sentiment in the media whether from the political side or from the strict viewpoint of regulatory controls over the industry; that this issue is just the tip of the iceberg. I believe that the food labeling policy as it relates to genetically engineered ingredients or components is just one piece of a larger set of issues with regard to our food supply.

It is true that a good amount of momentum in this anti-GMO movement has come Gen – Xers and Millennials that are concerned about the health issues that have plagued our country in recent years: increases in the incidences of cancer, autoimmune diseases, autism, and diabetes just to name a few. There are some media reports of consumer groups made up of parents who are petitioning pediatricians throughout the U.S. to send a formal report to Congress regarding the negative effects of GMOs in food and the linkages to certain childhood illnesses.

The trend toward healthier eating and utilization of organic as well as locally raised or locally grown food products is one that I have covered extensively in the past. It is certainly a contributing factor in the decision of the Senate with regard to the “DARK” Act this week. These are the types of issues I am referring to with regard to an entire food industry related set of legislation to make some needed reforms to help better inform the consumer when making food purchasing choices.

The country of origin being disclosed on products is another whole area in regards to food labeling that could be addressed. The issues regarding where our food is actually coming from has been a challenge for Congressional legislation for some time now. It makes sense that if the public is passionate about what ingredients are in a particular product, they would also care strongly about where the product came from.

The issue of organic food scale up is another topic that could use some form of policy solution. The crops and seed for certain staple food products have been genetically engineered by big corporations like Monsanto and Dow Chemical for years. I am currently researching an article on the effects of Monsanto’s Roundup product on soil and agricultural use which has been linked by the World Health Organization to be a carcinogen. The ability, or lack thereof, to scale up the amount of food needed to supply even part of the population with organic food is a huge problem.

Then, the whole issue of access to healthy and fresh food could be addressed by the government. I wrote an entire series of articles on food deserts in America back some time ago, and there are many problems still today with the inability for access to healthy food particularly in inner cities and in very rural areas. The USDA and other government agencies have discussed certain incentive programs to potentially remedy the situation, but they have no real impetus to take action without a Congressional mandate.

Finally, the whole topic of irrigation issues and water supply concerns with fracking and other wastewaters getting into our water table as well as the access for farming communities to water for their crops is another aspect of this subject area that could be explored through the legislative process.

No Longer In the “DARK”

In returning to the topic at hand, the defeat of this Senate bill and the solution presented as an alternative by Senator Merkley, which seems to not have the support to move forward anywhere either, a solution is needed. The compromise bill will be just that, a meeting in the middle. It will make the disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients mandatory for food producers but it will be done without the options in the Merkley bill, and probably entail something more visible on the product packaging than an asterisks.

The result of this vote demonstrated that when people are united in a cause, and this is one of the biggest issues facing the food industry, then the people are heard. We, the consumers, have a right to know what is in the food we eat and we have a right to make informed decisions based on what that information provided to us yields. We have the “right to know if it’s GMO” and the Senate heard that loud and clear, and more importantly they listened. What is left in the weeks to come is for a law that is universal, that makes sense, and that provides the consumer with the information disclosed in a clear manner. I hope the Senate will listen and will provide the public with that legislation, the results from this week give me some degree of confidence that they will do so.

The presence of genetically engineered ingredients in our food is a reality. The issue at hand is how we are going to better inform ourselves as consumers to the presence of these ingredients. This disclosure will raise awareness levels further to the widespread utilization of GMOs in our food supply. The discourse should then shift into a measurable action plan to scale up alternatives that are GMO-free. The stage is set for some landmark changes to potentially take place.

In the event that you are reading this and did not have an active position on this important issue, I encourage you to inform yourselves to do so. The presence of GMOs in food has consequences to us and to our children and to future generations. We have the obligation to make sure our policies provide alternatives and education so that all consumers have access to accurate information in the future.

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.)

 

 

Hershey’s Chocolate Takes Steps To Remove GMOs

The Hershey Chocolate Company announced that they will be taking steps to manufacture certain products free of any GMO containing ingredients by the end of 2015. The specific products mentioned in the press release are the original Hershey’s Chocolate bars, and the Hershey’s Kisses product line.

 

This is the next step in a series of production changes made by the company in the past several months to focus on the manufacturing of their products with an emphasis on more natural ingredients. This shift is part of a larger food industry trend to satisfy the increasing demand by a more informed consumer base for products that are made from components of natural origin.

 

The Hershey Company had previously announced the removal of high fructose corn syrup from certain product formulations by replacing it with sugar. The company has been focused internally on a review of all of their product lines with the focal point being the replacement, when feasible, of certain ingredients with their natural counterparts. The basis for these formulaic changes is not just strictly along the lines of cost effectiveness. The ingredient substitutions have to make sense from a variety of perspectives in order to be instituted.

 

Saying No To GMO

 

The food industry has been much maligned within the mainstream media for their use of GMO containing ingredients in their respective products. The move today by Hershey has been met with praise by many groups with vested interest in the fight against GMOs in our food supply.

 

However, some reports mentioned that certain groups are pressing Hershey about whether they will stop using GMOs in more products. The three main areas were genetically modified sugar beets, milk from cows that has not been modified, and modified forms of vanilla. Hershey will also be removing the lactose present from these two product lines which is great news for Americans who are intolerant to that naturally occurring sugar present in milk derived products. I have written about this controversial topic in the past based upon my professional experience in the food industry for an ingredients supplier.

 

The main issue here for large multinational food producing companies is that the non-GM supply of certain ingredients is not large enough globally to meet the demand for the product. Therefore, the formula cannot be “scaled up” to meet the required amounts in order to be produced GMO free. It is what they would term in the food industry as a “production reality”.

 

Nevertheless, in my view, I think the Hershey Company should get credit for their announcement today and for taking steps to move toward producing some of their iconic confectionary products in a GMO free manner. Only a handful of companies in the industry have taken such a pro-active stance towards the potential revision of product formulations with the goal of removing GMO containing components. Hershey is an industry giant and this action will push others in the confectionary segment to follow suit.

 

The public perception of GMOs is a hot button topic. I have covered the debate on this issue for a couple of years now and it is only intensifying in the forum of American public opinion. The end of 2014 featured the latest chapter in the public backlash against agricultural chemical giant, Monsanto, which won a court decision in Hawaii. The people of the island of Maui had voted in a referendum measure on Election Day to have the use of any GMO products for farming banned from use on that island.

 

Monsanto appealed the results of the referendum measure by arguing that the law of the State of Hawaii super ceded the public voting mechanism on the island of Maui, and they won the decision. The people in Maui and in other parts of Hawaii remain divided on the issue. Some feel that the GMO ban would have caused the end of farming jobs in an already slow economy in the island state. The converse side of the debate was the belief by some that the use of GMO agricultural chemical products is harmful to the land, water, and environment in Hawaii and there is a growing sentiment there in the public that these products should be eliminated.

 

Hitting The Wallet

 

The public backlash against GMOs, hormones, and artificial ingredients in food products coupled with the trend toward health and wellness is forcing more and more food companies to review their supply chain sourcing methods as well as their product formulations. The objective of those reviews being to determine if alternative natural and/or GMO free ingredients could be substituted into the formulation and scaled up effectively.

 

This anti-GMO sentiment and the emphasis on wellness, what I refer to as the “natural foods” phenomenon, is also shaping the methodology for the research and development of new product line offerings for food companies. The recent product line announcements by General Mills are a good example of this response by a major food manufacturer to these trend lines.

 

The company announced new products in 2015 which focus on the incorporation of ancient grains and protein into their cereal lines. They also will roll out gluten free cereal formulations, and other products with a focus on wellness and natural ingredients.

 

The American consumer has been very vocal about their opposition to GMO products and artificial ingredients. The consumer public is much more informed than it was even 10-15 years ago because of the increased amounts of information available via the internet, and the rate in which that information spreads via social media platforms is unparalleled. Consequently, that same American consumer has to be prepared to face the facts that they will have to most likely face higher costs for those food products when they are made with healthier ingredients. The long and short of the matter is that these healthier products or GMO free versions of products will be more costly for the manufacturer and they will pass along that increase to the consumer.

 

In the case of the Hershey Company, they have most certainly studied the impact of the costs of making this formulation change with the products I mentioned earlier. In my experience, some commodity products, especially items like cocoa and vanilla, are highly sensitive to cost fluctuations based on a variety of factors. In the case of confectionary products in general, there are other key ingredients that must be sourced very carefully to avoid further cost increases for the finished consumer product. In my view, these factors drove the decision to phase in the GMO free production change at Hershey in a limited fashion to those two product areas.

 

The confection industry just recently completed a program to increase prices based on the changes in the market price of key ingredients such as cocoa. The Hershey Company specifically used a very intelligent approach by phasing in the cost increase to the consumer in stages over a period of several months instead of giving the consumer “sticker shock” by introducing the price increases in one large jump. I have written previously about this strategy, and all consumer feedback being considered, it was a successful method by Hershey to employ these increases in the pricing of their products.

 

Whether or not the American public will continue to pay higher prices for healthier food product choices remains to be seen. In the short term, it appears that it is not slowing down anytime soon. I would look for other food companies to follow Hershey and their lead from their announcement regarding the removal of GMOs from certain products where it is feasible. The continuation of that trend will lead to potentially higher prices, but in the end it is a “win-win” both for the food companies and for the consumer when it comes to this trend toward healthier or more natural food products.

Between The Lines: GMOs and Food Labeling

The announcement today that Congress is considering a bill introduced by Representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas which would nullify the laws in place on the state level regarding the disclosure of GMO ingredients in food products is troubling.

 

My rationale for this viewpoint is different than others in this matter because I still maintain that a federal standard for food labeling is the only practical solution to this issue moving forward. The problem I have with the bill introduced today called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act is that it would remove any mandated disclosure of GMO ingredients in our food products.

 

Mr. Pompeo made remarks today to the media that GMO products are safe and healthy for the consumer, and that is why he maintains that the separate labeling disclosure is not needed. Some experts within both the scientific and environmental protection communities would respectfully disagree with this notion made by the congressman from Kansas earlier today.

 

In fairness to both sides of this issue, scientific study data has demonstrated evidence of potential health problems in both animals and humans with regard to GMO ingredients. The environmental groups are concerned about the chemicals used in the process of growing genetically engineered food ingredients. The Monsanto product Roundup is just one of a number of chemicals used in GM farming that have created issues such as weed resistance.

 

Mountain of Data

 

The scientific data is mounting regarding the negative effects of GMO containing ingredients in food products. One study has linked GMOs in food to 18 million diagnosed celiac disease patients.

 

Another study shows that the before mentioned Roundup product is classified as a “xenoestrogen” which simulates the effect of real estrogen in the human body. The increased levels of this hormone is linked to a higher risk for cancer, infertility, and thyroid conditions.

 

Moreover, the higher levels of estrogen and glyphosate in genetically altered soybeans has been linked to increased cases of breast cancer.

 

Genetically modified foods have been shown to lower crop yields and increase overall pesticide use per a study published in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. This study and others brought about the push for action in California and Washington state, which I covered in a previous article, where ballot initiatives regarding the use of GMOs fell short of gaining approval by very small margins respectively.

 

In each state, Monsanto, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and a consortium of large food manufacturers spent millions of dollars on advertising campaigns to defeat these measures.

 

The Future

 

The future of the GMO labeling debate took a step in Congress where the food companies could volunteer to disclose the presence of GMOs in their products. The current backlash against GMOs in our food have caused the American public to look negatively upon those products which contain modified ingredients.

In that light, what food company would voluntarily choose to disclose GMOs in their products? They know that it will effectively decrease the sales of the product, so they will choose to not provide that information, which eliminates any substance from this proposed Congressional bill.

 

Currently, 27 states have proposed legislation regarding the disclosure of GMO containing ingredients in food products. I have stated before that the state-by-state approach will not work, it will cause chaos in our food supply system, and disrupt interstate commerce.

 

The federal system has to provide a universal food labeling solution to this GMO dilemma. The evidence is clear that these products are not good for the health and safety of humans or animals. The solution provided needs to promote a mandatory declaration of any GMO containing ingredients.

 

The sheer cost of the treatment of Americans from various illnesses potentially linked to GMO containing products is reason enough for us to try to resolve this matter.

 

In my view, it should be a fundamental right for us, as Americans, to make an informed choice with regard to GMOs in our food. I hope our government will trust us to do so and provide us the mechanism in which we can determine our own food consumption choices in the future.

 

It is clear, this debate regarding GMOs, regardless of recent Congressional activity, is far from being resolved.

 

(Background information and statistics courtesy of Reuters, CBS News, Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, Institute for Responsible Technology, and Global Research.org)