Page 9 - the NOISE February 2016

uh-Oh SpaghettiO’S! Campbell’S DeCiDeS tO label gmOS...
sTOrY BY
CinDy COle
GrAPHIC BY
Omar viCtOr
On January 7, Campbell’s soup Company — whose brands and merchandise, in addition to soups, include Pace, Prego, Pepperidge Farm cookies, Plum Organics, swanson, V8 juice, Goldfish crackers and spaghettiO’s — announced it would begin including information on the use of genetic engineering in its products. This represents a major break from the rest of the corporate food industry on labeling to disclose the presence of Genetically Modified Organ- isms in their goods.
In addition, Campbell’s announced its support for mandatory federal labeling of GMOs. “Campbell believes it is necessary for the federal government to provide a national standard for labeling requirements to better inform consumers about this issue,” the company said in a press release. “The company will advocate for federal legislation that would require all foods
and beverages regulated by the Food & Drug Administration and the US Department of Ag- riculture to be clearly and simply labeled for GMOs. Campbell is also supportive of a national standard for non-GMO claims made on food packaging.”
Campbell’s also stated it will withdraw from any efforts to prevent national mandatory label- ing of GMOs. As a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association this represents a com- plete break from that organization’s efforts to prevent a mandatory federal standard. Accord- ing to a study by the Environmental Working Group, the GMA spent more than $51 million in the first six months of 2015 to push its agenda for a voluntary federal labeling law that would allow companies to choose whether or not to reveal the GMO contents of their products. At- tempts to attach a voluntary labeling standard to federal budget legislation at the end of 2015 failed in spite of all the money thrown in to the fight by lobbyists. GMA membership includes big food companies like Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s and General Mills as well as those in the agro-chemical business like Monsanto, syngenta, and Dow Agrosciences.
Campbell’s will continue to be a member of the GMA but claims it will no longer contribute to the organization’s anti-labeling campaigns. “we will continue to be a member of GMA and will participate in food industry initiatives that align with our Purpose and business goals. However, as a result of the change in our position on GMO labeling, Campbell is withdrawing from all ef- forts led by groups opposing mandatory GMO labeling legislation, including those led by GMA.”
Campbell’s move appears to be a combination of preparing for the Vermont GMO labeling law that will go into effect in July of this year and perhaps being tired of spending money on the anti-labeling campaigns that appear more and more to go against consumer demands. Vermont’s law is still being challenged in court by the GMA and a few other big food companies and lobbying groups. But Campbell’s decision is the first time a major food producer is break- ing through the fear that GMO labels will turn consumers off to its products.
“At Campbell, we are unleashing the power of our Purpose, Real food that matters for life’s moments,” Campbell’s President & CeO Denise Morrison stated in a message shared with the company’s employees and posted on its website signed, simply, “Denise.” The note continues:
“Our Purpose calls for us to acknowledge that consumers appreciate what goes into our food, and why — so they can feel good about the choices they make, for themselves and their loved ones.” Last year, Campbell’s also announced that it would be removing MsG and artificial colors and flavors from its products. In addition, the company has introduced several organic lines like Campbell’s Organic and Campbell’s Organic Kids soups.
Campbell’s is now supporting a federal labeling standard because it agrees with the GMA’s stance that a patchwork of state regulations will be costly and confusing to consumers. Its press release brings up an example of how Vermont’s law will result in confusion around its spaghettiO’s product. “Vermont passed legislation that will require food companies includ- ing Campbell to label products regulated by the Food & Drug Administration that may con- tain ingredients made from GMO crops. However, this legislation does not include products with meat or poultry, because they are regulated by United states Department of Agriculture. Under Vermont law, spaghettiO’s original variety, guided by the FDA, will be labeled for the presence of GMOs, but spaghettiO’s meatballs, guided by the UsDA, will not. Yet these two varieties sit next to each other on a store shelf, which is bound to create consumer confusion.”
Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farm and of Just Label It, a pro-labeling advocacy group, applauded the move by Campbell’s. “Consumers simply want a factual disclosure on
newsfeature
the package, not a warning, and we are hopeful that Congress can craft a national GMO label- ing solution in the coming months. Thanks to Campbell’s leadership, we are closer to reaching that goal.”
On their website Campbell’s gives an example of the new statements it intends to make on its labels. It does not specifically classify which of the ingredients in its products are GMO- derived. Campbell’s sample label, which is offered up as an image of the back of a can of spa- ghettiO’s on their website states in small print “Partially produced with genetic engineering. For more information about GMO ingredients, visit whatsinMyFood.com.” Upon visiting that website, it is clear that, even though Campbell’s is willing to label GMOs, its stance on their safety has not changed.
The “Choices Behind Our Food” page lists a few dozen ingredients derived from GMO corn, soy, sugar beets, cottonseed, canola and flax. “we are comfortable using these genetically modified crops because scientists and the FDA, who have been studying genetic engineer- ing for many years, agree that food ingredients made with these methods are safe and aren’t different from other ingredients,” the website reads. “we also believe this technology will play a crucial role in feeding the world.” so it looks like Campbell’s is willing to bet on consumer loyalty over fear of GMOs.
Considering the political aspects of pro-labeling groups as well as those of the GMA and its members, Campbell’s move begins to look a little like a Mexican standoff. Pro-labeling or- ganizations deny that the labeling movement is about putting warnings on GMO foods. But, deep down, aren’t they hoping that disclosure will lead to more profitability for the already ex- pensive organic and non-GMO products out on the market? Campbell’s willingness to inform consumers is a leap of faith that either consumers won’t notice the GMO disclosure or that they simply won’t care. Campbell’s also told the Organic Consumers Association that labeling will not increase the costs of their products. so, if labeling GMOs doesn’t affect Campbell’s bottom line, will other companies simply follow suit and end the argument once and for all?
In a Huffington Post article, David Ropeik, a Harvard Instructor and author of How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don’t Always Match the Facts, wrote “Bravo to Campbell’s, then, for bravely moving past the Fear of Fear (credit to Peter sandman for the phrase) that most companies suf- fer from ... the fear that anything that might prompt the slightest bit of concern in any consum- er is to be avoided at all costs, for fear of losing even a penny of profit. That Fear of Fear has kept the retail food industry locked in a futile fight resisting mandatory GMO labeling, a fight which is not only costing the industry public trust and millions of dollars in political campaigning and lobbying, but which is impeding wider adoption of agricultural biotechnology generally.”
so does Campbell’s move have a catch? whether it be Vermont’s labeling law or a national standard, if companies that use GMO ingredients continue to be profitable after disclosing the presence of genetically engineered ingredients, what affect will that have on the organic food industry? will it mean even wider adoption and prevalence of GMO foods? If consumers con- tinue to buy GMO laden foods, what affect will that have on efforts to ban GMOs that have already taken place in several states like Hawaii and Oregon? If Campbell’s sales drop after GMO labeling, will the company opt to provide more non-GMO and organic varieties of their products? will others follow?
The GMA has also been busy developing a technological response to the labeling issue. The organization has proposed a “smart Label” program that would put barcodes on products that would allow consumers to scan them with their smartphones to get details on ingredients. There are already 30 big food companies that have committed to using the system. The GMA hopes that such a proposal will preempt Vermont’s law and quell any further consumer desire for on-label disclosure.
In the meantime, Campbell’s bold move is certainly shaking things up in the labeling debate. Mr. Hirshberg stated that “Just Label It has long been an advocate for a national GMO disclo- sure that works for both consumers and industry. we welcome the opportunity to work with Campbell’s and other food leaders to quickly develop a solution that gives consumers the same information as consumers in 64 other nations.”
| Cindy Cole knows what’s in her food. cindycole@live.com thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news • february 2016 • 9