![]()
Consumers around the country will soon know just by looking at the packaging of popular brands such as Cocoa Puffs cereal or Yoplait yogurt whether or not they contain genetically modified ingredients. (The answer: they both do.) That’s because their maker, General Mills, plans to make that information visible on its products nationwide, even though the move is costly and could lower sales.
General Mills announced its labeling decision last Friday, and other major food companies have since followed, including Kellogg, ConAgra and candy maker Mars. Campbell Soup publicized the same decision in January. The companies are all responding to a Vermont law requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods starting in July, and to pressure from consumers and advocacy groups to reveal more information about controversial ingredients.
“We can’t label our products for only one state without significantly driving up costs for our consumers – and we simply will not do that,” said Jeff Harmening, vice president and chief operating officer for US Retail at General Mills, in a statement.
Between 70% and 80% of packaged food in the US contains ingredients from genetically modified organisms (GMO), according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, an industry trade group. A genetically modified organism is created in a laboratory by taking genes from one species and inserting these genes into another to breed certain characteristics. In the US, genetic engineering is primarily used on corn, soybeans and cotton to make these crops more pest and disease resistant and drought tolerant. These crops are cheaper to grow and help keep food prices low.
Debate about the safety of GMOs has remained contentious ever since they were first introduced into the food supply in the 1990s. Opponents say GMOs could cause health problems to humans and wildlife. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA), along with hundreds of scientific studies, maintain that these ingredients are safe for human consumption.
“To be clear, this is not a question of safety,” said Thomas Hushen, a spokesperson for Campbell Soup Company. “GMOs are safe – the science tells us so – and we continue to believe the technology will play a critical role in feeding the world on a sustainable basis.”
The dispute over the safety of using GMOs has evolved into a battle over labeling. Big food companies have historically fought mandatory labeling out of concerns that the new labels will scare off customers. They worry that genetic manipulation creates an impression that the food is unnatural or unhealthy, an image that anti-GMO groups try to reinforce in public campaigns.
Meanwhile, anti-GMO advocacy groups, such as Center For Food Safety, and food makers who say they don’t use GMOs, including Plum Organics and Nature’s Path, also cast the fight as an issue of transparency, and accuse food makers of hiding important information from the public.
Vermont is the first state to require mandatory labeling, and more than 20 other states are considering similar laws.
While food makers previously fought efforts to create a national labeling rule, they now prefer to deal with one federal regulation rather than a patchwork of state laws. Adding GMO labels to products they sell across the country will also be simpler and cheaper than doing so only for foods destined for Vermont, the food makers said.
“The Vermont law is an example of a state law which is impractical and creates unnecessary confusion for consumers,” Hushen said. “We are seeking a national, mandatory approach which is clear and simple for consumers and creates a level playing field for food companies.”
None of the food companies divulged the exact costs of changing their packaging to show the new wording. Mike Siemienas, spokesman for General Mills, told the Guardian that adding the new label will cost millions of dollars.
One study from Emory University estimated the costs to be a one-time expense of $1,104.43 per product, which the authors calculated using past federal government estimates and factoring in inflation. But, according to some researchers, food makers won’t likely increase the price of their products to offset the cost of relabeling, for fear of losing customers.
Food companies could incur even more expenses if they don’t follow the Vermont law. The state could fine them $1,000 a day per store. Certain foods are exempt, however, such as meat and dairy, products verified as non-GMO and items that contain less than 0.9% of genetically modified ingredients.
Safety will remain a big question for consumers because many of them aren’t likely to be familiar with genetically engineered food ingredients, said William Lesser, a professor at Cornell’s Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management.
The labels that will show up on packages certainly won’t have any adequate explanation. There are no rules for what the label has to say. Kellogg, for instance, says its wording will be: “produced with genetic engineering”. Campbell posted a mock-up online of what a new label will look like on a can of its SpaghettiOs. The label says: “partially produced with genetic engineering”.
The increasing consumer demand for healthier foods, or at least products that appear wholesome, adds a new dimension to the GMO controversy, said Michelle Greenwald, a professor at Columbia Business School. GMO labels will turn away some shoppers because genetic manipulation evokes something unnatural, she said.
The packaged-food industry has already seen a drop in sales in recent years because of changing consumer preferences. That will also make it tricky to determine whether any declining sales are directly connected to GMO labeling. Hans Taparia, an assistant professor at the New York University Stern School of Business and co-founder of an organic food business, said food companies are banding together to roll out GMO labels around the same time in order to minimize any negative impact to their sales. The hope is that consumers will get used to seeing the labels and won’t pause and question their existence.
“GMOs is not a topic front and center for the consumer to begin with, in spite of the lobbying,” said Taparia. “The fact it’s happening across so many brands at the same time, it’s probably going to take the wind out of the sails of the non-GMO movement.”
