Big Food and GMO Labeling: If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

Recently in the news, some large food corporations including ConAgra, Kellogg’s, Mars, General Mills, and Campbell Soup Company have decided to implement nationwide genetically modified organism (GMO)labeling of their products due to the mandatory GMO labeling law passed in Vermont that comes into effect for companies on July 1, 2016.

Campbell Soup started the flood of GMO labeling declarations first, announcing in January 2016 that it supported “federal legislation to establish a single mandatory labeling standard for foods derived from GMOs.” Essentially, Campbell Soup “broke ranks” with the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which was in support of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling (SAFE) Act (or as opponents called it, the “Deny Americans the Right to Know”, or DARK Act). This Act, if passed, would have pre-empted any state law that mandated GMO labeling, and set up a federal voluntary “non-GMO” labeling system run by the USDA. The bill, however, was rejected in the Senate on March 17, 2016. Perhaps Campbell Soup had a premonition that this would be the case--or, as Campbell CEO Denise Morrison purported, Campbell truly believed in corporate transparency and that “printing a clear and simple statement on the label is the best solution for consumers and for Campbell.”

Whatever the case may be, with their proclamation, Campbell essentially attacked their consumer packaged goods (CPG) rivals’ “blind spot” as members of GMA--rivals who may not have planned for Campbell’s proactive announcement. Campbell gave itself a leg up on its competition early by attempting to force its competition to follow suit, even if they may not have been ready to do so. Whether its early announcement really made an impact on consumers, however, can certainly be debated. If Campbell had made this decision two years ago, rather than two months before its competition, it may have had a much greater impact on consumers’ mindset and brand loyalty.

So far, Campbell’s proactive strategy seems to have worked--although, all of the GMO labeling announcements from CPG competitors came after the defeat of the SAFE Act in the Senate. For this reason, it seems that policy, rather than competition, was the main influence in big food companies’ (other than Campbell’s) decision to implement nationwide GMO labeling.

If the SAFE Act had been passed, this federal legislation would have pre-empted all past and future state law, due to Article VI of the constitution.  Companies would have been able to follow federal law, and voluntary label their products for GMOs; federal law would supersede Vermont’s mandatory GMO-labeling law. The defeat of the SAFE Act allows states to now create a “patchwork of state labeling legislation” until another bill can be created and passed through the House and the Senate, which could take years. So for now, big food companies are stuck having to label for GMOs only in the state of Vermont--but are still forced to label some food products to be compliant.

It seems that the defeat of the SAFE Act, and the impending Vermont law taking effect has forced large food companies to admit defeat. According to food company spokespersons, including Paul Norma, president of Kellogg North America, creating a “special” label in Vermont only would be costly, and this cost would be passed down to the consumer. This makes sense for large companies like Kellogg and General Mills, whose business model is built on scale, creating one different label in one state does not make good business sense. Therefore, Kellogg, Mars, General Mills, and ConAgra all followed suit with Campbell and announced their commitment to the labeling of GMOs on products on a national scale.

These food companies are promoting that their decision to label GMOs stems from their initiative to be more transparent with their consumers. Whether is it because of the sudden urge by food companies to be transparent, or the defeat of the SAFE Act, it looks like nationwide GMO labeling is here to stay.

All these food companies still stand by the fact that there is no scientific evidence to date that genetically modified or engineered foods are less safe or healthy than other foods. But the new initiatives now beg the question: by choosing to label products, are food companies opening a can of worms by agreeing to label their products for GMO or GE ingredients? As one professor from University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign, Dr Bruce Chassy, puts it, “Studies have suggested that some consumers may regard the mandatory GMO label as a safety warning. After all, why would government mandate a label on food if they weren’t trying to warn us as something?” Choosing to label GMOs may catch companies in a catch-22, by potentially adding justification to anti-biotechnology’s groups arguments that genetically modified and engineered foods are not safe for consumption. Kellogg's and General Mills, however, would probably argue that in this case, their hand was forced by the state of Vermont--and it would not make sense for them to change their labeling process just for one U.S. state.

Companies who have not yet joined the GMO labeling camp are DuPont (now DowDuPont) and Monsanto. It remains to be seen if these large CPG companies will jump on board, or keep their current wait-and-see attitude towards GMO labeling legislation and its impacts.

But for now, it seems that most food companies have taken a “if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em” approach to GMO labeling. Check your local packaged food product label in a store near you to see how companies are implementing their new GMO labeling policy.