2016: A Critical Year for GMO Labelling

The surprise January announcement by Campbell Soup to reverse its position in favour of labelling GMO ingredients will ensure this divisive topic stays on everyone’s radar in the first half of 2016, in the run-up to the mandatory labelling of GMO ingredients in the state of Vermont on 1 July. Here are seven points to note:

picture of bowl of tomato soup

One step further

A big trend that emerged last year was the decision by all major US food companies to renovate their existing products by ‘cleaning up’ the ingredients list. This typically involved taking out and cutting back on the artificial, or ‘problematic’, ingredients and replacing them where possible with natural alternatives. (For example, the ingredients list for Campbell’s chicken noodle soup is down from 30 ingredients to 20.) By reformulating the recipes of iconic brands, companies hope to restore consumer trust and improve the perception of quality for their brands. Campbell’s move will be implemented over the next 12 to 18 months and takes this commitment to greater transparency one step further by essentially calling out its use of GMO ingredients. 

Vermont drives the nation

Campbell’s decision is, in part, driven by the law passed by Vermont in 2014 on GMO labelling, which comes into effect on 1 July. Given that about 75% of packaged foods contain GMOs in some shape or form (derived from GM varieties of corn, soy, canola or sugar beet), most will now have to be labelled by July. There are exceptions: meat or milk from animals fed with GMO feed will not have to be labelled, neither will food sold in restaurants. Equally important: any food containing GMOs can no longer be labelled as ‘natural’. Despite the loopholes, this is a big deal for the industry, and Campbell’s are effectively saying they are prepared to label all of their US products—not just the ones sold in Vermont.

Changing attitudes

Changing consumer desires also triggered Campbell’s move. GMOs have been in the US food chain for over 25 years, to the widespread indifference of most consumers (unlike in Europe, for example). However, since the November 2012 labelling vote in California (Prop 37), the issue has moved centre-stage and cannot be ignored. Consumers who are seeking out less-processed foods have responded well to the growth in ‘free-from’ labels (gluten-free, HFCS-free, GMO-free, etc.), but a product that outs itself for containing GMO ingredients by saying something like ‘partially produced with genetic engineering’ is a novel concept and may sit oddly with consumers. Certainly it is not clear if consumers will respond positively; it is not going to win over folk who are looking to avoid GMOs (who were unlikely to be eating processed soups and sauces in the first place). But Campbell Soup have done exactly what many of their critics (such as the ‘Just Label It’ project) have been asking for: they’ve labelled their products. 

Red flag labels

The big danger is that consumers might interpret these labels as health advisories or warnings—in which case they will be viewed as a red flag and reason to avoid the product. Labelling also comes with a price tag, which will ultimately be borne by the consumer—and this may be another turn-off.

Domino effect

The about-turn in Campbell’s view—from opposing mandatory labels to one of advocating ‘federal legislation that would require all food and beverages regulated by the FDA and the USDA to be clearly and simply labelled for GMOs’—will give it first-mover advantage over other food companies, making them look more open and progressive. Campbell’s competitors will now be under pressure to follow suit (or modify their collective viewpoint through their industry associations, such as the GMA or FMI).

Is the cavalry coming?

There is still time for a federal decision to avoid multiple and conflicting demands for GMOs by individual states. Legislation—once supported by Campbell Soup—is working its way through Congress. Supported by the food industry, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act to set up a voluntary non-GMO labelling system has passed the House of Representatives, but the sister bill hasn’t made it through the Senate. But for Campbell soup and the anti-GMO crowd, this doesn’t go far enough. They want—like Europe has had for years—mandatory labelling.

Lost in science

Lost in all of this marketing is a sensible conversation about the science and a way for the opposing parties in this debate to find some common ground. For their part, Campbell’s aren’t disputing the science of GMOs and not implying they are unsafe. But it remains the case that most consumers don’t know what genetically modified foods are (or what GMOs stands for), but are increasingly deciding they don’t want them in their food. The pro-GMO crowd needs to find a way to speak to consumers in a language and with a message they understand: one that addresses their concerns with GMOs. The ‘we need to feed 12 billion by 2020’ argument may play well to the Davos crowd, but doesn’t appear to be moving the needle for key trendsetters: millennials, mommy bloggers and foodies.

Download a PDF version of this article

> Click here to download <