May 28, 2014 - Blogs
Consumer awareness about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to grow as advocates rally for the removal of GMO ingredients from food and beverage products, or at the very least, GMO labeling mandates. Food and beverages claiming to be free of GMOs will account for almost one-quarter of all food and beverage sales in the U.S., amounting to approximately $178 billion in sales in 2013.
Guest blogger Sandra Kepler, CEO of FoodChain ID and the founding technical consultant and technical administrator of the Non-GMO Project’s product verification program, details key considerations to achieve non-GMO verification of a new product, or to reformulate an existing product for verification.
The Natural Marketing Institute (NMI) reports that in the U.S. more than 50 percent of conventional/mainstream consumers indicate awareness of GMOs; and in NMI’s demographic segment identified as LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability), the percentage increases to more than 75-percent awareness. For almost half of those consumers surveyed, discovering that a favorite brand was made with GMO ingredients would make a purchase less likely.
Recent research by the Hartman Group indicates that 39 percent of mainstream U.S. consumers cite GMOs as one of the top three things they are looking to avoid when shopping for food, a 56-percent increase from two years ago.
In response to consumer preference for non-GMO options, non-GMO product launches have increased dramatically, and the conventional food industry is participating in this upward trend. In the last few months non-GMO versions of Cheerios from General Mills and Grape Nuts from Post have been introduced. Smart Balanceannounced a reformulation using 100-percent non-GMO-sourced ingredients. In related news, Kroger and Safeway said that they would not sell GMO salmon, and the Chipotle restaurant chain made a commitment to remove GMOs from the menu.
More than 15,000 products now display the Non-GMO Project Verified seal, the fastest-growing label in the natural products industry. According to NMI research, a significant percentage of American consumers recognize this seal, and one-third indicated that they would be more likely to buy a product with the seal. Non-GMO has become a key product attribute, and some brand owners hypothesize that when evaluating a product for purchase, shoppers are looking first for the Non-GMO Project Verified seal before selecting the brand. Brand owners report an increase in sales for their verified products, and in some cases, the increases have been dramatic. Obtaining non-GMO verified status in the United States establishes a platform for achieving regulatory compliance for export to Europe, South America and Asia. Although regulatory, threshold, and labeling asymmetries exist for exports, with proper preparation, verification efforts in the U.S. can apply to international markets.
Whether your company is planning to achieve non-GMO verification of a new product, or to reformulate an existing product for verification, careful planning and implementation can reduce cost and effort. The following are some key considerations.
Manufacturers that formulate new products with compliance in mind can have their finished products verified most efficiently. They should consult with their verification program’s technical administrator (the verifying body) to pre-evaluate the new or existing formulations for compliance. By doing so, they can shorten the path to verification and lower their costs. For example, the GM risk may change, and program costs be decreased, by switching from soy oil to sunflower oil. Compliance challenges can be identified upfront, as in the case of products containing animal derivatives, such as whey or eggs, which may be difficult to document for compliance.
The complexity of the product line should be factored in to one’s expectations for achieving verification. Products with low GM risk, such as baby food, may take two months or less for product verification. Yet supplements could take as long as 18 months. Sampling and GMO strategies may need to be developed that are optimal to the supply chain.
If a product line is complicated or is comprised of a large numbers of products, consider a staged enrollment plan. Under this scenario, start with products that contain the greatest number of shared ingredients. This approach will decrease the learning curve and the quality department’s workload. Staged enrollment can lead to a staggered product verification timeline. Products from the same product line may achieve verification at different times, prompting some consumers to ask why the entire product line wasn’t verified simultaneously. Create a public education platform with messaging that address consumers’ expectations and explain the incremental steps being taken to incorporate non-GMO verification.
Begin collecting data from ingredient vendors in advance of participation. Use a standardized form, such as the data collection form used by the technical administrator, to gather all relevant information. Germane data will include disclosure of additives, microorganisms, enzymes, carriers, fermentation media, raw material sources and non-GMO manufacturing processes. Vendor claims must be supported in order to demonstrate compliance.
When vetting new vendors, require that they take part in the non-GMO verification program. Or, ask the technical administrator to determine if vendor documentation complies with the Standard in advance of verification. Thorough evaluation of vendors will avoid the issues that arose in these examples: one manufacturer discovered the ingredient vendor had replaced sugar cane (a low GM risk) with beet sugar (a high GM risk); in another case, high fructose corn syrup (GM risk) had replaced cane sugar; in yet another, the vendor had not disclosed the presence of high GM risk maltodextrin as a carrier.
Consider investing in additional staff to address the increased workload associated with verification. Achieving a non-GMO product designation is not a static event. GMO approval and commercialization statuses change and GMO testing requirements are updated to accommodate new GMO events. Standards evolve to accommodate changes in regulatory and market environments, and the new vendor vetting process becomes more rigorous. Vendor changes impacting verified products require the approval of the technical administrator. Production staging to mitigate risk of GMO contamination in manufacturing environments with parallel production and additional inspection requirements may be necessary.
With complicated product formulations such as supplements, consider joining a working group of industry colleagues to develop non-GMO compliant ingredient sources. For example, the Dietary Supplement Working Group is a collection of manufacturers and their suppliers, working together to develop non-GMO compliant vitamin sources to be shared among the members.
The rewards of successful non-GMO product verification go well beyond the achievement of marketing goals. Greater control of the product supply chain, improved quality, and a forging of new supplier relationships have also been positive results for brand owners.
For more information regarding GMOs, Gregory Jaffe, director, biotechnology project, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), will discuss the topic of biotechnology at Ingredient Marketplace at Jacob Javitz Center in New York, June 2-3. His presentation, "Biotechnology and the Future of the Ingredient Supply Chain," will take place June 2, 9:30-10:30 a.m.
Sandra Kepler is the Chief Executive Officer of FoodChain ID (formerly FoodChain Global Advisors), the founding technical consultant and technical administrator of the Non-GMO Project’s product verification program. She has more than 15 years of experience in non-GMO consulting, verification and certification programs. FoodChain ID is part of the Global ID Group family of companies with a shared mission of providing services to support safe, ethical, sustainable global food production.
Consumer awareness about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to grow as advocates rally for the removal of GMO ingredients from food and beverage products, or at the very least, GMO labeling mandates. Food and beverages claiming to be free of GMOs will account for almost one-quarter of all food and beverage sales in the U.S., amounting to approximately $178 billion in sales in 2013.
Guest blogger Sandra Kepler, CEO of FoodChain ID and the founding technical consultant and technical administrator of the Non-GMO Project’s product verification program, details key considerations to achieve non-GMO verification of a new product, or to reformulate an existing product for verification.
The Natural Marketing Institute (NMI) reports that in the U.S. more than 50 percent of conventional/mainstream consumers indicate awareness of GMOs; and in NMI’s demographic segment identified as LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability), the percentage increases to more than 75-percent awareness. For almost half of those consumers surveyed, discovering that a favorite brand was made with GMO ingredients would make a purchase less likely.
Recent research by the Hartman Group indicates that 39 percent of mainstream U.S. consumers cite GMOs as one of the top three things they are looking to avoid when shopping for food, a 56-percent increase from two years ago.
In response to consumer preference for non-GMO options, non-GMO product launches have increased dramatically, and the conventional food industry is participating in this upward trend. In the last few months non-GMO versions of Cheerios from General Mills and Grape Nuts from Post have been introduced. Smart Balanceannounced a reformulation using 100-percent non-GMO-sourced ingredients. In related news, Kroger and Safeway said that they would not sell GMO salmon, and the Chipotle restaurant chain made a commitment to remove GMOs from the menu.
More than 15,000 products now display the Non-GMO Project Verified seal, the fastest-growing label in the natural products industry. According to NMI research, a significant percentage of American consumers recognize this seal, and one-third indicated that they would be more likely to buy a product with the seal. Non-GMO has become a key product attribute, and some brand owners hypothesize that when evaluating a product for purchase, shoppers are looking first for the Non-GMO Project Verified seal before selecting the brand. Brand owners report an increase in sales for their verified products, and in some cases, the increases have been dramatic. Obtaining non-GMO verified status in the United States establishes a platform for achieving regulatory compliance for export to Europe, South America and Asia. Although regulatory, threshold, and labeling asymmetries exist for exports, with proper preparation, verification efforts in the U.S. can apply to international markets.
Whether your company is planning to achieve non-GMO verification of a new product, or to reformulate an existing product for verification, careful planning and implementation can reduce cost and effort. The following are some key considerations.
Manufacturers that formulate new products with compliance in mind can have their finished products verified most efficiently. They should consult with their verification program’s technical administrator (the verifying body) to pre-evaluate the new or existing formulations for compliance. By doing so, they can shorten the path to verification and lower their costs. For example, the GM risk may change, and program costs be decreased, by switching from soy oil to sunflower oil. Compliance challenges can be identified upfront, as in the case of products containing animal derivatives, such as whey or eggs, which may be difficult to document for compliance.
The complexity of the product line should be factored in to one’s expectations for achieving verification. Products with low GM risk, such as baby food, may take two months or less for product verification. Yet supplements could take as long as 18 months. Sampling and GMO strategies may need to be developed that are optimal to the supply chain.
If a product line is complicated or is comprised of a large numbers of products, consider a staged enrollment plan. Under this scenario, start with products that contain the greatest number of shared ingredients. This approach will decrease the learning curve and the quality department’s workload. Staged enrollment can lead to a staggered product verification timeline. Products from the same product line may achieve verification at different times, prompting some consumers to ask why the entire product line wasn’t verified simultaneously. Create a public education platform with messaging that address consumers’ expectations and explain the incremental steps being taken to incorporate non-GMO verification.
Begin collecting data from ingredient vendors in advance of participation. Use a standardized form, such as the data collection form used by the technical administrator, to gather all relevant information. Germane data will include disclosure of additives, microorganisms, enzymes, carriers, fermentation media, raw material sources and non-GMO manufacturing processes. Vendor claims must be supported in order to demonstrate compliance.
When vetting new vendors, require that they take part in the non-GMO verification program. Or, ask the technical administrator to determine if vendor documentation complies with the Standard in advance of verification. Thorough evaluation of vendors will avoid the issues that arose in these examples: one manufacturer discovered the ingredient vendor had replaced sugar cane (a low GM risk) with beet sugar (a high GM risk); in another case, high fructose corn syrup (GM risk) had replaced cane sugar; in yet another, the vendor had not disclosed the presence of high GM risk maltodextrin as a carrier.
Consider investing in additional staff to address the increased workload associated with verification. Achieving a non-GMO product designation is not a static event. GMO approval and commercialization statuses change and GMO testing requirements are updated to accommodate new GMO events. Standards evolve to accommodate changes in regulatory and market environments, and the new vendor vetting process becomes more rigorous. Vendor changes impacting verified products require the approval of the technical administrator. Production staging to mitigate risk of GMO contamination in manufacturing environments with parallel production and additional inspection requirements may be necessary.
With complicated product formulations such as supplements, consider joining a working group of industry colleagues to develop non-GMO compliant ingredient sources. For example, the Dietary Supplement Working Group is a collection of manufacturers and their suppliers, working together to develop non-GMO compliant vitamin sources to be shared among the members.
The rewards of successful non-GMO product verification go well beyond the achievement of marketing goals. Greater control of the product supply chain, improved quality, and a forging of new supplier relationships have also been positive results for brand owners.
For more information regarding GMOs, Gregory Jaffe, director, biotechnology project, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), will discuss the topic of biotechnology at Ingredient Marketplace at Jacob Javitz Center in New York, June 2-3. His presentation, "Biotechnology and the Future of the Ingredient Supply Chain," will take place June 2, 9:30-10:30 a.m.
Sandra Kepler is the Chief Executive Officer of FoodChain ID (formerly FoodChain Global Advisors), the founding technical consultant and technical administrator of the Non-GMO Project’s product verification program. She has more than 15 years of experience in non-GMO consulting, verification and certification programs. FoodChain ID is part of the Global ID Group family of companies with a shared mission of providing services to support safe, ethical, sustainable global food production.
No comments:
Post a Comment