GMO DEBATE: Vermont Makes History, Enacts First GMO Law

Vermont Makes History, Enacts First GMO Law

Josh Long

May 09, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• ins

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin on Thursday signed the nation’s first no-strings-attached bill that requires genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food to be labeled.

Food manufacturers will have time to make the transition. Genetically modified foods will need to be labeled as of July 1, 2016.

“Vermonters take our food and how it is produced seriously, and we believe we have a right to know what’s in the food we buy," the governor said to a crowd gathered on the State House lawn for the signing event. “I am proud that we’re leading the way in the United States to require labeling of genetically engineered food. More than 60 countries have already restricted or labeled these foods, and now one state – Vermont -- will also ensure that we know what’s in the food we buy and serve our families."

The GMO labeling party could be short-lived. Vermont officials expect legal challenges, which could include claims that the law violates the First Amendment.

“The constitutionality of the GMO labelling law will undoubtedly be challenged," said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. “I can make no predictions or promises about how the courts will ultimately rule but I can promise that my office will mount a vigorous and zealous defense of the law that has so much support from Vermont consumers. I thank the Governor and the Legislature for ensuring we have the resources we need to get the job done."

The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) on Thursday lambasted the legislation as “critically flawed and not in the best interest of consumers."

“It sets the nation on a costly and misguided path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that will do nothing to advance the safety of consumers," the association said.

Unlike GMO labeling laws in Connecticut and Maine, Vermont’s law doesn’t require passage of similar laws by other states in order to take effect. The state House passed the bill last month by a vote of 114 to 30.
“There is no doubt that there are those who will work to derail this common sense legislation," Shumlin said. “But I believe this bill is the right thing to do and will gain momentum elsewhere after our action here in Vermont."
Shumlin pointed out that more than 60 countries already restrict or label GMO foods.

But GMA declared GMOs are safe, benefit the environment and offer other benefits.

“They use less water and fewer pesticides, reduce crop prices by 15-30 percent and can help us feed a growing global population of seven billion people," GMA said. “The FDA, World Health Organization, American Medical Association and U.S. National Academy of Science have all found that foods and beverages that contain GM ingredients are safe and materially no different than conventionally produced products."

SOCIAL MEDIA: CONSUMER ACTIVISM SURROUNDS INGREDIENTS, FOOD PROCESSING

CONSUMER ACTIVISM SURROUNDS INGREDIENTS, FOOD PROCESSING

Published April 8, 2014 in Food Product Design

Posted in News, Consumer Preference, GMOs, Natural, Organic, Nutrition, Diet, Food Additive, Colors,Regulatory, Preservatives, Beverages, Sports Nutrition, Grains / Pasta / Tuber, Pasta, Snack Foods,Convenience Foods, International, Processing, Chemicals, Kraft, Lycopene, Cochineal, Fats/Oils, Trans Fats, Fatty Acids, Market Trends, Food Safety, Labeling, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

More and more, Americans have trust issues with "big food"—myriad recalls, the banning of trans fats and studies linking the role food plays in disease have put consumers on alert. Labeling laws, the transparency the Internet provides and the platform for discussion social media offers have collectively created the perfect storm for debate and change.

Food activists are transforming the relationship people have with what they eat. For processed foods, ingredient performance and sourcing are under the microscope. Yet most food companies are loath to give these activists the time of day, accusing most anyone who questions their practices as at best uninformed and, at worst, stupid.

What many food companies fail to grasp is handling consumer challenges with rage or indignation comes off as smug and ultimately gets you nowhere. The genie is never going back into the bottle and thus created a new normal for the food industry and a huge opportunity, if embraced correctly.
Recent reformulations by Kraft (Macaroni & Cheese), PepsiCo (Gatorade) and Starbucks been spurred by activists petitioning online, specifically though Change.org. Each campaign unfolded differently, and each was handled differently.

In February 2013, a Change.org petition asked Kraft to "stop using dangerous food dyes in our mac & cheese." In March, Kraft posted a lawyerly response about following the laws and regulations in the countries where products are sold, and how, in the United States, all colors are approved and deemed safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). When signatures on the petition neared 350,000, the traditional media took notice. In November, about nine months from the posting of the petition, Kraft announced the removal of the artificial dyes from some of its Mac & Cheese products.

Starbucks, on the other hand, took less than a month to switch its red food coloring from cochineal to lycopene as a result of a Change.org petition that drew only 7,000 signatures. Knowing its audience exceptionally well, Starbucks adjusted and moved on. No fighting back. No protesting the unfairness of it all. And certainly, no attempt to come off as disdainful to its critics.

Will your ingredient (or one used in your product) become a target of consumer activism? Risks are higher if you ingredient moonlights as an industrial chemical; is banned in other countries; triggers allergies, inflammation or other health issues; is untested; or is being talked about across social media platforms.
For a closer look at the activist consumer, and how these consumers are affecting the food and beverage industry, visit Food Product Design's Boardroom Journal: Navigating Consumer Activism.

CANADIAN FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY UPDATE

Food processing remains a strong industry despite plant closures

Mar 12, 2014 Romina Maurino, The Canadian Press

TORONTO – Despite a number of high-profile plant closures in recent months, the food processing industry in Canada is becoming more competitive and those efforts are likely to bear fruit in the form of jobs, according to a new study.

Western University’s Ivey Business School says its study found that the most commonly cited reason for closures was that a plant was no longer competitive and, in many cases, production was being consolidated at another location.

But when new plants open, they are often larger and incorporate new technology that drives down costs, it found.

Recent high-profile food plant closures in Ontario, such as the Kellogg operation in London and the threat of closure that loomed over the Heinz plant in Leamington before it was saved by a last-minute deal, raised concerns in a province that had watched its auto and steel industries decimated by the recession.

While auto manufacturing has improved, a string of closures that also included Smucker’s and Lance Canada Ltd, has led many to question the future of food processing in the province.

But the Western study, co-authored by David Sparling, said that between 2008 and 2014, the 105 closures in the province have been balanced by 105 openings and plant investments.

That means that while plant closures resulted in job losses, the industry overall did not experience a net decline in employment.

“The food industry typically has had lots of small plants and lots more retail,” he said.

“The new footprint for globally competitive manufacturing tends to be larger plants and probably located close to workforces as well as markets and transportation corridors.”

Hamilton, Brantford, London, Toronto and Windsor, Ont., are all large centres that have big workforces and the ability to service a larger company, he said.

“We’re probably going to lose more small plants in some small centres, (but) that said, the food industry also has a huge number of small companies and … a lot of them are starting up in rural centres, where people … want to extract some more value from farm product.”

Cities like Hamilton and Brantford, which were hit hard as manufacturing changed, are seeing new opportunities with a Ferrero Rocher plant in Brantford and a Canada Bread operation in Hamilton, said Sparling, who is the chair of Agri-food Innovation at Ivey.

When looking to set up new plants, he added, companies did consider whether there were people in the area who already understood manufacturing and were looking for work.

“The food industry doesn’t tend to pay quite as much as things like automotive and steel, so there’s a bit of an adjustment that way, but they are still good manufacturing jobs,” said Sparling.

Food processing, like other manufacturing in Canada, was hit hard by the recession, the high loonie, increased foreign competition and higher input costs.

But it has also been impacted by an increasingly competitive retail market for grocery stores, which “are operating at razor-thin margins and they’re just not doing as well as they have been in the past,” Sparling said.

“That means they’re really unreceptive to increase costs coming to them, so that puts all kinds of pressure on food manufacturers to figure out how can we get interesting products that consumers would care about to retailers without imposing any additional costs.”

The study, titled The Changing Face of Food Manufacturing in Canada: An Analysis of Plant Closings, Openings and Investments, found that there were 143 plant closures announced between 2006 and 2014, resulting in projected losses of almost 24,000 jobs.

The industry went through a particularly challenging period in 2007 and 2008, when 48 closures in the country outnumbered the 27 openings and plant investments. Ontario was the hardest-hit province, while Quebec was more successful in balancing openings and investments with closures.

But revenue continued to increase during that period and employment recovered more quickly than at other manufacturers.

Closures were also offset by investments from both foreign and domestic companies, with Canadian firms making slightly higher investments and the majority of activity coming from smaller firms.

“The overall picture is one of an industry that went through tough times in the mid 2000s but in recent years has been looking more positive in spite of continuing challenges,” the report said.

“It is also an industry that is more ready to compete than it was in 2006.”

To continue to grow the sector going forward, the report highlighted the need to create an attractive investment environment, reduce energy costs, to support and facilitate trade and to provide incentives for companies to choose to set up shop in Canada and upgrade technology.

Food companies also voiced concern about labour supply issues in the future, as they worried about meeting the growing need for skilled labour and said they could benefit from greater use of apprenticeships and training programs.

The food processing industry produces more than 70 per cent of the food Canadians buy and, with revenue of more than $88 billion in 2011, it’s the second-largest Canadian manufacturing industry and Canada’s largest manufacturing employer.