As consumer concern grows over genetically modified products, more produce purveyors are paying to use such labels
Last year, Evolution Salt Co. proudly put a label on its packages of Himalayan salt proclaiming they contained no genetically modified organisms.
It shouldn’t have been a surprise, because salt has no genes. But Hayden Nasir, chief executive of the Austin, Texas-based company, said advertising the absence of GMOs was good business.
If a competing salt next to Evolution’s “doesn’t say non-GMO on it, chances are somebody will bypass that,” said Mr. Nasir, who said he also supports such labeling in principle.
The U.S. food industry is under siege from consumers’ growing demand for natural and less-industrially produced fare, with sales of everything from conventional breakfast cereals to Kraft Cheez Whiz suffering. Part of that skepticism has focused on GMOs, which, according to a vocal core of critics, damage the environment and may harm human health.
While the U.S. government and most major science groups say evidence shows that GMOs are safe, consumer concern has grown so strong that some vendors of products such as blueberries and lettuce are paying for non-GMO labeling even though their products aren’t among the small number of crops that are genetically modified in the U.S.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved production of genetically modified varieties of less than 20 crops. Only eight are widely produced commercially: corn, soybeans, alfalfa, papaya, summer squash, sugar beets, cotton and canola. GMO potatoes and apples recently started commercial production but aren’t yet widely available. Of the total, only some papaya and squash commonly are eaten by people directly (little of the sweet corn Americans eat is of the GMO variety). The rest are used for animal feed or to make oils or ingredients for packaged foods like soy lecithin.
Exact data on how many products claim they are GMO-free isn’t available, but the number is growing. Of the 33,000 newly launched products that market-research firm Mintel adds to its global database each month, 3.8% of food and beverage products included a GMO-free claim on the package last year, up from 1.6% in 2010. That includes some major brands such as Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and General Mills Inc.’s Cheerios cereal that are retooling supply chains to strip out GMO ingredients.
The Non-GMO Project, a not-for-profit organization that, for a fee, can certify that a company’s product has no genetically modified ingredients, has logged a big increase in the number of fruit and vegetable sellers requesting its stamp of approval in the past two years, according to Megan Westgate, executive director.
Sales of packaged produce with the group’s Non-GMO label in the 52 weeks ended June 14 grew 30% from a year earlier to $1.1 billion. The group charges companies anywhere from several hundred dollars to several thousand to certify, depending the complexity of a product’s supply chain.
For a decade, at festivals and other public events, people told Pete Overgaag, CEO of Hollandia Produce LP, that his plump, uniform lettuce looked too good to be true. “People will say they must be GMO because they’re so perfect,” he said. So early last year, his Carpinteria, Calif., company got two of its leafy-greens brands verified as Non-GMO. “We thought, how many people are not buying it because they’re not sure” whether the products are genetically modified? The label immediately went on the front of packages, but he is unsure whether it has added to sales growth.
Whole Foods Market Inc. helped spur the trend two years ago by mandating that all goods it sells in the U.S. and Canada, by 2018, state whether their production involved any genetic modification. But the consumer demand has grown wider, say produce purveyors.
“People are really starting to care about how their stuff is grown,” said Bentley Mills, owner of BJ’s Produce Inc., of Athens, Ga. Last year, after parrying questions for years about GMOs and how his greenhouses work, he had the Non-GMO Project verify his Living Fresh brand of basil and other greens. It sparked a sales bump and positive comments from clients, he said.
Supporters of biotechnology object to putting the non-GMO stamp on fresh produce with no commercially available GMO variants. It spreads misinformation and casts unfounded doubts on the scientific process and the safety of the food supply, said Jon Entine,executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, which generally supports biotechnology. The fact that the Non-GMO Project classifies nearly all foods as either at “high risk” or “low risk” of genetic modification is disingenuous because it implies they can cause injury, he said.
Ms. Westgate said the goal of the Non-GMO Project, which was started in 2005, is to shrink the market for existing GMO ingredients and prevent new commercial biotech crops.
With salt, she said, manufacturers often use dextrose in the iodizing process, which most table salt undergoes to add the nutrient. Dextrose can be made from GMO corn. (Evolution’s Himalayan salt isn’t iodized.)
But Ms. Westgate also said that as fruit and vegetable growers increasingly seek out her organization’s imprimatur, the Non-GMO Project may have to distinguish on its labels which products it considers at “low risk” and “high risk” of GMO contamination to avoid confusion.
George Ball, CEO of W. Atlee Burpee & Co., said his company has no desire or ability to buy or produce GMO garden seeds because they don’t exist commercially. Yet, for years the country’s largest garden-seed provider has fended off consumer concerns about whether Burpee seeds are genetically modified. He posted several detailed explanations online and has spent hours personally answering questions.
Frustrated, he gave in. In 2013, Burpee added a non-GMO label, which now is a red stamp across its traditional seal that says “Since 1876 Guaranteed.”
“You got to play defense and offense in any game,” he said.
from Wall Street Journal
By ILAN BRAT Aug. 20, 2015