Currently browsing posts about: GMA(Grocery Manufacturers Association)

I first read about this in a Forbes article: New Study: Front-Of-Pack Warning Labels Don’t Lower Obesity Rates.

As the FDA mulls interpretive food warning labels, a Georgetown University study shows these schemes have been powerless to halt obesity trends.  In an attempt to tackle stubbornly high adult obesity rates over 40% in the US, the FDA is advancing a proposed front-of-pack (FOP) label that highlights whether a food or beverage contains low, medium or high levels of sugar, saturated fats and sodium. But a new study from Georgetown University titled Can Front-of-Pack Product Labeling Fix the Obesity Crisis says that the FDA has not learned the lessons from other countries using such interpretive food warning labels: there is no hard evidence that they have been effective in improving consumer diets or in arresting rising obesity rates.

The author of this article is Hank Cardello, executive-in-residence at Georgetown McDonough’s Business for Impact.

If you click on the link to the study, you discover than Cardullo himself is its author.

Hank Cardello, executive-in-residence at Georgetown McDonough’s Business for Impact, has published a white paper titled,“Can Front-of-Pack Product Labeling Fix the Obesity Crisis?” This paper argues that front-of-pack (FOP) food labeling has not led to meaningful improvements in public health outcomes. It evaluates data from multiple countries to test the efficacy of other FOP labeling initiatives.

Both the article and his White Papert disclose the funder: the Consumer Brands Association, formerly known as the Grocery Manufacturers of America, which represents Big Food.

Comment

I can understand why the food industry does not like warning labels or any other front-of-pack label that might reduce product sales, which studies of Latin American warning labels show they do.  So this piece is predictable.

If you want people to lose weight, they have to eat less.  Eating less is very bad for business.

What good are front-of-pack labels?  At best they alert consumers to avoid high-calorie foods formulated to get us all to eat more of them.

But that’s just a start.  To lose weight, you also have to make sure the rest of your diet does not replace the calories you just saved.

Cardullo’s suggestion is smalled portions.  Good idea.

In the meantime, warning labels could help and I hope the FDA comes up with good ones.

________________

Published tomorrow!  Information is here.

Under new leadership, and in the wake of the defections of prominent food companies, the Grocery Manufacturers Association is changing its name.

Good-bye GMA.  Hello Consumer Brands Association.

Why?  The GMA was on the wrong side of just about every food issue.

In the past two years, food companies like Campbell, Kraft Heinz, Nestle, Hershey and Unilever left the GMA, amid disputes over how to handle these new realities. Among the issues that were fiercely debated were how and when to disclose the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The organization says each of the departing members left for individual reasons, but the common thread was a failure by the organization to adapt as consumer sentiments and trends were evolving.

Chalk this up to consumer power!  And to badly needed new leadership.

The association’s will now focus on promoting:

• Sustainable packaging
• Uniform recycling
• Trust and transparency
• Improved supply chains
• Uniform regulation of CBD

Sounds good to me.  Let’s hope the transformation works.

Danone North America, Mars Inc, Nestlé USA (no relation), and Unilever US have left the Grocery Manufacturers Association to form a new organization, the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance.

Its stated purpose (as explained in the press release):

• Consumer Transparency: Improving the quality and accessibility of information available to consumers about the food they purchase for themselves and their families.
• Environment: Advocating for innovative, science-based solutions to take action against the costly impacts of climate change, build more resilient communities, promote renewable energy, and further develop sustainable agriculture systems.
• Food Safety: Ensuring the quality and safety of food products and the global supply chain.
• Nutrition: Developing and advocating for policies that help people make better-informed food choices that contribute to healthy eating while supporting sustainable environmental practices.
• People and Communities: Advancing policies that promote a strong, diverse, and healthy workplace and support the supply chain, including rural economies.

The Alliance says it intends to:

• Urge policymakers to ensure the Farm Bill and other farm policies emphasize water quality and conservation issues, improved soil health, and renewable energy (particularly wind and solar).
• Explore the economics of sustainability, including financial incentives to reduce emissions and transition to low-carbon alternatives and to create value for farmers, ranchers, and others.
• Advocate on behalf of environmental policies at the state, national, and international levels, including the Paris Climate Agreement and Clean Power Plan.

Sounds good, no?

As I told the Washington Post, I would like

to see how the four companies address more inconvenient environmental and public health policies, such as limits on bottling water from national forests or mandated, front-of-package nutrition labeling. Those policies could potentially threaten their bottom lines — an issue Danone’s Lozano said his company did not face with its current efforts around sustainability.

Let’s give them credit for going after the low-hanging fruit first…But the real questions are what they will really do, and when.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I’m keeping score on companies dropping their membership in and substantial financial support of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lobbying group for decidedly consumer-unfriendly food companies.

Add the top two are new to the list since my last post.

• The Kraft Heinz Company
• DowDuPont
• Hershey
• Cargill
• Tyson
• Unilever
• Mars
• Campbell Soup
• Nestlé (my non-namesake)
• Dean Foods

Kraft Heinz makes Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, Tang, and Lunchables, among lots of other products.  It told Politico Morning Agriculture (this may be behind a paywall):

The Kraft Heinz Company will continue to focus this year on wins for the consumer including innovating new products, using simpler and more sustainable ingredients and providing more transparency about our offerings.  We appreciate GMA’s many contributions on behalf of the industry and our consumers.

Will the defections lead to a collapse of the GMA?  Or force it to reform?  Or let it continue to limp along?  Stay tuned.

Nonrenewals of membership in the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) are adding up (see my previous post on this).  Helena Bottemiller Evich at Politico is keeping score (this may be behind a paywall):

• Hershey
• Cargill
• Tyson
• Unilever
• Mars
• Campbell Soup
• Nestlé (my non-namesake)
• Dean Foods

The GMA has long behaved as if the food movement doesn’t exist and its industry can continue to take consumer-unfriendly positions on food issues that the public cares about—with no consequences.

Politico quotes a spokesman for the GMA:

GMA and its board are continuing our work to build the new GMA for the future to meet the needs of long-time and new member companies and of consumers…The food industry is facing significant disruption and is evolving — and so is GMA. We all will continue to evolve and change at an even faster pace.

I have some suggestions for this evolution:

• Listen to consumers.
• Understand why sustainability and health are issues that matter so deeply.
• Help food companies produce healthful, sustainable products.
• Stop fighting measures aimed at health and sustainability.
• Become part of the solution; stop being the problem.

Politico is tracking what’s happening to the GMA.  The defectors so far:

• Tyson Foods
• Unilever
• Campbell Soup Co.
• Nestlé
• Dean Foods
• Mars

The GMA has consistently and persistently lobbied against consumer-friendly measures.  I guess the GMA has become too embarrassing for these corporations or too contrary to the image they want to project.

I can’t wait to see who is next.  Stay tuned.

I’ve written many times about the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), an organization so locked into the interests of its food-company donors that you can count on it to vehemently oppose every consumer-friendly measure that gets proposed.

A couple of weeks ago, Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich and Catherine Boudreau wrote what they discovered about the unraveling of the GMA: the big Washington food fight.

The defectors so far:

• Campbell Soup
• Nestlé (my non-namesake)
• Dean Foods
• And, most recently, Mars.

Mars says:

At this time, we believe we can more effectively drive our business objectives and meaningful progress for our categories and consumers by working with other like-minded companies and through other sector-specific trade associations and collaborations.

What’s going on?  Easy.  GMA just isn’t keeping up with today’s marketplace.

Politico’s analysis (these are quotes):

• Companies are increasingly under pressure to find growth in a market where more and more consumers are seeking healthier fare, whether they’re buying organic baby food, cereal without artificial colors or meats raised without antibiotics.
• As legacy brands lag, food companies have two options: Change to compete or buy up the new brands that are already growing rapidly.
• With each episode of discord, both internally and publicly, it becomes harder for GMA to convince its members to pay fees to belong to a trade group that’s rife with division and, at times, fights against issues they either don’t want fought or don’t want to be associated with.
• “More than one food industry lobbyist has told me that they spend more time lobbying their industry association than they do Capitol Hill,” said Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group.
• Many in Washington think GMA has been tone deaf as it has, in some cases, kept up lavish spending even as its members are cutting costs and laying off workers to meet their quarterly targets.
• “I don’t know a single challenger brand that’s said ‘hey, I need to join GMA,'” said John Foraker, the founder and former CEO of Annie’s.

My favorite quote comes from Jeff Nedelman, who was a VP of communications at GMA during the 1980s and ’90s: “To me, it looks like GMA is the dinosaur just waiting to die.”

May it rest in peace.

Ordinarily I don’t pay close attention to early congressional legislative initiatives until they seem likely to be passed by both houses and signed by the President.

But the House seems likely to pass the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (HR 1599) tomorrow, and what’s happening with it is worth a look.  Opponents call the bill the “Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act.”  (Update July 23: the House passed the bill with a vote of 275 for and 150 against, with the help of African-American representatives).

The purpose of HR 1599 is to block states—like Vermont, for example—from requiring labels on GMO foods [see details below at *].

How it works is best seen in the amendments that will be considered tomorrow.  Of the 14 amendments proposed, the House Rules Committee will allow discussion of these four.

• Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore:  if a U.S. company or subsidiary labels a product as containing GMOs in any foreign country, it must label the equivalent product the same way in the United States.  (Defeated 122 to 303)
• Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif: ensures tribal sovereignty to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of GMOs on tribal lands. (Defeated 196 to 227)
• Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn: prohibits use of the term “natural” on GMO foods. (Defeated 163 to 262)
• Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine: strikes the entire bill and creates a USDA non-GMO certification program and label. (Defeated by voice vote)

In an op-ed in the Boston Globe, Reps. Chellie Pingree and Jim McGovern say “Let consumers decide for themselves.”

Americans want more information, not less. What we need is one law that makes GMO labeling mandatory across the country and establishes a single national standard that eliminates confusion and puts consumers in charge.

This debate isn’t about the safety of GMOs. It’s about consumers’ right to know what’s in the food they put on their tables. We ought to give them that right.

It’s interesting to see who is for this bill, and who against. One major proponent is the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which joined 475 other members of the industry “front group,” the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food, in signing a letter in support.

Those opposed include the National Organic Coalition and the Just Label It campaign.   Also opposed are Food Democracy Now and the National Farmers Union, along with a long list of farm, consumer, and environmental groups.

Even if the House passes the bill, nobody in the Senate seems interested in it as yet.  So maybe this is all just theater.

But I read it as acknowledgment by the GMO industry and its food product supporters that the labeling issue is not going to go away.  Therefore, they had best try to preempt it by passing a law they can live with and making sure that states do not pass their own, stronger bills.

Stay tuned.

*Addition: I received a request to unpack the bill and state its terms.  HR 1599:

• Calls for premarket notification of new GMOs introduced into the food supply.
• Says the process of GMO is not sufficient to require labeling.
• Says non-GMO labeling cannot imply that non-GMO is safer.
• Blocks voluntary non-GMO labeling.
• Prevents states from requiring GMO labeling.
• Allows the term “natural” on labels of GMO foods.
• Establishes a non-GMO certification program requiring process controls and preemption of state laws.

Update, July 27: According to OpenSecrets.org, representatives who voted against GMO labeling received three times as much money from agribusiness as those who did not.  OpenSecrets calls this a “cash crop.”