As the market for non-genetically engineered foods grows with rising concern over the safety of the product, companies are bowing to the pressures of the consumers, opting to remove GMO ingredients from their products and provide voluntary labels.
According to SPINS, an information and service producer for the health-food industry, sales of non-GMO-verified products increased 85 percent between 2011 and 2012. Sales rose to $2.4 billion, compared to the previous year’s $1.3 billion.
According to the Non-GMO Project, annual sales now total $3.5 billion, marking a rapid increase in consumer trend.
The most recent announcement comes from Ben and Jerry’s, which publicly stated this month it will begin phasing out GMO ingredients from all of its ice cream products by 2014.
“There is a growing movement of consumers, and health and environmental advocates who are demanding that companies be transparent about whether or not their products contain GMOs,” the company states on its website.
Genetically engineered crops are altered to absorb exorbitant amounts of pesticides, including RoundUp, that are intended to kill weeds while allowing the plant itself to thrive. GMO crops remain a source of controversy among consumers who point to the outlaw of genetically modified seeds in eight European countries.
In May, the Journal of Hematology and Thromboembolic Diseases published findings from a University of Brazil study indicating a potential connection between GMO crops and blood abnormalities, including anemia and leukemia.
The announcement by Ben and Jerry’s comes on the heels of a commitment made by Whole Foods to provide GMO labels on all food products by 2018, marking a new era of initiatives to inform consumers of product content.
“These companies are responding to the incredible consumer demand for GMO transparency,” Courtney Pineau, assistant director of the Non-GMO Project, told Mint Press News. “Shoppers want an informed choice about the foods they are eating and feeding their families.”
The Ben and Jerry’s move was a surprise to some because the company’s new owner, Unilever, donated nearly half a million dollars to defeat a ballot initiative in California that would have required labeling on all food containing GMO ingredients, according the Organic Consumers Association.
Companies stepping up to the plate
In 2012, health-food retailer Trader Joe’s received praise among concerned consumers when it announced that all of its private-label produced contain no GMO ingredients.
“Our approach to genetically modified organisms is simple: We do not allow GMO ingredients in our private label products (anything with Trader Joe’s, Trader Jose’s, Trader Ming’s, etc. on the label),” a 2012 Trader Joe’s Consumer Update stated. “Our efforts began in 2001, when we determined that, given a choice, our customers would prefer to eat foods and beverages made without the use of genetically engineered ingredients.”
It seems other companies are recognizing consumers’ preference for non-GMO products, too. Walkers, a Scottish shortbread brand sold in the U.S., is among the companies that have adopted anti-GMO policies. It’s joined by other “non-organic” food companies, including Thai Kitchen and Kettle Brand, producer of Kettle chips.
Organizations like the Non-GMO Project believe that as more companies begin to rid products of GMO ingredients and label such products for consumers, the industry will only continue to grow. Currently, the Non-GMO Project provides a database for consumers interested in learning which products are GMO-free.
“We believe that everyone deserves to know what’s in the food they are eating and feeding to their families,” Pineau said.
Its website includes sections for verified retailers, restaurants and products, ranging from baby food to body care products.
“By verifying and labeling products made without GMOs, the Non-GMO Project is giving the public the information they deserve at the same time leveraging the power of the marketplace to drive demand for non-GMO ingredients and production,” Pineau said.
Growth in the non-GMO sector
“As more consumers become aware of the potential risks of GMOs, we anticipate the demand for labeling and for non-GMO food and products will continue to increase,” Pineau said. “The Non-GMO Project has seen incredible sales growth of products that are Non-GMO Project Verified as more consumers seek out non-GMO choices.”
The uptick in non-GMO product sales falls in line with the growing movement of active anti-GMO advocates throughout the country.
On May 25, more than 2 million people participated in the March Against Monsanto, drawing attention to the strength in numbers among those in the U.S. concerned about the growing GMO market.
Those who ventured out to show their distrust in Monsanto, considered the nation’s leading GMO seed producer, largely focused on the need of transparency for the consumer. Despite labeling regulations in 60 countries, the U.S. has yet to adopt any labeling guidelines.
“I think it (food) should be labeled,” Chris Schleicher, a father of two, told Mint Press News. “I think it’s very important that people can make their own decisions and know what they’re eating.”
The most recent effort to institute labeling in California failed after voters rejected the notion. The Organic Consumers Association points a finger at what it refers to as a “deceitful $46 million advertising blitz” by companies like PepsiCo and Kraft, which together donated a combined $4.5 million.
Standing up for organic farmers
Ben and Jerry’s founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, were considered grassroots environmental advocates.
In the 1990s, they started a program to promote family farmers through the inclusion of “Support Farm Aid” messages on the side of their products. Though it’s now in the hands of new management, the company is recognizing that original commitment to family farms through its initiative to phase out GMO ingredients.
“Because Ben and Jerry’s has a long history of supporting family owned farms, we’re concerned that growing GMO crops comes at the expense of smaller farms, which we believe is more sustainable kind of farming,” the company says on its website.
Organic farmers and biotechnology giant Monsanto haven’t had the best of relationships in the last few years. In March, the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association sued Monsanto in what it referred to as a “pre-emptive” strike to protect their farmers from patent lawsuits on behalf of the company.
Monsanto has a history of suing farmers for using — and reusing — its GMO seeds without purchasing them. Because seeds can be carried by the wind or pollen, organic farmers who do not use Monsanto-patented seeds are at risk of contamination. Aside from damaging the organic crops, the contamination could also give reason for Monsanto to sue organic farmers, claiming they are unlawfully using Monsanto seeds.
Days before the organic farmers filed the lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto in a patent lawsuit stemming from the accusations that a 75-year-old Indiana farmer was unlawfully using Monsanto seeds.
The farmer, Vernon Hugh Bowman, claims he purchased his seeds from a grain elevator. Bowman claims he planted the seeds, not knowing that what he was doing would violate patent laws. Monsanto turned around and sued Bowman for patent violations. In the end, Bowman was ordered to pay Monsanto $84,000.
Bowman is one of 844 farmers Monsanto has targeted with legal action since 1997, according to Jim Gerritsen, president of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association.
“Family farmers need and deserve the right to farm,” Gerritsen said in a press release. “We have a right to grow good food and good seed for our families and our communities without the threat of trespass and intimidation. We need court protection so that our families will be able to carry on our farming tradition and help keep America strong.”