I’m an active consumer. I selectively engage with brands via email, social media, phone or by chatting directly with team leads or store managers when I have something to share – complaints and compliments alike, which has often resulted in action or positive changes. When I read this post on Linked In: General Mills speaks up about state GMO labeling laws; I was intrigued to read their position on this hot topic. The author, Debra Atlas provides the verbatim reply and concludes, “If they are in favor of a national labeling act, why assiduously fight every state – and with so much capital expense – to defeat any mandatory labeling? Do they truly want consumers to know what’s in their food, or are they simply blowing smoke? It has to make you wonder.”
I give credit to General Mills (GM) for providing a pretty thorough reply. Their position to support national legislation is pretty consistent. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they support giving consumers the information that they want. After all, they’re a brand that generally has a good handle on transparency, they understand the power of consumers and their demand for greater clarity (likely born out of horror stories over the years about food supply chains).
I have read that the state by state GMO labelling will create a cost and could very likely create confusion in grocery stores (The Shelby Report posted an excellent summary on this topic here). I’m inferring that GM realizes that every stakeholder group will pay some price if the piecemeal approach continues. The state by state strategy is positively increasing awareness of GMO, however I’ve also read that the details in the state by state proposals are very vague and don’t serve consumers very well. The topic is complicated and not a topic that consumers deeply understand. Most of the legislation focuses on how the food is put together but not what it contains.
If GM doesn’t believe that piecemeal legislation addresses the core issues of GMO’s that matter to stakeholders then their strategy makes sense and it is likely cost efficient to fight states. I’m most interested in learning about GM’s proactive strategy for nationwide legislation if they believe this is the right road to transparency, this would provide a true-up picture of their desire to respond to consumers.