The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The movement to label food product containing GMO ingredients clearly includes those who believe that GMOs are dangerous. But, if the appeal for labeling had not spread beyond that group, it is likely we would not be talking about Campbell’s decision.
What captured widespread consumer support was the question, “do you want to know what is in the food you eat?” . . . . A recent Consumer Report survey found that 92 percent of the US population wants to know what is in the food it eats.
Economists call this consumer preference. . . . Natural and non-GMO foods first began to be featured in food cooperatives and organic specialty stores.
As that economic sector began to grow, major grocery retailers began to take notice and create small organic sections in their stores. . . . Today they are a prominent part of the stores of major national grocery retailers.
These retailers also began to develop house brands that included labels with simple, easy to pronounce ingredients. As a result, large food makers began to experience slowed growth and a loss of market share. . . .
. . . .
If followed by other food makers and if consumers show an increased preference for non-GMO ingredients, this decision will provide market opportunities for farmers who are willing to provide source-verified grains and oilseeds that they segregate from usual commodity channels. In the short run, the increased cost of segregation will make some non-GMO products more costly. Non-GMO activists envision a time when market competition will force GMO producers to share the cost of maintaining a segregated distribution channel.
Read full, original post: Policy Pennings: How the GMO Labeling Debate its Place at the Table
