Food companies may go ‘non-GMO’ for marketing reasons

Companies often make quick decisions to differentiate their brands and products without fully evaluating the impacts of their policy changes. Often they put out announcements about changing their production practices—changes that … provide an immediate halo effect—after sales fall….

…[C]ompanies listen to their customers, but they also need to think about their suppliers and the impact of their decisions. Too often the direction a company takes is based on misinformation and a broad misunderstanding of agriculture. The results: corporate sourcing standards that insist farmers and ranchers raise their crops and animals in ways that are less efficient, possibly less humane, and definitely less sustainable.

A recent example is Dannon’s move to non-GMO feed for its dairy cows….

. . . .

Now agriculture is speaking up ….. We are engaging with food companies to help them see all of the on-the-ground consequences. When they do not listen, as with Dannon, we call out their actions for what they are. Often their actions are simply based on “fear-based marketing.”

Related on the SLP

Dannon yogurt to label GMO ingredients, shift to non-GMO feed at dairies Viewpoint: Why Washington should sharply increase funding for intensive agricultural to address climate change, spur sustainability

Viewpoint: The fragile (and often bizarre) MAHA-MAGA-far left health-and-chemicals coalition is fracturing. Here’s why

Making fertilizer from thin air: Bayer’s gene-editing innovation could dramatically cut chemical fertilizer use in growing food

Trump is “terminating” Biden-era rule aimed at cutting climate-warming methane emissions from oil and gas drilling

. . . .

It is time for more food companies and their customers to … learn about the true sustainability of modern agriculture.