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

| | November 14, 2016
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

[Editor’s Note: The author of this excerpt, Shiloh Perry, is a communications assistant for the American Farm Bureau]

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.”

. . . .

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

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Importance of producer, supplier, customer communication

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend