Most people just think of soda when they hear the name "Pepsi." But in fact, PepsiCo is the nation's largest food company and second largest in the world. Its annual earnings top $60 billion, from a dizzying array of brands. Walk down almost any supermarket aisle (soda, snacks, cereal, juice) and you're likely to bump into a PepsiCo-owned product.
This explains why the company is the top contributor among food makers to the "No on 37" campaign in California -- a ballot initiative that would require labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients. Also, as I wrote about recently, PepsiCo is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a powerful trade group that has so far contributed $375,000 to the No on 37 campaign.
Why would PepsiCo pony up more than $90,000 just to keep Californians in the dark about what they are eating? A closer look at its "portfolio of products" (in corporate speak) reveals exactly what's at stake for the food giant.
PepsiCo brands span five divisions: Pepsi-Cola, Frito-Lay, Gatorade, Tropicana, and Quaker. While most consumers probably think of processed snacks and cereal-type products when trying to avoid foods containing GMOs, beverages are also a major culprit (which explains why Coca-Cola has donated more than $61,000 to the No on 37 campaign).
Estimates are that up to 85 percent of corn grown in the U.S. in genetically engineered, and a significant number of PepsiCo brands contain some form of corn. For example, among PepsiCo beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup are brands such as Pepsi and Mountain Dew, as well as the AMP Energy and Lipton iced tea lines, each of which contain numerous flavor varieties. Even some products within the company's Tropicana line of "juice drinks" contain HFCS. Then there's Naked Juice, which last year became the target of a consumer deception lawsuit over the brand's "non-GMO" claim on the label, among other issues. (Gatorade reformulated its products to replace HFCS in 2010, but is not exactly a health drink either, as recent research has revealed.)
Speaking of GMO-related lawsuits against PepsiCo, I wrote last December about how the company is being sued over several Frito-Lay snack products labeled "natural," despite containing genetically-modified corn and vegetable oils, including corn, soybean, and canola oils. (That case was re-filed earlier this year.) In 2010, Frito-Lay announced that half of its products would be made of "all-natural ingredients," but of course non-GMO isn't part of the company's definition of natural. As I have explained, the Food and Drug Administration unfortunately has so far refused to create a workable definition, which is why companies like PepsiCo are able to deceive customers so easily.
The scope of Frito-Lay products potentially impacted by GMO labeling is vast. Among the brands under this $13 billion division that contain corn include Fritos, Doritos, Tostitos, and Cheetos. And that's not counting the vegetable oils, which are almost all made with GMO ingredients. Even allegedly healthier brands like SunChips contain GMO corn, which is why that product is named in the deceptive labeling lawsuit against Frito-Lay.
Even PepsiCo's relatively healthy division Quaker would be impacted if GMO foods must be labeled. In addition to plain old oats, the Quaker brand makes heavily processed granola bars. I counted six sources of corn -- including HFCS and "corn syrup solids" -- in this new "yogurt" variety (which contains no actual yogurt, but rather "yogurt flavored powder" -- don't even ask). It's one thing for junk foods to bear a GMO label; I can't imagine hard-core Cheetos fans caring too much about GMOs, but Quaker consumers probably would.
Another PepsiCo brand sure to make HQ nervous over GMO labeling is Mother's, which claims its products are "all natural." The Cornucopia Institute tested Mother's cereal and found that it contains GMO ingredients, which is expected since some of the varieties contain corn. Imagine how many mothers would be upset to learn that the cereal named after them is genetically engineered.
PepsiCo's official policy regarding using GMO ingredients is rather bland:
Approval of genetically-modified foods differs from country to country regarding both use and labeling. For this reason, PepsiCo adheres to all relevant regulatory requirements regarding the use of genetically-modified food crops and food ingredients within the countries it operates.
What a shame that here in its home country, PepsiCo wants to ignore what 90 percent of American consumers say they want: to know which foods contain GMOs. PepsiCo would rather fight to maintain the status quo because it means a continued cheap supply of ingredients for its highly-processed, unhealthy beverages and junk food.
Follow Michele Simon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MicheleRSimon
"The USDA organic regulations prohibit the use of GMOs, listing them as “excluded methods…."
To prevent GMOs from being introduced into organic production, producers do not use genetically modified seeds or other materials when planting crops. They also work with their certifiers to implement preventative practices that effectively buffer their farms from GMO contamination.
Organic food handlers and processors also ensure that their ingredients are not produced from excluded methods. Certifying agents review and audit all of ingredients–not only the agricultural ingredients but also others that are allowed in organic processing, like baking soda, yeast, dairy cultures, and vitamins–to verify that they are not genetically modified."
It's a very extensive and thorough program. How will California monitor all food manufacturers to ensure that food with GE ingredients don't get labeled "GMO Free?" Are we going to take their word for it? Or will we spend the billions it would take to set up such an elaborate monitoring system to check the source of every ingredient going into all food sold in the state? I take Pepsi Co.'s opposition as a good sign
Is that a bait you're setting? Are you looking for supporters of labeling to say, well, of course, noncompliance would bring on lawsuits? Do you really think us so gullible? And companies unwilling to comply? These days, testing kits are so prevalent, that I, as a lowly consumer, can purchase one at an affordable price. Done on an industry scale, it would be a pittance.
I believe, in the end, the collective arrogance of the industrial ag, processed food industry, and their sniveling pawns will be their undoing.
We're not quite as stupid as you and your cohorts would like to believe.
Â
Let’s think about this for a minute- why would Monsanto pay someone who posts about sex worker’s rights and state sanctioned, same sex marriage? I’ve made it clear that I am against the war on drugs, and in favor of peace in the Middle East (with Jerusalem as the capitol of a UN recognized Palestinian state that respects Israel’s right to exist).Â
Â
Do you think they’d have a paid spokesperson with a bad temper who occasionally spoke very bluntly about things of a personal, sexual nature? I am probably close to the bottom of the list of people Monsanto would want speaking on their behalf. Yet these baseless accusations keep coming as though you were incapable of understanding that a regular person would feel as strongly as you do, but from the opposite direction
Should Governor Brown consider a waiver supported by the UN?
Is fed EPA confused when a Lodi bread baker is taken to fed court to collect $625,000.00 fine for generating ozone from the ethanol made by baking bread while mandating millions of tons in our gas that may be a bigger deal than MTBE to our ground water supply? Do water folks check for ethanol in our drinking water?
Drinking ethanol maybe rated as causing cancer but MTBE never has.
Does ATF audit for the payment of $17 tax of moonshine from the GMO corn fuel ethanol?
Let's see, a 10,000 gal tanker truck can move around a $170,000.00 tax and a reported $0.50 cent process can move fuel grade to food grade.
People have a right not to eat genetically engineered food; they don't have a right to demand warning labels on food that poses no threat to their health.
Youre a contradiction, we have the right, you say, to not eat GM food, but dont have the right to know its there.. What?!!
And of course all the advancements have meant the public no longer has to perform much manual labor and can afford to spend many luxurious hours drinking $5 lattes and whining about how farming is done without so much as lifting a finger.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=OrganicStandardsLinkNOPNationalList&rightNav1=OrganicStandardsLinkNOPNationalList&topNav=&leftNav=&page=NOPOrganicStandards&resultType=&acct=nopgeninfo
(my apologies for the annoyingly long link)
As it stands, organic certification and labeling laws are enforced and violators subject to an $11k fine. Who do you think will be overseeing compliance of GMO labeling if the law passes? Or will you trust everyone will tell the truth?
Again you contradict yourself by stating that GM foods havent been proven to be a health risk and then yet again pose the question, "Are you going to trust them?"
At least back in the day it was a sweet little treat and because it was sugar, it was harder to keep drinking it all day long cause of the way the body breaks down sugar. With fructose you can keep drinking and drinking. I've lost so much faith packaged foods and processed foods, along with my lost faith in America in general.