Since General Mills announcement that they would be removing all GMO ingredients from Cherries hit the news there has been a lot said. Some marketing pundits have called out the company as being both a trailblazer and an opportunist.
Since General Mills announcement that they would be removing all GMO ingredients from Cheerios hit the news there has been a lot said. Clearly both sides of the labeling issue see this move as having a huge impact for the brand. Some marketing pundits have called out the company as being both a trailblazer and an opportunist.
For us here at The Lempert Report we see this move underscoring the reason to not label GMOs with out both full disclosure and a much more stringent requirement.
Most consumers at first hearing of the news high-fived the brand. Then, when they realized that the major ingredient in Cheerios, oats, are not GMO to begin with, felt mislead. The point must be made that most consumers who say they want labeling clearly indicate that the major ingredient in a particular recipe is what they want to know more about. In this case, sugar, corn and wheat starch are the possible GMO ingredients to be changed. when I showed the ingredient listing to two consumers this morning, frankly, they said they were more concerned about an ingredient they were not familiar with - tricalcium phosphate - then they were about GMOs. Also, they were shocked to discover that there are no oat GMOs. Topline, in this very unscientific research of just two people, they also felt mislead by one of America's best loved and most iconic brands.
As we continue this discussion "to label or not to label" let's remember, that being opportunistic without real substance does nothing to reinforce confidence in our food supply. Do we really need to follow the path of putting a "gluten free" sticker on fresh fruit?