Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Menu

Robyn O'Brien

About Robyn O'Brien

Robyn O’Brien is the co-founder of rePlant Capital, an impact investment firm, deploying integrated capital from soil to shelf in order to build soil health and financial resiliency for farmers. She is also the founder of Do Good, a strategic advisory firm, and the AllergyKids Foundation. Random House published Robyn’s book, The Unhealthy Truth, in 2009, and her TEDx talks have been translated into dozens of languages and viewed by millions around the world.

Posts by Robyn O'Brien:

FDA

FDA Strongly Criticizes Stabenow-Roberts Draft GMO Labeling Bill

0

In a stunning move, the FDA has come out strongly criticizing the new GMO, non-labeling bill. The Center for Food Safety released a statement about the backroom “compromise” being pushed by biotech’s Senators, Roberts and Stabenow.

The bill is so flawed that even the FDA is denouncing it. It is unprecedented. The FDA further comments that it “may be difficult” for ANY GMO food to qualify for labeling under the bill.  Additionally, they are saying that this bill’s allowing of electronic labeling is “in tension” with the FDA’s requirements that all labels be on package.

It is being voted on next week and has to be stopped. More details below.

To find your Senators, visit http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/. Or, you can call 1-888-894-1033 and you’ll automatically get connected to your Senator for free.

WASHINGTON— The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued its technical comments to the Senate Agriculture Committee on the proposed labeling bill being put forward by Senators Roberts and Stabenow, and they are strongly critical. Most notably the agency red flags the bill’s narrow and ambiguous definition of “bioengineering,” which “will likely mean that many foods from GE sources will not be subject to this bill. For instance, oil made from GE soy would not have any genetic material in it. Likewise, starches and purified proteins would not be covered.”

The FDA further comments that it “may be difficult” for ANY GMO food to qualify for labeling under the bill in that it would have to be proven that a GMO product’s modification could not be achieved through conventional breeding or be found in nature—something near impossible to determine. This means most GMO foods would not be subject to mandatory labeling under this bill.

The FDA’s technical comments also highlight that the proposed bill’s allowing of electronic labeling is “in tension” with the FDA’s requirements that all labels be on package. Additionally the agency points out numerous instances of poor and vague drafting in the bill that would cause significant confusion in the marketplace. The FDA also notes a number of areas where the proposed bill conflicts with the FDA’s authorizing statute and its regulations.

The FDA points out many of the same flaws in the bill’s language that a national coalition of more than 70 consumer, food safety, farm, environmental, and religious groups along with several food corporations sent in a joint letter to all members of the Senate yesterday.

“The FDA critique makes it very clear that this is really a non-labeling bill disguised as a labeling bill. Its very definition excludes vast numbers of, and potentially all, GMO products from labeling. Preempting the democratically decided upon laws of five states based on this poorly written, discriminatory and ineffective legislation would be a travesty. A bill of this importance merits hearings, expert testimony and thorough legal analysis, not the “backroom dealing” that created this deeply flawed draft. As it stands, this bill is a sham and a legislative embarrassment,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety.

To find your Senators, visit http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/ or use the tool below. Or, you can call 1-888-894-1033 and you’ll automatically get connected to your Senator for free.

facts

Huge Number Oppose Biotech Sponsored GMO Labeling Dark Act 2.0

, 0

Late last week, news hit that a “compromise” on GMO labeling had been reached.The only thing being compromised is the integrity of GMO labeling in America.

This new piece of legislation, introduced by Senators Stabenow and Roberts, has no enforcement mechanism or penalty for violation, making the whole scheme effectively voluntary.

Under this new industry proposal, large corporations would win and American families would lose, and a dangerous precedent is established: states’ rights are trampled.

Not surprisingly, consumers around the country were left to wonder “Whose interests are these guys representing?”

It’s critical that consumers contact your senators today, even if you’ve done it before. They need to hear from you specifically about this “compromise”—It is Monsanto’s dream bill.

We’ve stopped them before, and with your help, we’ll stop them again.

Please call your senators now at 1-877-796-1949.

Yesterday, a letter was written and signed by over 70 groups, opposing this “compromise” given that all that is being compromised are on-pack labels, labels already in place by multinational food companies. The full letter with additional talking points is below.

Thank you for being part of the food movement.

June 27, 2016

United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: GMO Labeling Bill – OPPOSE

Dear Senators,

On behalf of the undersigned food safety, farm, environmental, and consumer advocacy organizations and food corporations, and the millions of members we represent across the United States, we strongly oppose the new Roberts / Stabenow legislation on GMO food labeling.

The process that created this legislation has been profoundly undemocratic and a violation of basic legislative practice. The bill addresses a critical issue for the American public, yet it was neither subject to a single hearing nor any testimony whatsoever. Rather, the bill’s preemption of the democratically decided-upon labeling laws of several states, and seed laws of numerous states and municipalities, is the result of non-transparent “bargaining” between two senators and industry interest groups.

As explained in more detail below, we oppose the bill because it is actually a non-labeling bill under the guise of a mandatory labeling bill. It exempts major portions of current and future

GMO foods from labeling; it is on its face discriminatory against low income, rural and elderly populations; it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of numerous states around the nation; and it provides no enforcement against those who violate the law.

  1. NO MANDATORY STANDARDS – The Senate bill itself prescribes no mandatory standards for GMO Rather, it preempts the labeling laws of several states including Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and Alaska based exclusively on a multi-year discretionary process determined solely by an as of yet unknown, future USDA Secretary.
  2. A VAST NUMBER OF CURRENT AND FUTURE GE FOODS WILL BE EXEMPT FROM ANY LABELING – Either intentionally, or through poor drafting and lack of scientific expertise, the novel definition of “bioengineering” under the bill would exclude from labeling a vast number of current foods produced with genetic engineering, including those where the “modification” is “found in nature,” those in which technology cannot as yet detect the novel genetic material, and foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques, such as new generations of food made with RNAi and so-called “gene-editing” In fact, 99% of all GMO food COULD be exempt from labeling as the bill leaves it entirely up to a future USDA Secretary to determine what “amount” of GMO ingredients in a food qualifies it for labeling. If that Secretary were to decide on a high percentage of GMO content, it would exempt virtually all processed GMO foods which comprise more than 99% of all GMO foods on the market.
  3. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RURAL, LOW INCOME AND ELDERLY POPULATIONS – The bill anticipates that GMO labeling will be done primarily through QR codes (“digital” labeling). Because of their lack of access to smart phones, more than 50% of rural and low income populations, and more than 65% of the elderly, will have no access to these This impact will fall disproportionately on minority communities. Millions more that do have smart phones may not be able to access these QR codes because they cannot afford to maintain their data service or their neighborhoods do not have adequate network coverage. The study of the efficacy of QR codes outlined in the bill is to take place significantly AFTER any labeling is established and in the marketplace. The results of such a study, if any, may take many years to clarify and codify. Such a “study” provision is clearly not sufficient to absolve the bill of an unconstitutional discriminatory impact.
  4. VIOLATIONOF STATE SOVEREIGNTY BY SPECIFICALLY PREEMPTING GMO SEED LAWS AND POTENTIALLY NUMEROUS OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS – The bill not only preempts state food labeling laws, but also specifically preempts GMO seed labeling laws, such as those in Vermont and Virginia that are designed to help farmers determine what seeds to buy and plant. Additionally, either intentionally or through poor drafting, the bill could be interpreted to be a preemption of more than 100 different state and municipal laws and regulations throughout the nation.
  5. NO ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THOSE WHO VIOLATE MANDATORY GMO LABELING – The bill provides no civil or criminal penalties whatsoever against those not in compliance with GMO labeling The bill specifically excludes the capacity of the USDA to order any recall of misbranded food, even in cases where a product has been produced with genetic engineering but the corporation involved purposely decides to violate the law and not label.

For this and other reasons, including the bill’s definitions being in direct conflict with regulations under the National Organic Food Production Act, the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and the international Codex Alimentarius, the undersigned organizations and companies urge you to VOTE NO on this misguided, inherently discriminatory bill. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Center for Food Safety

Food and Water Watch

Abundance Cooperative Market

Beyond Pesticides

Biosafety Alliance

Cedar Circle Farm and Education Center

Central Park West CSA

Citizens for GMO Labeling

Crop CSA

Crush Wine and Spirits

Dr. Bronner’s

East New York Farms

Empire State Consumer Project

Family Farm Defenders

Farm Aid

Food Democracy Now

Foundation Earth

Friends of the Earth

GMO Action Alliance

GMO Free NY

GMO Free USA GMO Inside

Good Earth Natural Foods

iEat Green, LLC

Institute for Responsible Technology

International Center for Technology Assessment

Katchkie Farm

Keep the Soil in Organic Coalition

Kezialain Farm

Label GMOs

LIC Brewery

Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association

Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Service

Miskell’s Premium Organics

Moms Across America

National Family Farm Coalition

Nature’s Path

Non-GMO Project

Nutiva

Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance

Northeast Organic Farming Association

Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York

Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire

Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont

NYC H20

Oregon Right to Know

Organic Consumers Association

Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association

PCC Natural Markets

Pesticide Action Network North America

Presence Marketing

Regeneration Vermont

Riverside-Salem United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ

Rodale Institute

Rural Advancement Foundation International

Rural Advancement Foundation International USA

Rural Vermont

Slow Food California

Slow Food Hudson Valley

Slow Food North Shore

Slow Food USA

Soil Not Oil Coalition

Sunnyside CSA

The Cornucopia Institute

U.S. Public Interest Research Group

Vermont Public Interest Research Group

Vermont Right to Know GMOs Coalition

Wood Prairie Family Farm

 

QR-BS

Is it GMO? Why “Smart labels” Just Aren’t Good Enough

, 0

Now that a deal has been struck in the Senate to revive the idea of QR codes or so-called smart labels as a vehicle for GMO labeling, the stage is set to another Congressional fight on the subject. Lobbyists for the biotech industry will be soliciting votes and we will need to call our Senators and remind them who they are supposed to work for.

George Naylor, who farms near Churdan and is a board member of the Center for Food Safety and the Non-GMO Project, wrote this excellent discussion of why the proposed “smart labels” or QR codes for GMO labeling are just not the right solution.

George NaylorI come from a long line of farmers and gardeners. On the farm I raise mainly corn and soybeans like almost every other Iowa farmer. But my gardening lets me indulge in many fruit and vegetable options that are beautifully displayed in the garden seed catalogs I get in the mail every winter. My ancestors couldn’t have imagined the diversity and disease resistance offered by the advances in conventional breeding. Fortunately, I have the choice to purchase the conventionally bred varieties rather than those that have been genetically engineered to resist herbicides or kill pests, because I select from catalogs that say categorically they do not and will not sell seeds that are genetically engineered.

I have also made the choice not to raise genetically engineered corn and soybeans. Why? Well, rather than boosting rural economies, genetically engineered crops have drained billions of dollars from them—the temporary ease of weed control has led to even more farm consolidation; and the unbelievable power of the herbicide glyphosate to kill both annual and perennial weeds has destroyed food and nesting resources for many of our important insects and birds. Farmers have spent billions of dollars on genetically engineered seeds only to see weeds become resistant to the glyphosate on Roundup Ready crops. Corn rootworms, too, have become resistant to the most common insecticidal proteins included in many GMO corn varieties. These resistance problems require even more application of herbicides and pesticides that threaten the health of rural Americans—glyphosate was recently recognized by the World Health Organization as a “probable carcinogen”—and add to chemical residues in food products.

Altering the genetic building blocks of plants and animals, which in turn alters the building blocks of our ecosystem, rightly concerns many Americans. National polls consistently show that 90 to 95 percent of Americans support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food, because they want to know what is in the food they eat and feed their families.

And we should have the right to know when a food product contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, especially as they carry greater and greater residues of this probable cancer causing chemical. Some states such as Vermont, Connecticut and Maine have voted to mandate this labeling. But Congress is trying to preempt these states from giving their citizens what they have asked for.

The latest ploy is so-called “smart labels.” This is the most recent attempt by big agribusiness, the giant food processors and members of Congress who submit to their lobbying pressure to keep customers in the dark about what’s in our food. Instead of a simple declaration in plain language on the product, a smart label will require scanning each item with a smart phone. Besides the unbelievable time and inconvenience involved, many Americans don’t have smart phones and can’t afford them. More than half of rural Americans don’t have smart phones, let alone the network coverage required to access the information.

You see, there is nothing smart about smart labels. In fact, they would make product information more difficult to access, are deeply discriminatory, and potentially set a dangerous precedent that could allow all labeling and nutritional information to be removed from packaging in the future, available only through the same discriminatory technology.

We are in the dark simply because a handful of multinational agribusiness and food companies have spent more than $100 million over the past three years to fight the consumer’s right to know, and now are pushing senators from both sides of the aisle to endorse discriminatory smart labeling. Sadly, many who we’ve depended on in the past to represent rural interests, like Sens. Stabenow, Klobuchar and Heitkamp, so far seem to be siding with the chemical/seed corporations and the food giants instead.

Voters and consumers have enough to keep us awake at night; we don’t need to be worrying about what’s really contained in the food we put on our tables. Tell our elected officials that we have a right to know what is in our food and to make informed choices about the products we purchase.

Originally published at the Des Moines Register and reposted with the author’s permission.

Paulette Leaphart

The High Price of Cancer Does Not Discriminate

, 0

More than half a million Americans die of cancer every year.

Breast cancer survivor Paulette Leaphart’s journey is a powerful reminder that scars—whether physical or emotional than cancer leave on our lives. These scars are not just fact of life for the survivors but their loved ones as well.

Paulette made a journey of 1000 miles, from Mississippi to Washington, D.C., on foot and topless to make a point to Congress about how broken our healthcare system is.

A 2011 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute determined the cost of all cancer care in the U.S. totaled $124.5 billion in 2010. The researchers projected the total cost would rise to $157.7 billion by 2020.

Each year, cancer costs the world more money than any other disease, according to the American Institute of Cancer Research (AICR).

Cancer costs $895 billion annually. Comparatively, heart disease costs $753 billion. Nothing else comes close, with traffic accidents and diabetes each costing about $204 billion.

The AICR estimates Americans lost 83 million years of healthy life because of cancer deaths and disabilities in 2008.

Watch her amazing video below.

A documentary is being produced about Paulette’s journey. Click here for more information.

 

most GMOs end up as animal feed

Where Do GMOs Really Go?

1

The biotech industry wants you to believe that their products, their newly patented genetically engineered seeds and the portfolio of industrial agrochemicals needed to grow them, are essential to feeding the world.

It’s a great headline, often repeated, but is it true?

If you take a look at the actually data of how GMOs are used, it turns out that GMOS are actually used to fuel cars, create processed foods, and to feed animals in the United States.

The world?  Well, that part isn’t exactly true.

GMOs are now present in 80% of conventional processed food in the U.S. According to the USDA, during processing, corn is either wet or dry milled depending on the desired end products. Wet millers process corn into high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), glucose and dextrose, starch, corn oil, beverage alcohol, industrial alcohol, and fuel ethanol.

Amazingly, the USDA boldly states: “Government programs have been instrumental in the development of the HFCS markets.” In other words, our taxpayer dollars are hard at work making processed foods. Corn crops receive enormous subsidies and financial aid. Veggies? Less than 1%.

And as for the alternative fuel in our cars? 28% of U.S. soy goes into fuel production and about about 40% of US corn production goes to make ethanol.

And as far as feeding animals? 70% of U.S. soybeans and 48% of U.S. corn go into livestock, poultry, and fish feed (2)(3) through commercial and on site feed productions. Today, those same animals now account for 80% of antibiotic use in the U.S.

So is the genetically engineered corn and soy making them sick? And do Americans really need to be taking this risk?

Due to GMO crops being used mainly to feed animals, any animal products not certified USDA organic or Non-GMO verified are very likely to be the product of GMO fed animals. Generating awareness for this issue is another hurdle for conscious consumers, but it is essential that consumers recognize that most products in the grocery store derived from cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, fowl, fish, and other common livestock animals are influenced by genetically modified crops. On top of that, the escalating applications of glyphosate, declared a “probable carcinogen” by the World Health Organization, mean that you are getting more than you bargained for every time you meat-up.

According to Forbes, “With more than 60 nations having biofuel mandates, the competition between ethanol and food has become a moral issue. Groups around the world oppose biofuels because they push up food prices and disproportionately affect the poor.

In 2000, over 90% of the U.S. corn crop went to feed people and livestock, many in undeveloped countries, with less than 5% used to produce ethanol. In 2013, however, 40% went to produce ethanol, 45% was used to feed livestock, and only 15% was used for food and beverage (AgMRC).”

When you actually understand the financial incentives behind the biotech industry, you can see that their promise to “feed the world” is really just PR spin for a promise to feed their bottom line.

GMOs and the portfolio of chemicals required to grow them don’t actually feed the world.  They do feed shareholder return.  Or at least they did until the world started catching on to this PR spin.

To bring complete clarity to the PR play here, Forbes recently stated:

“The grain required to fill a 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol can feed one person for a year, so the amount of corn used to make that 13 billion gallons of ethanol will not feed the almost 500 million people it was feeding in 2000.”

Bottom line? We don’t need GMOs to feed the world.

We simply have to stand for smarter policy.

For more on the pervasiveness of GMOs in animal feed, read on.

 

coffeeroundup

Cigarettes, GMOs and the Business of “Physician Approved”

, 0

luckiesCigarettes were once ‘physician’ tested, approved. When health concerns about cigarettes began to receive public attention in the 1930s, tobacco companies took preemptive action. They capitalized on the public’s trust of physicians in order to quell concerns about the dangers of smoking. They created what is now known as “tobacco science.”

From Hematology/Oncology: “For a long time, physicians were the authority on health. Patients trusted in their doctors’ education and expertise and, for the most part, followed their advice. When health concerns about cigarettes began to receive public attention in the 1930s, tobacco companies took preemptive action. They capitalized on the public’s trust of physicians in order to quell concerns about the dangers of smoking. Thus was born the use of physicians in cigarette advertisements

“When you knit this together into a full story, the scope of it and the way it duped the public was just incredible,” said Robert K. Jackler, MD, Sewall Professor and Chair, otolaryngology—head and neck surgery at Stanford University Medical Center. “The public was becoming increasingly worried about the health consequences of cigarettes. They started to refer to cigarettes as coffin nails and started talking about smoker’s cough and smoker’s hack. The companies saw a threat to their success and business model.”

A generation later, we are now dealing with “food science” in the same way that our grandparents had to deal with “tobacco science.”cigsafe

Every month, it seems that a new study appears to swing us one way or the other.  It’s a “he said, she said” battlefield right now, making it all the more important that we have complete transparency around our food until the science is settled. That includes knowing how much pesticide is being applied to our foods, whether or not they are genetically engineered (given that some GMOs are regulated by the EPA as a pesticide and some require increased applications of glyphosate, a “probable carcinogen” according to the World Health Organization.).

Rick Friday, the cartoonist fired for speaking truth to power, highlights all of this once again, in this cartoon.

As the World Health Organization releases coffee from its carcinogen list, Roundup, Monsanto’s signature product, remains on it.

If you had a choice to sprinkle Roundup across your children’s breakfast or onto their dinners, would you? If you had a choice to spray it into your soy milk or onto your corn, would you? The sign on the bottle says, “Keep Out of the Reach of Children.”

Americans should be given that choice, and GMOs should be labeled here the way that they are in Europe, China, India, Russia, Brazil and over 60 other countries around the world.

We’re not asking for anyone to reinvent the wheel, we’re just asking for the same transparency into how our food is made that all of our key trading partners enjoy.

dadfood

The Greatest Dads in the Food Movement

, 0

We hear a lot about the moms driving change in the food industry, but ahead of Father’s Day, it’s time to shine a light on the dads.

As I began brainstorming about this list, it hit me: it’s huge! And I was suddenly flooded with gratitude for all that these guys have done.

It’s no small feat juggling a job and a family, but work in the food industry goes beyond that. It can be a calling. It’s a love that doesn’t stop, so it takes a special type of family to share someone with that.

So this is a shout out to those dads and the families that love them. Thank you for all that you do.

  1. John Foraker, President of Annie’s. When the history books are written, John will be known for being a compass of change inside of the industry. He took a little bunny across the finish line for an IPO and then into a merger that will change history. Since their acquisition by General Mills, Annie’s has rolled out more organic products and Mills is now working with Organic Valley to increase the number of organic farmland acres in the U.S.
  2. Matthew Dillon, Clif Bar. He’s been a driving force for change in the organic industry, spending significant time in D.C. working on policy, as well as some recent time in a studio, creating a new celebrity in the industry, Mr. Seed. He takes repeated threats, meme-manufactured insults and more and keeps going.
  3. David Littlejohn, founder of Humanaut. His Save the Bros campaign has to be one of the funniest things the organic industry has done in the last ten years. The video went viral, and his team is still at it. With a new baby, he understands how crazy it can be for parents today, leaning into it, with irreverence and humor.
  4. Darren Mahaffy, the VP of Marketing at Nature’s Path. There are so many great dads inside of this company, and Darren leverages all of that, as well as his personal experiences of a dad of kids managing food allergies, to help create safer products for all families. Nature’s Path has held out against so many acquisition offers, thank goodness, and is a moral compass driving the food industry.
  5. Steve Young, lead on General Mills Natural and Organic Division. HIs role might be the toughest, creating an insurgency from within, but his experience and strength could not be a better fit for it. He is changing the DNA of a multinational food corporation, leveraging the Annie’s relationship, to create extraordinary and massive change. General Mills’ recent announcement about the conversion of farmland to organic to help their dairy lines is just one example.
  6. Congressman Tim Ryan. There are few inside of the beltway with the guts to take this on. We’ve been through a year of a presidential campaign and not one debate has discussed the sad state of the American food system. Tim knows this and is on the frontline fighting for Team USA. He’s a dad of three with a wife who is a school teacher. He is also the author of The Real Food Revolution. He knows firsthand what good food can do for families and communities. Our hope is that his team inside of DC grows fast.
  7. Bert Cohen and David Lurie. These two dads have given so much to the food allergy community that there really aren’t words. They’ve led companies, Enjoy Life Foods along with amazing allies like Joel Warady, and Free 2b Foods. These companies are making allergy-friendly products for the escalating number of American kids impacted by the condition. Food allergies send someone to the E.R. once every three minutes in the U.S. They’ve got a marketplace that couldn’t be more grateful.
  8. Robert Craven, the CEO of MegaFoods, and a driving force for health. The supplements industry can be a shady space, full of a bunch of junked up fillers and posers. Craven stands head and shoulders above the rest, and he shows no signs of stopping, building out a think-tank team to help drive home the importance of nutrition’s role in prevention, using whole foods supplements.
  9. Tom Spier, Boulder Food Group. The founder of Bear Naked Granola and a lead on EVOL Burritos, he now runs the Boulder Food Group, an investment vehicle for the organic food industry. He’s driving change using capital and massive experience so that more of these little companies can grow into big ones, and he happens to be one of my brother’s oldest friends, so the stories are endless!
  10. Gary Hirshberg, Stonyfield Farms. The founder and chairman of Stonyfield Farms works with other great dads like Lewis Goldstein of Organic Valley, so that American families have clean and safe yogurt, free from artificial growth hormones, artificial dyes, GMOs, Roundup and other junk. Gary is still on the front line fighting for American families and transparency in our food system for which he is owed so much gratitude, because he could have retired years ago. He has a heart that won’t stop beating for this movement, thank goodness.

Honorable Mentions: These dads have grabbed so many headlines over the years that they need no introduction, just a special shout out, once again: Jamie Oliver, Michael Pollan and Prince Charles.

But even as I write this list, I think about guys in the food movement like Pulin Modi, of Change.org, Nikhil and Alejandro, the millennial founders of Back to the Roots, Ali Partovi and so many more who are not dads but leveraging everything that they are to drive change. And then there are the dads inside of the grocery stores, like the CEOs of Kroger and Costco and Errol Schweizer who drove massive change at Whole Foods.

It is so inspiring, and if you aren’t in this industry, you may want to give some serious thought to joining.

We are in good hands.

Happy Father’s Day!

growing-demand-organic-products-intro

Consumer Demand Driving Record Growth of Organic Foods

0

Organic Produce Now Accounts for 13% of All Produce Sales

While organic produce continues to dominate all organic product categories with sales of $14.4 billion (up 10.6%) in 2015, other segments showed impressive growth, including organic fresh juices and drinks and organic eggs, with sales increases of more than 30% recorded over the previous year.

Of note, reports the Organic Trade Association (OTA), is that nearly 13% of all produce now sold in the U.S. is organic. Dairy, the second largest organic food category, grew 10% to $6 billion in sales, accounting for 15% of total organic food sales.

“Together, produce and dairy account for more than half of total organic food sales,” said Laura Batcha, CEO of OTA. That said, the organic snack food category posted $2.3 billion in sales, up nearly 14%, she observed.

Nearly 5% of all food sold in the U.S. is now organic, the survey reported.

Supply Chain, Production Still Behind Consumer Demand

To satisfy the double-digit demand for all things organic, the number of certified organic producers in the U.S. hit a record high in 2014, reported the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in April 2016.

According to market data released by the National Organic Program (NOP), there are now 21,781 certified organic operations in the U.S., and 31,160 certified organic operations worldwide. The number of domestic certified organic operations increased by almost 12% between 2014 and 2015, representing the highest growth rate since 2008, says NOP.

Additionally, 43.7 million hectares (108 million acres) of worldwide agricultural land was in organic production at the end of 2014 – a record high, says the Swiss-based Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in its 2016 state of the global industry report, produced in partnership with IFOAM Organics International, the world’s leading organic producer association. Global sales of organic products are estimated at $75 to 80 billion.

However, growth in the organic market has presented continued challenges to the supply chain, and production still lags consumption. “Dairy and grains were two areas where growth could have been even more robust in 2015 if greater supply had been available, said OTA. “There is an industry-wide understanding of the need to build a secure supply chain that can support demand. This goes hand-in-hand with securing more organic acreage, developing programs to help farmers transition to organic, and encouraging new farmers to farm organically.”

Consumer Demand Driving Record Growth of Organic: U.S. Sales of Organic Products Grew 11% to $43.3 Billion in 2015

Driven by a groundswell of steadily rising consumer demand for healthy, environmentally friendly food produced without the use of toxic, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotics and growth hormones, irradiation, genetic engineering, and often inhumane treatment of animals, sales of organic products in the United States hit a record high in 2015, posting 11% growth to reach $43.3 billion in sales, according to the Organic Trade Association’s (OTA) newly released 2016 Organic Industry Survey.

The 11% growth rate for organic products is significantly ahead of the 3% growth figure reported for the overall food industry, reports Food Navigator USA, something major multinational food companies are certainly noticing as they continue to enter the organic market through product launches or, as is proving to be more often the case, acquisitions.

 

From Presence Marketing Newsletter June, 2016 Volume 13, Issue 06

 

General Mills Organic Yogurt Infographic

General Mills Partners with Organic Valley to Help Conventional Dairy Farms Transition to Certified Organic

, 0

General Mills today announced a strategic sourcing partnership that will help about 20 dairy farms add around 3,000 acres to organic dairy production over the next three years.

You read that right: General Mills is going organic with dairy.

The program with Wisconsin-based Organic Valley will drive more acres in the U.S. into the organic certification process and builds upon General Mills’ commitment to double the organic acreage from which it sources ingredients by 2019.

You can call it “The Annie’s Effect,” as the little bunny brand has become a compass inside of the bigger company. But it is also because of the leadership inside of Mills.

General Mills has transformed its portfolio in recent years and is now the No. 3 maker of natural and organic foods with nine brands including Cascadian Farm, Muir Glen, LÄRABAR, Liberté, Mountain High, Food Should Taste Good, Immaculate Baking, Annie’s and EPIC Provisions.

The strategic alignment with Organic Valley, which is the first $1 billion organic brand, will build General Mills’ relationships with the organic farmers who will be supporting its yogurt operating unit in the U.S., which includes brands like Yoplait, Annie’s, Liberté and Mountain High.

Earlier this year General Mills introduced the Annie’s brand to the U.S. yogurt category with a new line of certified organic whole milk yogurt. In addition, the company is transitioning its Liberté yogurt brand in the U.S. to USDA certified organic, which will roll out nationwide this summer.

“To ensure we are able to deliver great tasting organic yogurt offerings to our consumers we are committed to supporting a framework in partnership with Organic Valley that will not only ensure a consistent supply chain, but also make it easier for dairy farmers to successfully manage through the transition to organic,” said David Clark, president of the General Mills Yogurt Operating Unit.

On the heels of Kashi’s announcement that they are also converting U.S. farmland to organic, this is great news.

Currently, of the over 900 million acres that are farmed in the U.S., less than 1% is organic. These companies have to convert their supply chains if they are going to keep up with the demands of the 21st century consumer.

While demand for organic food is increasing in the U.S., supply has not been able to keep up. In the U.S., acreage devoted to organic agriculture is about one percent of total cropland, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. General Mills has made sizeable investments to meet growing consumer interest in natural and organic foods, which is expected to drive double-digit industry sales growth over the next five years.

“We recognize that one of the biggest challenges to accelerating organic supply is enabling farmers to bridge the three-year period required to attain certified organic status under USDA rules. There is tremendous opportunity for Annie’s—with the scale of General Mills—to increase the organic ingredient supply needed to support the rising consumer interest in organic foods,” said John Foraker, president of Annie’s.

Since 2009, General Mills has increased the organic acreage it supports by 120 percent and is now among the top five organic ingredient purchasers—and the second largest buyer of organic fruits and vegetables—in the North American packaged food sector.

Think about that. General Mills is now the second largest buyer of organic fruits and vegetables.

You have to wonder what the Grocery Manufacturers Association is doing with all of this. They completely failed their members by not addressing this supply chain issue.

In addition, General Mills will launch the Organic & Regenerative Agriculture Transition Council, which will bring together sustainable agricultural leaders, farmers and industry stakeholders with the mission of advancing organic and regenerative agriculture practices. The first project will focus on dairy.

The landscape of food is changing, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association is quickly becoming a relic, as companies like General Mills, Costco, Kroger and others create the win-win solutions so needed by 21st century consumers and food companies.

It’s time to #rethinkfood and create a food system that meets the needs of 21st century consumers and food companies.

hormel-justins

Hormel’s Opportunity: Protein Powerhouse

0

This afternoon, I sat down with an old friend. We first met when he was waiting tables at one of our favorite restaurants here in Boulder. The restaurant is gone, but the friendship stayed.

It’s been amazing to watch him over the last fifteen years. He started with a jar of peanut butter, and a few weeks ago, sold his company to Hormel.

Justin is now a dad of two, and as we sat outside today, talking about the recent acquisition, the many acquisitions happening in this space, including Hormel’s acquisition of Applegate last year, I realized that Hormel has a huge opportunity in front of it.

They bought into the food movement to the tune of $1 billion between the two acquisitions. It will change their DNA unlike anything else, and they have the unique opportunity to own 21st century protein.

What worked in the 20th century for them isn’t going to work in the 21st century. The habits of consumers have changed. So have our diets. Diet is no longer ‘one size fits all’. What is becoming universal is our demand for “free-from”. Food that is free from additives, preservatives, junk, dyes, GMOs.

In the last year, Hormel bet $1 billion on that movement through these two acquisitions. But more than money has to change hands. There has to be a DNA swap—a genetic reengineering—if they are going to stay relevant.

Inside of these big companies, General Mills, Kashi/Kellogg, Compass Food Group are people and teams who already understand this. They are hardwired to lead, to revolutionize these older brands, to upgrade their operating systems and bring them into the 21st century. These insiders are gold—a compass to drive greater change.

Annie’s has been a compass inside of General Mills, pointing the bigger company in the right direction. Applegate has done the same, educating Hormel about the demands and needs of the 21st century consumer and how these needs are no more of a fad than the cancer, food allergies, diabetes and obesity driving them.

Unlike Monsanto which built its business model on genetically engineering seeds designed for a portfolio of chemicals to treat them. It’s a great model for a chemical company, but in the 21st century, what food company wants to align with that?

Justin’s and Applegate can reengineer Hormel and point them to the opportunity: clean protein—a portfolio of products that recognizes that for the 21st century consumer, protein is no longer ‘one size fits all’ but that the demand for ‘free-from’ is.

What if Hormel decided to expand its portfolio and no longer focus solely on the meat it produced in the 20th century, but also turned its attention to alternate protein sources, plant-based proteins?

They’d be able to meet the protein needs of the 21st century consumers, Paleo and plant-based.

Justin’s and Applegate both can be $1 billion dollar brands. Imagine Hormel’s portfolio, its impact, its shift on the current food system if that becomes a reality?

So Hormel has a decision.

It has to decide what it wants its legacy to be for the 21st century. The 20th century chapter is closed. It can’t be rewritten, but the future can.

Justin’s knows this, because Justin knows this. He wants his brand to be something that his kids will always be proud of. A funny thing happens when you name a company after yourself – you can’t sell it out. It’s yours forever, and that’s a special type of motivation.

As these companies are acquired, they are repeatedly accused of selling out. The internet threw up all over Annie’s the day that General Mills announced that acquisition. Justin’s has heard it. Its plant-based consumers revolted when the company was acquired by an old school meat company like Hormel.

What if Hormel knows that?

And what if Hormel is buying into alternative protein, expanding its portfolio to include plant-based protein, to move towards clean protein? What if they are expanding into plant-based, free-from products to meet the needs of 21st century consumers? It wasn’t in their DNA, they had to bring it into the family.

With the acquisitions of both Applegate and Justin’s, Hormel is clearly acknowledging that they need to buy into the free-from movement.

And as I sat there with my friend, Justin, listening to him talk about his kids, his legacy, his employees and his company, I thought about the guy I knew, who put it all on the line to build that company.

He’ll do it again. His consumers are watching, and so are his kids.

It’s an awesome challenge and an incredible opportunity to #rethinkprotein for the 21st century.

Load More