Tag Archives: GMO

Dagan Xavier, Label Insight

Food Transparency Movement Driving Changes in Labeling

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Dagan Xavier, Label Insight

Recently the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) announced an initiative to reduce the amount of confusion that consumers experience regarding the “sell by”, “use by” and other date-specific labeling on food packaging. It is also part of an effort to reduce food waste.

The new initiative is completely voluntary, but GMA and FMI are hoping that retailers and manufacturers adopt the standard by the summer of 2018. It streamlines the labeling terminology to two simple phrases:

  • “BEST If Used By”. Describes product quality, indicating the date by which the product may not taste or perform as expected but it is still safe to consume
  • “USE By”. Applies to highly perishable products and/or products that have a food safety concern over a period of time that warrants a date by which the products should either be consumed or discarded

A variety of factors well beyond “sell by”/”use by” dates contribute to consumer confusion. The following Q&A is a brief discussion with Dagan Xavier, co-founder and vice president, customer intelligence at Label Insight on the impact of incorrectly labeling products (erosion of brand trust) and the challenge food companies face in providing transparent information on their products.

Food Safety Tech: How is the demand for transparency both from consumers and regulators changing the food product labeling landscape?

Dagan Xavier, Label Insight
Dagan Xavier, Label Insight

Dagan Xavier: Transparency sounds easy, but in reality, it is complex. For companies, managing compliance and consumer demands is not cut and dry.

Thankfully, brands and consumers are usually on the same page. But there are times when it’s not the case—and that causes trust issues. For one, brands need to use specific, compliant wording. That wording can sometimes be more complex than a preferred consumer-friendly phrasing. For example, USDA’s proposed labeling of GM-containing products refers to them as “genetically engineered.” Except, consumers are far more familiar with the term “genetically modified.”

Regardless of these nuances, regulations around transparency are in place to help consumers. The regulations set clear definitions about what products or ingredients can or cannot qualify for a labeling claim.

We currently live at a time where there is a general distrust of the food industry from consumers. Having strict regulations in place that add factual meaning behind claims is incredibly important. Meaningful and understandable claims, logos, and certifications are slowly beginning to help build trust back up from consumers.

FST:  What challenges are food companies facing in labeling their products?

Xavier: One of the biggest hurdles companies face in labeling is fitting as much information as possible on the package. Between mandatory components (like allergens, nutrients, ingredients) and desired content (marketing copy and images), something almost always gets left off. What gets left off? It tends to be sourcing facts, “Made in America” logos, and other data that consumers find valuable but rank lower on a brand’s priority list.

In reality, 100% complete product information is nearly impossible to fit within the confined space of most product packaging.

The good news is that according to a recent study by Label Insight, most consumers (88%) say they would be interested in accessing a complete set of product information digitally.

SmartLabel (an initiative by the Grocery Manufacturers Association) is an easy solution. SmartLabels save companies space on their packaging, while still allowing them to communicate all product information with consumers digitally.

Most consumers (79%) say they are very likely or somewhat likely to use SmartLabel technology if it was offered by a brand. 44% say they would trust a brand more if it participated in the GMA SmartLabel initiative.

FST: Related to labeling, what are the complicating factors when a company is producing organic, GMO-free, gluten free, etc.—especially when working with suppliers?

Xavier: Having a trusting relationship and open communication with suppliers is key.

Because regulations around organic and gluten-free are so stringent here in the United States, brands need to rely on their suppliers to have ongoing robust certification audits, inspections, documentation and renewal programs.

We expect regulations around GMO-containing products to follow suit.

For companies with dozens of suppliers, it can get tricky managing the documentation of certifications. This is especially complicated if suppliers are overseas and their audits are not delivered through the same certifying agencies that retailers or importers would like.

Adding logos and certifications to packages can be expensive and add risk to brands if a supplier falls out of compliance. In the end, it is important for both brands and suppliers to have robust documentation and a good communication channel. This ensures that all information on-pack is always the most accurate information for consumers and retailers.

Pages: 1 2
Hand

Consumers Drive GMO Debate, Chicken Playtime and Tech Innovation

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Hand

Last week several leading organizations in the food industry gathered to discuss trends and key issues facing the industry at The Wall Street Journal Global Food Forum. From the GMO debate to small farming and humane practices to sugar preferences, it’s clear that consumer demand for more control over what they’re consuming will continue to drive industry practices and future policies.

Industry leaders will gather at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium, December 5–9 in Schaumburg, IL | LEARN MOREAgriculture in the Global Landscape

The agricultural sector is often one of the most protected markets, according to Darci Vetter, ambassador and chief agricultural negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Vetter strongly advocated for moving forward with free trade agreements in the United States for fear of falling behind in such a competitive global market.

When the audience was asked which country would see the biggest increase in agricultural exports in coming years, 40% selected China. To this observation, Vetter commented that while China has invested a great deal into basic research in the field of agriculture, the country has not been able to turn discoveries into viable technologies for farmers.

“China’s vision of national security is very much tied to food security.” – Darci Vetter, ambassador and chief agricultural negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

Antibiotics: Not in My Chicken

As industry faces unprecedented scrutiny from consumers, the use of antibiotics in livestock remains a hot button issue. Nearly 15 years ago, Perdue Farms saw evidence that consumers were concerned about antibiotics, and the company has made significant strides to reach today’s slogan, “No Antibiotics Ever”. This means that 100% of the chickens are not receiving antibiotics unless they’re sick, which is about 5%, according to company Chairman Jim Perdue. Measures the company has taken to reduce the incidence of illness in birds includes wiping every egg that comes into a hatchery with a baby wipe (Perdue says that the company is the biggest user of baby wipes); using herbs such as oregano in feed, because it has been shown to help condition the gut; and engaging in “chicken playtime” (a controlled atmosphere for chickens to play), which is said to reduce stress in chickens.

Debating GMOs and Technology

In order to address the growing population, industry must look at the entire suite of tools available, said Vetter. According to Mike Frank, senior vice president and chief commercial officer of Monsanto Co., 60–70% more food needs to be produced to feed the future population. Global warming, affordability and consumer education are just a few challenges that farmers face while trying to improve productivity and efficiency. This is where technology plays a key role, said Frank. Industry needs innovation to address the challenge of producing more food and managing the environmental footprint.

“We need every farmer, whether organic or not, to be successful.” – Mike Frank, senior vice president and chief commercial officer, Monsanto Company

Frank predicts that big data will dramatically change agriculture within the next five to six years by allowing farmers to farm by the square meter, thereby improving productivity in areas such as seeding and pest management. Farmers will also be able to leverage data to gain a better understanding of soil conditions and weather, and how it will ultimately impact their harvest.

Closing the Food Safety Loop

“Food safety doesn’t magically happen,” said Frank Yiannas, vice president of food safety at Walmart. He emphasized how companies must work hard to reduce risk early in the process, citing Walmart’s guiding principles: Is it safe? Is it affordable? Is it sustainable? He also touched on the company’s program to reduce the incidence of Salmonella in chicken parts and how companies should approach risk not just from the scientific point of view but also consider the regulatory requirements and perceived risk in making risk management decisions.

“We as leaders need to shift the conversation and let food unite us.” – Frank Yiannas, vice president, food safety, Walmart

The discussion between FDA commissioner Robert Califf, M.D. and Susan Mayne, director at CFSAN, focused more on chronic disease and healthy eating, however Califf expressed a need for more interrelated data sources within FDA. He also encouraged that industry conduct more research to ensure that decisions are based on good evidence.

Food Safety Tech

What’s Hot in Food Safety This Summer

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Food Safety Tech

With summer feeling like it’s almost over, here’s a look at the stories that have been heating up the food safety space.

 

5: The Senate Agriculture Committee praises the bill as a “win for consumers”, but there are industry folks who disagree.

Senate Deal Requires Nationwide GMO Labeling

 

4: Don’t overlook the basics—especially when it comes to document control.

Five Errors That Impact GFSI Compliance

 

3. Determining whether to initiate a market withdrawal or recall procedure depends on the situation and unfortunately, is not always a clear-cut decision.

Market Withdrawal Vs. Recall: What’s the Difference?

 

2. According to the CDC, the multi-state outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing E. Coli O121 has sickened at least 42 consumers (with 11 hospitalizations) across 21 states.

More E. Coli Illnesses, General Mills Expands Flour Recall

 

1. A look at a recently released test that aims to provide more accurate and affordable GMO testing.

Next-Generation Sequencing Targets GMOs

Next-Generation Sequencing Targets GMOs

By Maria Fontanazza
1 Comment

As the movement among consumers for more information about the products they’re purchasing and consuming continues to grow, the food industry will experience persistent pressure from both advocacy groups and the government on disclosure of product safety information and ingredients. Top of mind as of late has been the debate over GMOs. “Given all of the attention on GMOs on the legislative side, there is huge demand from consumers to have visibility and transparency into whether products have been genetically modified or not,” says Mahni Ghorashi, co-founder of Clear Labs.

Mahni Ghorashi, Clear Labs
Mahni Ghorashi, co-founder of Clear Labs

Today Clear Labs announced the availability of its comprehensive next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based GMO test. The release comes at an opportune time, as the GMO labeling bill, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week, heads to the desk of President Obama.

Clear Labs touts the technology as the first scalable, accurate and affordable GMO test. NGS enables the ability to simultaneously screen for multiple genes at one time, which could companies save time and money. “The advantage and novelty of this new test or assay is the ability to screen for all possible GMO genes in a single universal test, which is a huge change from the way GMO testing is conducted today,” says Ghorashi.

The PCR test method is currently the industry standard for GMO screening, according to the Non-GMO Project. “PCR tests narrowly target an individual gene, and they’re extremely costly—between $150–$275 per gene, per sample,” says Ghorashi. “Next-generation sequencing is leaps and bounds above PCR testing.” Although he won’t specify the cost of the Clear Labs assay (the company uses a tiered pricing structure based on sample volume), Ghorashi says it’s a fraction of the cost of traditional PCR tests.

The new assay screens for 85% of approved GMOs worldwide and targets four major genes used in manufacturing GMOs (detection based on methods of trait introduction and selection, and detection based on common plant traits), allowing companies to determine the presence and amount of GMOs within products or ingredient samples. “We see this test as a definitive scientific validation,” says Ghorashi. The company’s tests integrate software analytics to enable customers to verify GMO-free claims, screen suppliers, and rank suppliers based on risk.

Clear Labs, GMO, testing
Screenshot of the Clear Labs GMO test, which is based on next-generation sequencing technology.

Clear Labs isn’t targeting food manufacturers of a specific size or sector within the food industry but anticipates that a growing number of leading brands will be investing in GMO testing technology. “We expect to see adoption across the board in terms of company size, related more to what their stance is on food transparency and making that information readily available to their end consumers,” says Ghorashi.

Senate Deal Requires Nationwide GMO Labeling

By Food Safety Tech Staff
3 Comments

The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has come to an agreement on the first-of-its-kind nationwide mandatory labeling of food products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  Although the deal requires labeling on far more products than those required under the Vermont GMO labeling law (which goes into effect July 1), the way in which disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients is revealed on food products is not as straightforward as it seems.  Under the bill, disclosure methods of GMOs on labeling includes on the actual packaging; an electronic/digital link that a consumer can scan with a smartphone to retrieve more information online; or a phone number in which a consumer can call to get more information. Thus, companies are not required to include all of the information on the product label.

The Center for Food Safety estimates that 75% of processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients.The Senate Agriculture Committee praises the bill as a “win for consumers”, but there are industry folks who disagree. “While we are pleased this proposal will finally create a national, mandatory GMO disclosure system, protects organic labels, and will cover more food than Vermont’s groundbreaking GMO labeling law, we are disappointed that the proposal will require many consumers to rely on smart-phones to learn basic information about their food.,” said Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farm and advocacy group Just Label It in a release.

The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard is available on the Senate Agriculture Committee’s website.

Health Canada Approves GMO Salmon, Sparks More Outcry

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments

Following a “thorough and rigorous” scientific review process, Health Canada announced the approval of GMO salmon, also known as AquAdvantage Salmon, last week. The salmon is developed by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. According to a release from Health Canada, the AquAdvantage Salmon underwent safety and nutrition assessments by both Health Canada for use as food and by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for use as livestock feed. The assessments found the salmon to be “as safe and nutritious as” traditional salmon.

The approval was met with distain by several groups, including Friends of the Earth, which called the approval “irresponsible and disappointing” in a news release.

“This approval also comes despite the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans draft risk assessment that questions the health and welfare of AquaBounty Technologies Inc.’s genetically modified salmon. The draft risk assessment concluded that AquaBounty’s GMO salmon are not only ‘more susceptible to Aeromonas salmonicida, a type of disease-causing bacteria,’ but exhibit ‘diminished growth rates’ and ‘widely varied performance.’”  –Friends of the Earth news release

More than 60 grocery store chains have committed to keeping GMO salmon off their shelves, including Trader Joe’s, Costco, Whole Foods, Aldi, Target and Safeway.

Does Your Company Really Understand GMO Labeling?

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments

Consumers want to know what’s in their food, from artificial sweeteners and high-fructose corn syrup to dyes and pesticides. The latest hot-button issue surrounds foods made from genetically modified organisms (GMO) and the demand for companies to indicate on labeling whether a product contains GMOs.

In a recent Q&A with Food Safety Tech, James Cook, Food Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Manager at SGS, briefly discusses the challenges and misconceptions surrounding GMOs and labeling.

Food Safety Tech: What are the biggest challenges food companies face in communicating that their products are GMO-free?

James Cook: The biggest challenge for a company is to determine what words or phrases can be used concerning the regulations and/or laws of country that the product will be received into. Companies want to use GMO free, a terminology recognized by consumers, which is actually prohibited in certain locations such as the European Union (EU), and discouraged by the FDA.

FST: How has public (consumer) awareness of this issue complicated matters?

Cook: There is a diverse difference in dealing with the consumers in the EU that have a clear knowledge and unfortunately outrage to GMOs, and the consumers from the United States, where some have no idea what GMOs are.

FST: Are there misconceptions among consumers that present additional challenges to food companies?

Cook: The biggest misconceptions are: Everything created by humankind is evil, food crops have never changed, and the government and the industry are lying. Another misconception is that in the future, we will have enough food to feed the world population, without making significant changes in the way we produce food.   

FST: What are the most critical developments regarding state and federal labeling laws that we need to know about?

Cook: At this time, the Vermont law is the only breakthrough for the requirement [of] GMO labeling in the United States. If some non-government organization obtains passage of their bill through U.S Congress then this law will not come into effect. If this law becomes effective, we will have many states issuing and passing a similar law, as their consumers will want to know why this is required in Vermont but not in their states.

On April 16 Cook will be offering more insight on the topic during a GMO Labeling webinar. Register for the webinar now.

FST: Where do you see the GMO issue headed over the next year or so?

Cook: We will have some sort of GMO labeling law in the United States. Whether this law only affects one state or all of the U.S. is still unknown. Even if this is not solved, more locations in the United States will continue to ban the growing of GMO crops. Eventually these bans will make it into the courts, because you are dictating to a farmer what crops they can grow and sell.  

FST: What key questions will you address during the GMO Labeling webinar?

Cook: What does my company need to do in order to verify to a Non-GMO program?
Does one have to review the entire supply chain in order to prove the product is GMO free?
Why isn’t GMO product just labeled as such in the USA?
Why the vast difference of GMO policies between EU and USA?

 

Related Content: Expanding GMO Labeling Requirements in the U.S.


GM Apples and Potatoes are ‘Safe’: FDA

No Comments

Arctic Apples have ‘silenced’ genes that prevent them from turning brown when bruised, while genetic modification of Innate potatoes reduces the activity of genes that cause tubers to turn brown.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has completed its evaluation for two varieties of apples genetically engineered by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc., and for six varieties of potatoes genetically engineered by J. R. Simplot Company and concluded that these foods are “as safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts.”

Okanagan’s Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties of apples, known collectively by the trade name “Arctic Apples,” are genetically engineered to resist browning associated with cuts and bruises by reducing levels of enzymes that can cause browning.

Simplot’s varieties of Ranger Russet, Russet Burbank and Atlantic potatoes are collectively known by the trade name “Innate” and are genetically engineered to reduce the formation of black spot bruises by lowering the levels of certain enzymes in the potatoes. In addition, they are engineered to produce less acrylamide by lowering the levels of an amino acid called asparagine and by lowering the levels of reducing-sugars. Acrylamide is a chemical that can form in some foods during high-temperature cooking, such as frying, and has been found to be carcinogenic in rodents.

Foods derived from genetically engineered plants must meet the same legal standards, including safety standards, as foods derived from traditional plant breeding methods. Though producers of genetically engineered foods are not compelled to submit their products for FDA approval, both Okanagan, of British Columbia, Canada, and Simplot, of Boise, Idaho, submitted to FDA a summary of their safety and nutritional assessments.

“The consultation process includes a review of information provided by a company about the nature of the molecular changes and the nutritional composition of the food compared to traditionally bred varieties,” said Dennis Keefe, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety. “This case-by-case safety evaluation ensures that food safety issues are resolved prior to commercial distribution.”

The changes are expected to make the produce healthier, more palatable and easier to transport and sell without spoilage, and hence result in less food waste. But the approval is expected to spark controversy among critics who argue that genetically modified foods will introduce potentially dangerous unknowns into the American food supply. Okanagan and Simplot may label their products as GMO, something that many consumer groups have advocated for.

Source: FDA.gov

Expanding GMO Labeling Requirements in the U.S.

By James Cook
No Comments

In November 2014, the people of Oregon and Colorado voted for mandatory labeling of foods produced from genetically modified organisms (GMO). These initiatives from Maine, Connecticut, Vermont, and subsequently Oregon and Colorado speak of the public’s desire to know what they are eating, a mistrust of the industry, and a lack of action from the Federal government.

Currently in the U.S.. there is no Federal law that requires the labeling of GMO derived products, providing the product is not significantly different to the non-GMO product, or different in use, nutrition, or includes an unexpected allergen. However, FDA has produced voluntary labeling guidance on GMO and non-GMO. While many companies have option to label their products as non-GMO, there hasn’t been the same desire by the industry to label their products as GMO.

Unwanted events have caused the public to believe that the industry cannot be trusted and that the government is not doing everything it can to protect the public. One case involved a strain of GMO corn (Starlink) that was only approved for animal feed and fuel, because it cause a reaction in people. Unfortunately, this strain of corn did end up in the human food supply chain, causing the U.S. price of corn to plummet on the world market, and dozens of products to be recalled.

Another case involved the development of GMO wheat. T his was a product that foreign markets had no desire for. There, after field trials from 2000 to 2003, the company that created the GMO wheat dropped the project despite FDA completing its food safety consultation on it in 2004.

In 2013, this strain of GMO wheat was found growing in a field in Oregon. After extensive review, the USDA completed an investigation and published its findings on September 26, 2014, concluding that it was the same GMO variety created by the aforementioned company. The report added that the wheat had not come from local field trials, and that they were “unable to determine exactly how the GMO wheat was found growing in Montana. That investigation is still ongoing.

Oregon mandatory labeling

One of the counties of Oregon, Jackson County, has banned GMO crops. Oregon was one of the states involved in the unwanted GMO wheat event, and has voted no to changing its existing law to require the labeling of raw and packaged foods produced entirely, or partially by genetic engineering. This law would have required retailers to properly label raw product as “genetically engineered.”

Manufacturers of pre-packaged foods would have to place labels clearly and conspicuously stating “produced with genetic engineering” or “partially produced with genetic engineering” on the front or back of the package. These phrases did not have to be part of the product name, nor did the manufacturer have to identify which ingredient or ingredients are derived from genetic engineering. No company would have been subject to injunction or fines, if the pre-packaged foods have less than 0.9 percent genetic engineered materials by the total weight of the package or were unknowingly, or unintentionally, contaminated with genetically engineered material. For pre-packaged products, retails would have been only responsible for their own labeled products. This would not apply to animal feed or food served in restaurants.

Colorado Right to Know Act

A law proposed in Colorado but also not passed, dealt with labeling requirements for products derived for genetic modification. Had it been passed, it would have been effective from July 1, 2016. Its main aim was that packaged and raw agriculture products derived from GM would have to have been labelled as “produced with genetic engineering.” The exemptions from the labeling requirements were:

  • Animal food or drink,
  • Chewing gum,
  • Alcoholic beverages,
  • Food containing one or more processing aids,
  • Enzymes produced or derived from genetic engineering,
  • Food in restaurants and food produced for immediate consumption not packaged for resale,
  • Food for animals not derived from genetic engineering but fed feed or injected with a drug derived from genetic engineering, and
  • Medically prescribed food. 

Food would not have been considered misbranded if it had been produced by someone unaware that the seed or food was derived from genetic engineering, or that it was either unknowingly or unintentionally co-mingled with genetically engineering seed or food.

The Grocery Manufacturers’ Association (GMA), a major U.S. industry association that is against the individual state laws regarding GMO labeling, supports the HR 4432 Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act introduced by the House of Representatives’ Mike Pompeo and G. K. Butterfield. This proposed law would not require products with GMO ingredients to be labelled as such, unless there are safety issues or substantial differences between them and the non-GMO ingredient, but it will set specific requirements for GMO free claims and require FDA to develop requirements for Natural claims. While this law was introduced into Congress in April 2014, it hasn’t progressed to the point that anyone believes that it will signed into law anytime soon. Vermont is still the only state to have passed an unencumbered GMO law. Currently, laws in Maine and Connecticut with there requirements still not met, will not be enacted, at least, at this time. The state of Vermont is being sued with the GMO labeling debate in the U.S. still continuing even though the European Union has required labeling of GMOs since 1997. To date, there are more than 60 countries, as well as the EU, requiring labeling of GMOs.

This article originally appeared in SGS Hot Source Food Newsletter 6. For further information, please visit www.FoodSafety.SGS.com.

Want to learn more about GMO Labeling? Register for this complimentary webinar, on April 16, 2015, which will discuss

  • Next steps for state and federal labeling laws,
  • An update on the status of the non-GMO supply chain and certification programs,
  • Where organic fits in the non-GMO discussion, and
  • What are the marketplace challenges of going non-GMO?

Millennials Are Changing the Food Industry

By Chelsey Davis
No Comments

Millennials are definitely changing the landscape of the food industry. What do they care about when it comes to food, and what does this mean for food manufacturers?

TraceGains_Millennials1

We’ve all heard the latest trends regarding that hard-to-reach audience we’ve dubbed the Millennials (those born roughly between the years 1980 and the early 2000s). And with so many how-to articles out there, it’s hard to really understand who these folks are and what they want. Here are just a few fun facts about this generation: 50 percent consider themselves politically unaffiliated, they have the highest average number of Facebook friends, 55 percent have posted a selfie or two to social media sites, and there are roughly 80 million of them. This makes Millennials the biggest generation thus far. And one thing is for certain, based on research, they are definitely changing the landscape of the food industry. So what do Millennials care about when it comes to food?

Millennials care about quality and sustainability

According to a 2014 study by the International Food Council (IFC), Millennials have the highest level of awareness out of any age group when it comes to food sustainability, and they are willing to pay more for it. And when it comes to quality vs. price, Millennials are more apt to be loyal to a brand deemed to have quality products as opposed to a brand that has a better price point.

Quality versus price for Millennials (Image courtesy of Bushiness Insider via Goldman Sachs)
Quality versus price for Millennials (Image courtesy of Business Insider via Goldman Sachs)

Take McDonald’s for example. In August of 2013, the fast-food chain reported a 13 percent decline in consumption for people between the ages of 19-21 since 2011. And while Millennials are still dinning out, they are opting for franchises like Chipotle and Five Guys. Why? These chains pride themselves on using local producers and sustainable food items, which makes paying that extra $2.00 for guacamole not so bad to this generation.

Additionally, Millennials are more apt to choose products that are socially responsible and produce lower carbon footprints. For example, Millennials are now paying attention to how much energy, water and effort it takes to grow, manufacture and transport food, including the packaging process. And as this environmentally friendly generation matures and moves into prime spending age, manufacturers will need to evolve the packaging of food products to ensure they are created with eco-friendly and recyclable materials if they wish to appeal to these folks.

Millennials care about their health

This generation, as research states, is more aware of their health than any other generation thus far, especially when it comes to what goes into their bodies. Locally grown, cage-free, all-natural, organic—these are all terms Millennials tend to gravitate towards when making food choices. As a result, organic coffee shops are popping up everywhere, farm-to-table restaurants are all the rage, and even private label brands are seeing increases in sales, with Millennials opting for those over national brands due to the perception that these labels are more innovative.

Millennials are also reading labels and are more aware of what the items on the labels mean—they understand the ingredients and what goes into their food more so than their parents and grandparents. As a result, we’re seeing an increase in natural and organic claims as we navigate through the grocery aisles.

Graphic showing wellness stats for Millennials (Image courtesy of Bushiness Insider via Goldman Sachs)
Graphic showing wellness stats for Millennials
(Image courtesy of Bushiness Insider via Goldman Sachs)

What this means for food manufacturers

Food manufacturers have an interesting challenge ahead, but also a great opportunity. The ones that will ultimately gain popularity among Millennials will be those that are willing to innovate while staying authentic. Millennials not only value the transparency of brands, they are also aware of shortcomings when it comes to unsubstantiated claims. Food manufacturers must now walk the line between making all-natural and sustainable product claims, and being 100 percent truthful in their statements. When it comes down to it, Millennials will do the research, read the labels and uncover the truth.

So how do you appeal to Millennials, while also mitigating the risks when it comes to labeling your product natural, organic or GMO-free? To answer tough questions like this, TraceGains got the inside scoop from Attorney Antonio Gallegos, who advises on compliance with regulations administered by the FDA, FTC, USDA and similar state-level agencies, and co-produced a guidance report. Use this free Natural Labeling Guidance Report to help you make informed decisions in the future for your products. Do you have additional tips for reaching Millennials? Leave a comment below and let us know!