Why PepsiCo Opposes GMO Labeling in California

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.

Translation: We fol­low the law, very impres­sive. But the state­ment also points to how the com­pany has dif­fer­ent stan­dards around the world depend­ing on what the law requires. More than 40 other nations—including the entire European Union—require some form of dis­clo­sure for foods made with GMOs.

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.

Michele Simon

Michele is a pub­lic health lawyer who has been research­ing and writ­ing about the food indus­try and food pol­i­tics since 1996. Visit her site at www.EatDrinkPolitics.com/