Annie's Inc. has been a vocal proponent of requiring labels on foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. General Mills Inc., like most large food companies, has fought such labeling efforts, notably in California and Washington.
So now that Golden Valley-based General Mills is buying Berkeley, Calif.-based Annie's for $820 million, what happens to Annie's stance on labeling for genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?
Well, apparently it stays the same.
"There is no change in Annie's stance on GMOs," Keely Fadrhonc, Annie's senior marketing communications manager, said in an e-mail. "We are committed to transparency around the topic — we know that General Mills understands our commitment and importance of our position on this issue to preserve the authenticity of this brand."
General Mills concurs. The company "understands Annie's position on this issue," General Mills spokeswoman Kirstie Foster wrote in an e-mail.
"While it's true that Annie's has supported state-based [labeling] initiatives, and General Mills has long opposed state-based labeling, we would probably both prefer a national solution to this question to help consumers," Foster wrote.
It won't be the first GMO conflict to arise in a food industry consolidation. Ben & Jerry's, based in Vermont, supported that state's law requiring GMO labeling, the first state to do so. But Ben & Jerry's corporate parent, Unilever, has opposed such efforts.
Since most corn, soybean and sugar beets are grown from genetically modified seeds, supermarkets are heavily stocked with foods containing GMO ingredients. Federal food safety regulators have approved the technology and it has the support of several science groups.