Consumers are leaving toxic food makers’ products behind on grocery store shelves faster than you can say ‘organic.’ Big Food lost $4 billion in sales last year alone due to their inability to answer market demand for non-GM, organic food that doesn’t contain high fructose corn syrup, gluten, antibiotics, growth hormones, MSG, and other toxic additives. Meanwhile, organic food is absolutely exploding.
Big Food has a multi-billion dollar problem on their hands, and this is why they have spent so much money trying to defeat GMO labeling bills in multiple states – but they can’t get around the awakening public’s demand for better food. It is staring them right in the face.
Company’s like ConAgra (don’t let the ‘con’ in their name dissuade you) want to remake their image. So do big food makers like Smuckers and Campbell Soup Co.
“We understand that increasing numbers of consumers are seeking authentic, genuine food experiences,” said Campbell Soup Co CEO, whose stock is currently trading down, “and we know that they are skeptical of the ability of large, long-established food companies to deliver them.”
These CEOs pretend not to know why consumers don’t trust them. Could it be that they have fought against public requests to deliver real, non-genetically modified, or toxic additive-laden food for years, to no avail? Could it be because they have spent millions trying to keep the public from even knowing what is in their food?
Just how irrelevant are these companies becoming? An analysis by Moscow found that the top 25 US food and beverage makers have lost an equivalent of $18 billion of market share. That’s a big loss, and when you consider that organic food sales are slated for immense growth this year, and in the next decade, you’d think they would have taken the mild hints we’ve given them.
“Their existence is being challenged,” says Edward Jones analyst Jack Russo of the major packaged-food companies. Shoppers still value the convenience that food processing offers, says Moskow, “but the pendulum has definitely shifted in their minds. They [consumers[ have more and more questions about why this bread lasts 25 days without going stale.”
Too bad Big Food was hitting the snooze button. They can eat their toxic leftovers for breakfast, maybe, while looking over the Wall Street Journal at their failing stock prices – just take a look at McDonald’s as a shining example of how the food movement is igniting change.
Featured image credit: Fortune (modified)
9 thoughts on “Organic Takeover: Toxic Food Makers Lose $4 Billion in Sales in One Year”
Excellent article! A few years ago I wrote an email to General Mills. I was a fan of their Progresso brand soup. The letter was a plea for them to remove the BPA liner from their soup cans, or find a better supplier for the cans, one that doesn’t use a toxic liner. I informed them that it would also be a good idea to use organic products, or at least more natural ingredients.
Their response was the canned answer I expected from a corporation that’s blinded themselves from years of obscene price-fixed profiteering. It went something like this:
“The Bisphenol A in our can liners has been approved as safe by the FDA.”
Um.. No sh!t you pack of retards, but that wasn’t my point. The letter I sent them was very clear and made several relevant points about where the market is heading. And they replied with two sentences, one of which was the quote above. They ignored very basic rules of a functional free market. The supply must meet the demand, and they should always be concerned of the subject matter when a customer takes the time to write them a letter about how to improve their product.
The company operations at this point are nearly autonomous. The executives get paid their huge salaries whether the company makes or loses money. Improving their products at this point would require physical changes and work. Ultimately, this is an issue of laziness and ineptitude. This is why they fail.
What is with the idiotic “toxic food” rhetoric? Conventionally grown food is not all “toxic” and not all organic food is “non-toxic”. What is the definition of toxic? Guess what? Many of the organic ingredients and products we buy are owned by these “big evil companies”. Sure McDonalds is not healthy and would be one extreme example, yet for many of these big companies this story puts a blanket statement on, even the conventionally grown food is with no measurable levels of chemicals. Organic is all grown and distributed with the use of fossil fuels and chemicals too. Of course it is better to not use chemicals to grow our food, yet plenty of chemicals are used to produce all food no matter what. So where does this statement of toxic really apply? Many big food companies are using already increasing levels of organic ingredients and do quite a bit to drive the organic food industry. I would like to see all chemicals eliminated from our food and these “big evil companies” will have to change. Also organic is not taking over the “toxic food supply” as this story says. Organic is not even close to 10% yet. And until we get off using fossil fuels and chemicals we use for everything related to our lives, it’s gonna remain “toxic”. This stupid cheerleading for “organic” and blind demagoguery is not true awareness of the situation we are in, especially when change needs to come at a systematic level.
I wonder if it is just coincidence that all the click bait ads are to pseudoscience sites and products?
Pseudoscience? I don’t see any globalwarming, pro-GMO or pro-vaccine nonsense.
noun: pseudoscience; plural noun: pseudosciences; noun: pseudo-science; plural noun: pseudo-sciences
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
“a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.”
Exactly Undecider’s point! GMO promulgators, promoters and propagandists IGNORE science, then cherry pick or do their own deceptive and flawed studies and call it Science with a capitol S, as if it’s a brand they own. After that is established in the naive reader’s mind, they enjoy nothing more than hitting you over the head with it. What the mutation pushers practice, such as “Warren Lauzon”, is the MANIPULATION and DISTORTION of science as they desparately continually to persuade the quickly dwindling numbers of the unaware.
After how much spraying of roach killer on your food would you consider it “toxic”? One second? Three?
Having the open can anywhere near my food is toxic enough. Are you yourself a roach spray-resistant mutant that wants to talk about “acceptable levels” of roach spray? Bad news Undecider: I know your thinking is toxic and would bet your body is toxic as well.
How did you come up with that $4 billion loss number? Do you have an actual credible reference? From reading the article and links, it appears that you left out this part “in market share”, and failed to mention a few other things, like even if some consumers bought the woo and went organic, there is an 80% chance it went to some Evil Big Ag company anyway. And while an 11% increase in organic sales sounds impressive, it is starting from a very small base, and the total is still only around 4% of total food sales.