GROUP C - Assignment Generically Modified Foods | Claire Draper | clairepdraper@gmail.com | Clemens Sassen | clemens.sassen@huijskensbickerton.com | Debra Hoelsaether | debrahoelsaether@gmail.com | Robert Heckert | r.heckert@sanquin.nl | WP | Word Count 1004 | Assignment Pages 1 - 3, incl. headings | Q&A | Word count 747 | Questions 1 – 5 , pages 4-5 |

-------------------------------------------------
Genetically Modified Organisms – Consumer Health and Freedom of Choice
As one of the world’s largest food companies, our mission is to provide consumers with the most nutritious choices in a wide range of food. We acknowledge consumers’ and stakeholders’ right to know which biotechnologies are being administered in the food industry, resulting in the products they purchase. It is equally important for producers and stakeholders to understand what present-day biotechnology is capable of and to establish the opportunities these capabilities present.
Nestlé acknowledges the growing debate amongst stakeholders and consumers about potential issues associated with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). With this connection established, and taking lessons from past issues, such as labelling and traceability of GM foods in several Asian countries in 2002 and 2003, we recognize the importance for consumers worldwide to purchase food products based on labelling information. As a consumer goods company, we openly engage with consumers’ concerns and opt to provide transparency. As a result, we fully support an assertive attitude towards content disclosure of the presence of GMO derived ingredients. By recognizing stakeholders' rights to know the contents of our food products in the worldwide market, it is our responsibility to perform this with transparency and professionalism as we already have demonstrated in our European markets.
Transparency
Our position on GM lies within the context of defined regulatory frameworks in the countries where we market our products and the role that GM plays in sustainable food production and the provision of safe food products. Nestlé strictly adheres to all national laws and regulations concerning the labelling of ingredients derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. In some cases, regulations require disclosure on the label and we favour regulations that have practical thresholds and take into account local consumer preferences and attitudes. Depending on local preferences, disclosure can be either done via labelling or provided as information on a company or industry website. In all countries where our products are sold, people can see whether GMO’s are used or not. We would like to point out that additional product labelling may result in an increase of prices.

Sustainable Food Production
Today, maintaining increasing food production for a growing world population, while targeting sustainable agriculture, is a shared responsibility for all manufacturers in the food industry. Genetic modification is one of several areas within biotechnology that supports sustainable crop production. Nestlé’s approach is to support technologies that have been proven safe for human and animal health. We only allow use of GMOs that have passed regulatory approval and meet our own quality standards.
Our top priority is on Food Safety and Compliance Safety. Ingredients used in our products are permitted by regulatory authorities in compliance with the strictest safety standards. We also use biotechnology methods that do not involve genetic modification practices. Ongoing research and development programmes for important sources of raw materials, include plant science initiatives such as marker assisted breeding (non-GMO). By offering a choice of improved plant varieties, we help farmers reduce the number of plants lost to disease or to climate change.
In this respect we follow the position taken by the World Health Organization which states: "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.”
Aims and Accomplishments
There will be nine billion people on the planet by 2050. This creates enormous pressure on sustainable development of healthy food. Our aim is to support initiatives aiming for the world’s population to have availability to healthy and safe nutrition, while agricultural production is maintained in a responsible and sustainable way.
Our vision is that we perform best if the interests of our stakeholders are recognized. We strive to reach common ground on those issues of interest to everyone. Our aim is best achieved by participating in a constructive dialogue amongst all stakeholders and to encourage cooperation in sharing the same goals and solutions.

One example of doing so is via our annual stakeholder convening and the Creating Shared Value Forum. In conjunction with several forums Nestlé has engaged in constructive dialogue with different NGOs and interest groups, in collaboration with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and co-hosted the 6th Creating Shared Value Forum on Thursday 9 October 2014.

Another example is the Codex Alimentarius Commission. This is a joint intergovernmental body of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) with 185 Member States and one Member Organization (EU).
Codex has worked since 1963 to create harmonized international food standards to protect consumers’ health and ensure fair trade practice. Nestlé participated at the 28th session, in Paris, France in April 2014.

Nestlé is committed to continuous improvement and open to external engagement regarding any area of our Corporate Business Principles. We believe in the importance of a strong compliance culture that is fully embedded in our business. Our corporate business principles reflect this commitment and thus protect the trust of our consumers and other stakeholders in the Nestlé brand..

Questions 1 - 5:
Q-1 What is your source of authority?
Sources of authority are viable and there are many world renown institutions with solid research results within the biogenetics sector such as WHO (World Health Organization) and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity under the United Nations with 169 member countries.
The protocol allows countries to ban imports of a genetically modified organisms if they feel there is not enough scientific evidence that the product is safe, and hence requires exporters to label shipments containing genetically altered commodities such as corn or cotton.
Safety assessments are based on the Codex Alimentarius principles. Safety of foods provide a solid foundation for sanctioning the controlled use of GMO in food crop production.
The European Food Safety Authority has 25 Member States, non EU countries such as Norway and Switzerland are also members of the GMO Network. The fifth meeting of the GMO Network was held in May 2014, including the EFSA Scientific Network for Risk Assessment of GMOs for 2014.

Q-2 Who is your audience?
With modern communication tools at our disposal and information spreading quickly and available to everyone, it’s impossible to focus on one stakeholder only without taking interests of other stakeholders into account. We have therefore designed our text in such a way that all stakeholders are able to be satisfied with our position. Nonetheless, we have foremost focussed on NGO’s and interest groups and secondary on consumers.
Q-3 What is your aim?
Nestlé wants to make clear to the audience that it strives for transparency about GM ingredients in its food products to give consumers a free choice. At the same time Nestlé stresses that with the growing world population GM products are a fact of life.
The purpose of the transparency in all markets is to end accusations of using double standards and being secretive about the origin of its products.
As an industry leader, Nestlé wants to make a leap forward in openness about the use of GM products in the food industry.

Q-4 What is the risk associated with your position?
Heugens and Dentchev (2007) identified risks associated with CSR investments.
Three of them are located at the inter-organizational level of analysis and seem to be relevant for our position in response to criticisms on Nestlé.
Legitimacy destruction. If Nestlé suddenly becomes active in launching CSR activities to implement the position we’ve made, the company’s efforts might be perceived as a compensation for some misconduct when in fact there’s not. * Issue ownership. If Nestlé puts a bigger stake on the issue than its competitors, the company might be perceived as responsible for resolving the issue. We believe it would most effectively be addressed at industry level. * Poor risk communication. If Nestlé adopts visible CSR activities to implement our position, there is a risk that we may not do it as effectively in the developing countries as was done in European markets. The Asian region is very diverse and we may miss the nuances in most markets, thereby rendering our CSR activities ineffective, or worse, creating more damage to the company’s reputation.

Q-5 What have you done to limit or contain the risk associated with your position?
When we consider the life cycle of the GM issue one could say that it is approaching maturity. Zyglidopoulos (2003) points out the importance of timing and keeping within bounds of your social performance. Leading or lagging behind can be of negative impact on your reputation (p. 80).
Now the issue is reaching the point, at least within the industry, that there is general agreement on the indispensability of GMOs in providing food for the world population, it is the proper time for Nestlé to be first among the equals. We checked our standpoint within the industry and found willingness to share it. So we don’t own the issue alone. We believe that our primus inter pares position is improving our credibility. It is in sync with our leading position in international forums.
The transparency programme is well orchestrated and tailor-made (on corporate and regional level). Communication is adjusted by our local people and subjected to a ‘culture check’.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm/eu-labelling-laws-come-into-force
[ 2 ]. A study in Canada showed that labelling costs could be equivalent to at least 9-10% of the retail price of processed food products, and 35-41% of the producer prices. The study also concluded that biotech and non-biotech foods (labelled as “biotech free”) would be equally affected by this price increase, which amounts to $700-950 million per year in Canada. Therefore, any form of labelling, whether for GM or non-GM products, will entail additional cost. This will initially be borne by the producers, but could probably be passed on to the consumers. Will consumers be willing to pay higher prices?
[ 3 ]. Reference page: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/en/
[ 4 ]. www.nestle.com/csv/what-is-csv/stakeholder-engagement/csv-forum
[ 5 ]. http://www.codexalimentarius.org/members-observers/en/
[ 6 ]. All Nestlé Principles and Policies, Standards and Guidelines can be found in the Centre online repository at http://intranet.nestle.com/nestledocs.
[ 7 ]. http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/background/
[ 8 ]. Reference: EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-746. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications
[ 9 ]. “Taming Trojan Horses: Identifying and Mitigating Corporate Social Responsibility Risks”. Pursey Heugens and Nicoay Dentchev. Journal of Business Ethics (2007). 75:151-170
[ 10 ]. Zyglidopulos, S.C. (2003). Yhe Issue Life-Cycle: Implications for Reputation for Social Performance and Organizational Legitimacy. Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 70-81