Green Blog: A Report Card for Global Food Giants

The antipoverty group Oxfam has come up with a scorecard that evaluates the impact that the supply chains of behemoth food companies have on water consumption, labor and wages, greenhouse gas emissions and nutrition.

The goal of the scorecard, called ?Behind the Brands,? is to motivate consumers to pressure companies like Nestl?, Kellogg and Mars to improve their policies on land and water use and the treatment of small farmers, among other things, and to reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions.

?Customer choice helps these companies build brand loyalty and value, which helps them build the bottom line,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. ?These supply chains are what connects the consumer to the farmer in the field, and there is an increasing interest in that.?

Apparel and mining companies have moved to increase the transparency of their supply chains, improving their practices in the process, Mr. Offenheiser said. But food companies are notably opaque when it comes to disclosing how they obtain the ingredients for the food they sell.

In fact, they sometimes openly fight such disclosure, spending tens of millions of dollars recently, for instance, to avoid disclosing the use of genetically engineered ingredients on food packaging. Some have also resisted identifying the countries where their ingredients originate.

But consumers today have more information about the food they eat than ever, and the impact of that knowledge is increasingly clear. The reaction against organic and natural food brands whose corporate parents fought a California ballot initiative requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods persists, even though it was defeated in November. And a 15-year-old recently waged a successful campaign to get brominated vegetable oil, a controversial food additive, removed from Gatorade.

?I think these companies understand that engaging stakeholders, not just shareholders, is a fact of life going forward,? Mr. Offenheiser said. ?Growing market share and customer loyalty as a result of that engagement has a direct impact on the bottom line.?

He emphasized that Oxfam did not wish to dredge up old scandals ? although the report accompanying the new scorecard mentions several ? but rather to create what he called ?a race to the top.?

Two giant European food companies, Nestl? and Unilever, scored highest on the initial scorecard, followed by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. But no companies received Oxfam?s highest ratings across the board. Nestl?, which has worked to reduce the use of water in its processes, was awarded a 7 out of 10 in the water and transparency categories of the scorecard. Unilever received the same score for its treatment of small farmers.

Conversely, 7 of the 10 companies received the lowest score possible for their use of land. Scores for the treatment of women working in agriculture were generally low as well. Seven of the companies received a grade of ?extremely poor? or ?failing? for the impact of their businesses on climate change.

Source: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/a-report-card-for-global-food-giants/?partner=rss&emc=rss

MC Chris Colorado shooting suspect accuweather Finding Nemo 2 Provigil dez bryant Kitty Wells