The acquisition of SodaStream adds to PepsiCo’s growing water portfolio, while catalyzing its ability to offer personalized in-home beverage solutions around the world. PepsiCo’s strong distribution capabilities, global reach, R&D, design, and marketing expertise, combined with SodaStream’s differentiated and unique product range will position SodaStream for further expansion and innovation, the company said in a statement.

“From breakthrough innovations like Drinkfinity to beverage dispensing technologies like Spire for foodservice and Aquafina water stations for workplaces and colleges, PepsiCo is finding new ways to reach consumers beyond the bottle, and today's announcement is fully in line with that strategy,” said Ramon Laguarta, CEO-Elect and President, PepsiCo.

Related: PepsiCo Expands Better-For-You Portfolio with Bare Snacks Acquisition

The transaction is another step in PepsiCo’s Performance with Purpose journey, promoting health and wellness through environmentally friendly, cost-effective and fun-to-use beverage solutions.

Nestlé USA has described as “baseless” a lawsuit in California that contends the Swiss food giant misled consumers regarding products that display a “No GMO IngredientsTM” certificate of approval on its packaging.

According to the proposed class action suit filed this summer, neither a “non-profit group” nor a “neutral third party” bequeathed the above certificate of approval, but rather it was Nestlé itself. What’s more, the suit alleged, Nestlé USA “intentionally mimicked the appearance of independent verifiers’ seals such as the Non-GMO Project,” and many ingredients in its products come from GMOs (genetically modified organisms).

The suit [download complaint at bottom of article] quoted FTC guidelines that state, “It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package, or service has been endorsed or certified by an independent third party.”

The named plaintiff, Jennifer Latiff, is a resident of Oxnard, California who is said to have purchased certain Nestlé products bearing the “No GMO IngredientsTM” seal, including: Lean Cuisine Marketplace frozen dinners and Coffee-Mate Natural Bliss creamer. Latiff filed her lawsuit July 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

Third Party Certifier: SGS

Responding to the allegations, Nestlé reported a third party—SGS, a Geneva, Switzerland-based provider of inspection, verification, testing and certification services—verified its process for manufacturing its products that claim an absence of GMOs.

“Our product labels that declare the absence of GMO ingredients are accurate, comply with FDA and USDA regulations, and provide consumers with information to help them make informed purchasing decisions,” the company asserted in an emailed statement.

William Acevedo, a food and beverage attorney and partner in California with Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP, reviewed the complaint but isn’t involved in the case. In a telephone interview, he highlighted several perceived weaknesses in the proposed class action suit.

The lawyer found it peculiar that the complaint would reference FTC guidelines since he said Nestlé discloses on its packaging that it is working with a third party: namely SGS.

“Nestlé has expressly indicated SGS was involved,” he said.

Nestlé USA also has a webpage devoted to GMOs in which it discloses the relationship with “SGS to ensure our supply chain and manufacturing processes are consistent with the ‘No GMO ingredients’ claim.”

Fulvio Martinez, a U.S.-based spokesman for SGS, declined to comment for this article in response to questions about its relationship with Nestlé.

Daniel Warshaw and Michael Reese, two attorneys who filed the suit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Nestlé’s statement.

Products from Animals Fed GMOs

In support of its allegations that Nestlé’s “No GMO IngredientsTM” certificate of approval is misleading, the lawsuit stated Nestlé’s “products that contain dairy come from cows fed GMO grains.”

“This violates the Non-GMO Project standard, which does not allow for its seal of approval to be placed on dairy-based products that could be from animals fed GMO feed,” the complaint asserted. “Defendant avoids the Non-GMO Project’s feed standard by using its own, self-created No GMO IngredientsTM seal, thereby creating confusion and deceiving consumers.”

Describing Nestlé’s label as “deceptive,” the suit alleged that “consumers paid a significant premium to purchase a non-GMO product to avoid the well-known health and environmental risks associated with GMO products.”

Acevedo found the plaintiff’s argument unpersuasive for a few different reasons. For starters, he referenced a law directing the secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a national bioengineered food disclosure standard. Under Senate Bill 764, which was signed into law in 2016, the regulation adopted by the secretary “shall prohibit a food derived from an animal to be considered a bioengineered food solely because the animal consumed feed produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered substance.”

Though USDA hasn’t finalized a rule to develop a national standard, its proposed rule published in the Federal Register incorporates the policy adopted by Congress in the law. “For example, eggs used in a baked good, where the eggs come from a chicken fed feed produced from BE corn and soy, would not be considered bioengineered solely on the basis of the chicken’s feed,” USDA explained in its proposal.

Acevedo acknowledged the Non-GMO Project has developed a more stringent definition of GMOs, but he said Nestlé isn’t bound by that voluntary standard, and based on the federal standard, the company is free to obtain ingredients derived from animals fed genetically modified feed.

“I really think this [lawsuit] is an uphill slog for the plaintiff,” Acevedo concluded, “and I would be surprised if it gets very far.”

He pointed out Nestlé’s webpage describes its position concerning ingredients derived from animals fed with GMO feed: such ingredients aren’t GMOs. The court, Acevedo said, will have to decide whether “Nestlé was transparent with [its] labeling, which I believe they have been.”

The lawyer also cited a 2016 court decision involving Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. that could aid Nestlé in its defense. In that case, the plaintiff argued Chipotle’s non-GMO claims were false and misleading because, in part, the restaurant chain sold meat and dairy products that came from animals that consumed genetically modified food. U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. wasn’t persuaded.

“Indeed, there seems to be no dispute that the meat and dairy ingredients used by defendant are not themselves genetically engineered in any fashion,” the judge wrote in his decision, granting Chipotle’s motion to dismiss the complaint. “Rather, plaintiff contends that the reasonable consumer would interpret ‘non-GMO ingredients’ to mean meat and dairy ingredients produced from animals that never consumed any genetically modified substances. The court questions whether the complaint, as currently pled, plausibly supports such an interpretation.”

Non-GMO Project

Also at issue in the lawsuit against Nestlé: allegations that it “created a deceptive No GMO IngredientsTM seal of approval label that mimics the Non-GMO Project seal.” (See seals below shown in lawsuit).

Acevedo said the plaintiff would need to produce consumer surveys to back up its claim, and he personally doesn’t view the seals “as being so similar that a consumer would be confused.” What’s more, he opined the plaintiff wouldn’t prevail on that theory alone.

“One, if it was just an issue of trademark confusion there, they don’t have standing to bring that anyway,” the lawyer said. “That would have to be the Non-GMO Project that’s saying, ‘Hey, you’ve designed a logo very very similar to ours. Stop it.’”

Asked to comment for this article on the lawsuit, the Non-GMO Project responded, in part: “As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the Non-GMO Project is committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers and providing verified non-GMO choices. The Non-GMO Project only authorizes the use of its ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ certification mark—with the Butterfly—on products that comply with the standard. To truly avoid GMOs, consumers should look for the Butterfly.

The FAO Food Price Index averaged 168.8 points in July, down 6.5 points (3.7 percent) from June and 10.3 points (3.7 percent) from the same time last year, reflecting notable declines in all major traded commodities.

The Cereal Price Index averaged 160.9 points in July, down nearly 6 points (3.6 percent) from June and 1.3 points (0.8 percent) below its level in the corresponding period last year. Export quotations for wheat, maize and rice all declined, although wheat and maize values edged higher toward the end of July.

The Vegetable Oil Price Index averaged 141.9 points in July, down 4.2 points (or 2.9 percent) from June, its sixth consecutive monthly decline, and is now at its lowest level since January 2016. Part of the July slide was driven by spill-over weakness from the soybean market, which is affected by the trade dispute between China and the United States of America. Rapeseed oil values trended upwards, however, buoyed by improved demand from biodiesel producers and negative crop prospects in the European Union.

The Dairy Price Index averaged 199.1 points in July, down 14.1 points (6.6 percent) from June. At this level, the index stood at 10.7 percent above January 2018 but still 8 percent below the corresponding month a year ago. International price quotations fell the sharpest for butter and cheese, while Whole Milk Powder (WMP) and Skim Milk Powder (SMP) prices also weakened.

The Sugar Price Index averaged 166.7 points in July, down 10.7 points (6 percent) from June and nearly 20 percent lower than July 2017, marking a nearly three-year low. Declines were largely driven by improved production prospects in India and Thailand, both important sugar-producing countries. Expectations of lower output in Brazil, the world’s largest producer and exporter, limited the fall in international sugar prices.

The Meat Price Index averaged 170.7 points in July, down 3.3 points (1.9 percent) from its June value that was revised up due to higher beef export prices from Brazil due to a truck drivers' strike. Overall, price quotations for bovine meat fell, while those of pig and poultry meat also weakened. However, ovine meat prices increased marginally on strong import demand, especially from China and the United States.

Ramon Laguarta, PepsiCo’s current president, will assume the CEO position and join the company’s Board of Directors effective Oct. 3. Nooyi will remain Chairman until early 2019 to ensure a smooth and seamless transition. The rest of PepsiCo’s senior leadership team will remain unchanged.

Nooyi has been a pioneer in the industry and paved the way for a new generation of leaders. As CEO, she grew revenue more than 80 percent added a new billion-dollar brand almost every other year by looking beyond the company’s core products of soft drinks. Under her leadership, PepsiCo grew its portfolio of “Good for You” and “Better for You” options from approximately 38 percent of revenue in 2006 to roughly 50 percent in 2017, almost tripled its investments in research and development to expand its more nutritious offerings and minimize its environmental impact, and achieved global recognition for the company’s work in communities around the world.

This past May, PepsiCo entered an agreement to acquire Bare Snacks, a maker of baked fruit and vegetable snacks for an undisclosed amount. The deal will expand Pepsi’s better-for-you snacking portfolio and further deliver on its Performance with Purpose vision to offer consumers more positive nutrition options.

“Leading PepsiCo has truly been the honor of my lifetime, and I'm incredibly proud of all we have done over the past 12 years to advance the interests not only of shareholders, but all our stakeholders in the communities we serve,” Nooyi said. “Growing up in India, I never imagined I'd have the opportunity to lead such an extraordinary company.”

When Nooyi departs PepsiCo, there will be just 23 female CEOs at S&P 500 companies, according to Bloomberg analysis of data from Catalyst. She is just the latest high-profile female CEO to depart industry.

In May 2018, Campbell Soup Co. President and CEO Denise Morrison abruptly announced her immediate retirement. Morrison, who led the soup giant since 2011, guided the company’s strategic reorganization to better position it to capitalize on the rapidly changing food industry landscape, while more closely aligning the business with the company’s three growth strategies: optimize the value of the core; increase health and well-being food, beverages and snacks; and, accelerate distribution and new business models.

Also in May,  Twinlab CEO Naomi Whittel announced she was leaving after two years at the helm to focus on projects aimed at engaging consumers with nutrition-related health messages.

The bustling lifestyles of modern consumers have prompted great demand for products that boost energy. In fact, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation’s 2018 Food and Health Survey found energy is the third most sought-after health benefit following cardiovascular health and weight loss. Grandview Market Research reported the global energy drink market was valued at US$43 billion in 2016 and predicted to reach $84.8 billion by 2025 with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7 percent.

While traditional energy drinks are still popular (retail sales for the top-selling energy drink brand in the United States reached $11.7 billion in 2017), warnings from doctors about excessive caffeine intake, bad press about hospitalizations and deaths from energy drink consumption, and the holistic health and wellness movement have led to a shift in the category. More brands are developing these types of beverages with organic and/or natural ingredients that are perceived as better-for-you. A substantial number of brands showcased natural and organic energy drinks at the 2018 Natural Products Expo West show, including Dark Dog Organic, Limitless, Guru and Zola.

There is enormous potential for the natural and organic energy drink category; Grandview Market Research expects natural and organic energy drinks sales will reach $32 billion by 2025, which accounts for nearly 40 percent of the market. If you’re considering developing a natural or organic energy drink, keep the following category trends top of mind when developing your product.

Naturally Energizing Ingredients

Some of the most common ingredients in natural and organic energy drinks are green coffee, green tea, guarana and ginseng. Depending on the goal of your product, you might want to consider one or a combination of these ingredients.

Green coffee has less caffeine than roasted coffee (20 mg per serving compared to 100 mg) and has suggested benefits such as aiding with weight loss and disease prevention. It’s often combined with other energy-enhancing ingredients like B-vitamins and ginseng for a bigger boost. It can be found in products like Starbucks Refreshers, Zola Organic Hydrating Energy Drink and Rockstar Organic Energy Drink.

Green tea has approximately 30 to 50 mg of caffeine per serving and, like green coffee, is suggested to promote weight loss and reduce risk of cancer. There’s a huge health halo surrounding green tea, which makes it a very appealing to consumers looking for a natural means to increase energy. One of the downsides of green tea is its low caffeine content compared to other ingredients, so additional caffeine fortification may be desired. Green tea is in GURU Organic Energy, Dark Dog Organic Energy Drink and Steaz.

Guarana has about 70 to 200 mg of caffeine per serving which is almost as much as a cup of coffee. Despite its high caffeine content, guarana is rarely the only energizing ingredient and is often paired with green coffee, green tea or synthetic caffeine. Guarana is used in traditional energy drinks like Red Bull and Monster as well as those positioned as more natural like Scheckter’s Organic Energy, Arizona Fruit Punch Natural Energy and Yerbae.

Ginseng (and panax ginseng) has no caffeine content, but it’s still a popular energy drink ingredient because of its functional properties. Ginseng is an adaptogen (a natural substance considered to help the body adapt to stress) and is also high in antioxidants; additionally, it’s suggested to have anti-inflammatory properties, improve brain function, and aid with weight loss. Panax ginseng is very similar but it comes from a different part of the plant and is suggested to have different types of ginsenosides (the active ingredient in ginseng), so some brands call it out specifically. Ginseng is in beverages like Hi Ball, Starbucks Doubleshot Energy and Feel Natural Energy.

Clean Label Claims

In addition to functional ingredient claims, brands are positioning their products as clean label. Brands in this space are making claims like clean energy, organic energy, natural energy and healthy energy. Clean energy can be found on labels for brands like Runa, Mamma Chia and Clean Cause. Organic energy is within the name of Dark Dog Organic Energy Drink, Organic Amazon Energy, GURU Organic Energy Drink and several others. Natural energy is on products like Starbucks Refreshers, Arizona Water Melon Natural Energy and Feel. Some brands have even gone so far as to make a healthy energy claim on the label, like FRS, Celsius and MATI. It’s interesting to note that, except for organic, none of the claims are regulated or require certification. However, be careful about making product claims that are unmerited.

Natural Sweetener Options

Choosing which sweetener will be most appealing to your target consumer can be difficult because consumers’ perceptions vary. Sugar is often a concern for consumers who are seeking “healthier” beverage options because it is considered a key culprit in the rise of obesity and diseases like diabetes, but it’s also a familiar ingredient and regarded as natural. Natural, non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia, monk fruit and sugar alcohols (xylitol, erythritol) are common in natural and organic products. However, some consumers avoid products with these types of sweeteners because they are not familiar with the ingredient, the ingredient may have a bitter or metallic taste, or the ingredient may cause an adverse reaction to the consumer such as stomach upset. From a formulation standpoint, they also can create challenges with mouthfeel and texture.

Sugar, cane sugar, and fruit juice (which naturally contains sugar) are some of the most common sweeteners in natural and organic energy drinks. In a survey of 20 natural and organic energy drinks, including the ones mentioned in this article, sugar or cane sugar were used in 12 beverages, and fruit juice was used in 7 (some products also use both). Stevia, monk fruit and sugar alcohols are used in only a handful of natural energy beverages, such as Feel, Zevia Energy, Honey Bee Energy and Matcha Bar. Additionally, there are a few products like Hi Ball Energy and Limitless Lightly Caffeinated Sparkling Water that don’t use sweeteners at all, which is a growing trend across beverage categories.

There’s plenty of opportunity to play with sweeteners when developing a new energy drink—especially when reducing or completely removing sugar—and to potentially highlight them as a differentiator when marketing your product. Examples of ways that brands can reduce sugar without compromising on taste include taking a “systems approach” by combining different sweeteners or different versions of one kind of sweetener (like stevia) to achieve an ideal taste or using natural flavor technologies that amplify the inherent sweetness of ingredients.

There are so many functional beverages on the market that consumers can pick and choose products that fulfill their individual needs. Energy drinks were one of the first mainstream functional beverages and continue to be in high demand. However, because consumers have become more discerning about what they put in their bodies, they want to experience function through natural means whenever possible.

Is there an ingredient or product that caught your attention, or another ingredient that you think will gain notice in the energy drink category? I’d love to continue the conversation about the functional beverages more in depth. Feel free to email me at [email protected]

Holly McHugh is the marketing associate at Imbibe, a Chicago-based beverage development company. She focuses on the company's external communications and brand awareness. She also monitors and analyzes beverage trends to guide clients in making strategic decisions about product development. McHugh’s market insights have been published in BevNet, Beverage Industry, Natural Products Insider, Prepared Foods, and Food Ingredients First. She has a bachelor's degree from Columbia College Chicago and a master's degree from the University of Denver.

According to foodallergy.org, approximately 15 million Americans have food allergies—and the prevalence of food allergies and associated anaphylaxis appears to be on the rise. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) reported food allergies in children increased by 50 percent between 1997 and 2011. And between 1997 and 2008, the prevalence of peanut or tree nut allergy more than tripled in U.S. children.

The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA) of 2004 identified the eight most common “major food allergens” in the United States. These foods account for 90 percent of food allergic reactions, and are the food sources from which many other ingredients are derived:

• Milk
• Eggs
• Fish (e.g., bass, flounder, cod)
• Crustacean shellfish (e.g., crab, lobster, shrimp)
• Tree nuts (e.g., almonds, walnuts, pecans)
• Peanuts
• Wheat
• Soybeans

FDA notes more than 160 foods can cause allergic reactions in people with food allergies. Sesame seed, mustard and celery are common examples outside the major eight list.

Gluten—commonly found in wheat, rye and barley—is not technically an allergen, but the problematic protein can wreak its own share of havoc for people who are intolerant or sensitive to it. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimates one in 100 people worldwide has the autoimmune disorder Celiac disease. Gluten sensitivity numbers are higher, likely 5 to 10 percent of the population, according to Celiac researchers Alessio Fasano, M.D., director of the University of Maryland’s Center for Celiac Research, and Peter Green, M.D., director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University.

Navigating life with a food allergy or gluten sensitivity can be challenging, particularly when it comes to eating foods someone else prepared or packaged. Allergen/Gluten Free is one of the categories being recognized in this year’s SupplySide CPG Editor's Choice Awards (ECAs). If your company recently launched a food or beverage innovation with an intentional focus on avoiding one of the eight major food allergens, another potential food allergy trigger or gluten—we’d love to hear about it.

Danielle Dunlap, vice president of marketing services for global exhibitions here at Informa, is our resident gluten-free aficionado. She’s found a laundry list of products she loves (and can safely eat) in our past ECA competitions. For instance, 2017 Allergen-Free winner Crunchmaster Protein Snack Crackers from TH Foods are kosher, vegan and free from gluten, soy and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—all while offering 17 g whole grains and 5 g protein per serving.

She also loves 2016’s winner Enjoy Life Foods’ Baking Mixes. The gluten-free, non-GMO line includes all-purpose flour, muffin, pizza crust, brownie and pancake+waffle varieties. Made from ancient grains, these overachievers include probiotics and plant-based protein, and are not only free from FALCPA’s eight major allergens, but the top 14 allergens recognized by the European Union (EU).

While both these products boasted gluten-free and additional allergen-free positioning, to be eligible for the Allergen/Gluten Free category, products only need to be free from one thing, whether gluten or a top allergen. If a product is free from additional allergens, that’s great; but all entrants will be evaluated equally for innovation, taste and the “cool” factor. Our judges would like to note, though, products should not tout “free from” positioning if the item does not typically contain that substance (such as gluten-free carrots or fish-free bread).

Avoiding certain ingredients while delivering a delicious experience is an art. And we’d love to see how your latest innovation stacks up against the competition. If your Allergen/Gluten Free product was launched to the U.S. consumer market between July 2017 and August 2018, click the following link to enter the 2018 ECAs.

Products (not prototypes) must be submitted by the CPG brands or their representatives, not by ingredient or component suppliers, and the submission deadline is Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2018. Please note, samples must be received by this date, so time is of the essence.

Five finalists in each category will be showcased through the SupplySide Health & Nutrition Network brands, and winners announced at SupplySide West in Las Vegas, Nov. 6-10, 2018.

Two advocacy groups on Wednesday sued USDA for failing to issue final regulations requiring disclosures for genetically engineered (GE) food by the deadline set in a federal statute.

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Center for Environmental Health (CEH) said the Trump administration missed the July 29, 2018 deadline that was imposed in legislation signed in 2016 by former President Barack Obama, requiring a National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS).

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has received more than 14,000 comments in response to its proposed regulation published in May. The deadline for submitting comments closed July 3.

“The public recognizes that having thousands of processed food products containing unlabeled GE ingredients is deceptive and misleading or, at best, confusing,” the lawsuit asserted. “The American public deserves full disclosure as well as the right to transparency and free choice in the marketplace, and they have waited long enough for these rights.”

The suit added: “This case is about giving Americans these long overdue rights as soon as possible, making the mandated GE labeling as meaningful as possible, and ensuring the public’s right to know what is in their food.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It seeks an order declaring USDA violated the law by failing to create a GE labeling standard by the July 29, 2018 deadline. The complaint also is seeking an order, requiring “USDA to finalize and issue the regulations implementing the statute as soon as reasonably practicable, according to a court-ordered timeline.”

A spokesperson for USDA said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

Many polls have shown Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of learning whether their food contains GE or genetically modified (GM) material—otherwise commonly known as GMOs (genetically modified organisms).

AMS’ proposed rule for GE foods would apply to manufacturers of conventional foods and dietary supplements, as well as retailers that sell products in bulk.

The proposal features several exemptions, including one for “very small” manufacturers with annual revenues under US$2.5 million. That exemption alone, the federal government said, would relieve from the required disclosures 74 percent of food manufacturers and 45 percent of supplement manufacturers.

Nonetheless, it’s projected the disclosure requirements would cover 96 percent of food products and 98 percent of dietary supplement products, respectively. And companies otherwise exempt from the requirements also would have the option of making voluntary disclosures.