fI!I ~


II·· I!!' a

1 Pepsi Way

Somers, New York 10589


April 4, 2013

Trixie Devine 402 Jacquelyn Dr Elkins, WV 26241-9546

Dear Trixie: Thank you for contacting us to share your thoughts. We want to assure you that PepsiCo supports clear labeling that helps consumers make the right decisions for themselves and their families. However, PepsiCo joined a broad coalition of family farmers, food companies, scientists, doctors, and others who opposed California Proposition 37 for a number of reasons: - State-by-state approaches to food labeling create an inconsistent and confusing patchwork of information for the consumer. - Prop 37 unreasonably limited the use of "natural" on products that use traditional manufacturing processes. For example, products that use canning, freezing, milling or smoking would not be considered "natural" under this proposition. If it passes, Prop 37 would mean consumers would see far fewer natural product offerings in the store. - Labeling products to meet individual state mandates drives up costs for farmers and food manufacturers, which ultimately consumers pay for in the form of higher prices at the grocery store. - The complexity of the Prop 37 labeling requirement would also increase lawsuits against businesses and add new bureaucracy, red tape and costs for California taxpayers. PepsiCo believes consumers want and need choices--choices they are currently receiving. We for our part continue to promote transparent labeling of ingredients on our packaging. If at some future point the FDA were to explore a uniform national standard in this area, PepsiCo certainly would engage in the dialogue. We hope this information is helpful. Thanks again for writing.


Dennis Consumer Relations Associate Supervisor

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.