A seven-day boycott of General Mills products (21-28 April) is underway, led by grassroots organisation People’s Union USA.
But unlike recent DEI-focused protests against brands like Walmart and Meta, this campaign targets broader systemic concerns: food safety, environmental impact, corporate lobbying and tax accountability.
In a video posted on Instagram earlier this month, People’s Union founder John Schwarz called General Mills “a symbol of unchecked corporate power”, citing alleged toxic ingredients; supposed opposition to GMO labelling transparency; and its contribution to the global plastic pollution crisis.
“This is a company that owns half the cereal aisle floods our stores with ultra-processed garbage and targets our children with sugary poison,” said Schwarz.
The Minneapolis-based food giant, known for iconic brands like Cheerios, Pillsbury, Yoplait, Betty Crocker and Häagen-Dazs, hasn’t responded publicly to the boycott. Yet, its scale makes it a prominent target in what organisers say is a larger push to “vote with your dollar”.
A movement expanding
Boycotts are hardly new, but 2025 has already seen a sharp uptick in coordinated economic protests. These have included February’s one-day ‘economic blackout’, a 40-day boycott of Target over DEI rollbacks and the more recent Economic Blackout 2.0, which ended on 20 April. Future week-long boycotts are already scheduled for Amazon, Walmart and McDonald’s, while the National Action Network has signalled a possible action against PepsiCo over its DEI policy reversal.
But while those campaigns largely aim to reverse DEI cuts, the General Mills boycott signals a branching of the movement into consumer and environmental activism. It’s also more sweeping in scope: the call to boycott includes not just breakfast cereals, but a vast swathe of American pantry staples, from Nature Valley granola bars and Old El Paso taco shells to Annie’s mac and cheese and even Blue Buffalo pet food.
This broader messaging may help the movement attract supporters from outside traditional social justice circles but also risks diluting its focus.
“This protest isn’t just about DEI,” said Schwarz. “It’s about the food system, the environment, corporate lobbying and holding multinationals accountable.
The effectiveness question
Can a weeklong boycott dent a multinational like General Mills? Historical data offers mixed answers.
Take February’s 24-hour economic blackout. Cardlytics, which tracks around half of US card transactions, reported an increase in total consumer spend that day: up 12% over the same date in 2024. Momentum Commerce reported slightly higher Amazon sales. On the flip side, foot traffic analytics from Placer.ai showed dips at major retailers like Walmart and Starbucks.
In the case of Bud Light, backlash from conservative consumers in 2023 over a transgender-inclusive campaign led to a significant and lasting sales decline. But such outcomes are rare. Sustained pressure - not symbolic gestures - tends to make the difference.
With General Mills, success may hinge less on short-term sales drops and more on public awareness, shareholder engagement and reputational risk. As Schwarz and other organisers plan further protests throughout 2025, they appear to be playing a long game.
The Chicago-based activist and frequent social media commentator said he also plans to publish a ‘scorecard’ after the boycott concludes, outlining participation levels, media coverage and perceived corporate response.
General Mills has so far stayed quiet on the boycott, though public scrutiny could mount. In today’s volatile media landscape, silence can be strategic but also risky if narratives are allowed to harden unchallenged. The company may yet be forced to reckon with rising consumer scrutiny, particularly over lobbying activity, ingredient sourcing and environmental stewardship.
