gab270869's picture
why did teh GMOs spend 40million to stop lebelling laws for GMO products. being capitalist company you should let the market dictate what it wants and not force your products onto the market

A:Expert Answer

We agree with you completely—let the market decide.  Efforts to pass laws that require labeling of any foods, including those made with GMOs, are inconsistent with the market's “dictating what it wants.” Rather, it’s using the legislative process to try to gain an advantage in the marketplace.


We are often accused of being against labeling.  We are not.  If any food, including GM food, presented a safety risk to a certain population—for example, those allergic to a food ingredient—we most certainly would support a mandatory label on that food alerting consumers to this concern. But this is simply not the case. There is no evidence linking a food-safety or health risk to the consumption of GM foods.  There are hundreds of independent studies that demonstrate this (check out independent studies at Biofortified), in addition to the determinations from scientific and regulatory authorities around the world that GM foods on the market are as safe and nutritious as their non-GM counterparts [see FDA information here].  A few studies have asserted that such a risk exists, but each of these studies has been found not to be credible by the global scientific community.


We support the right of consumers to choose food that is healthy and nutritious.  As believers in GM technology, and having seen the benefits accrue to farmers and society alike (check out "GMOs and the Future of Agriculture"), we cannot support a label that conveys to consumers that food made from farmers’ crops grown with our seeds is less safe or nutritious than or different from conventional or organic food. We believe a government requirement to label a food “GM” would do just this.


We also recognize that GM technology is but one tool that will be needed to feed a burgeoning population using less land and fewer resources in the face of increasingly severe weather.  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that by 2050, we will need to double our current agricultural production, and 70 percent of this increase will need to come from new, efficient technologies.  In this regard, we support any agricultural production method that will help us to achieve global food security by 2050.  You will never see us oppose organic farming, for example.


Returning to your question on labeling and letting the market decide, we support voluntary, market-based labeling to promote one type of product over another, including labels for the presence or absence of GM ingredients.  Currently, for consumers who wish to choose food that does not contain GM ingredients, marketing labels such as “USDA Organic” are being used by food companies to meet their consumers' demand.


gmosrock's picture

getthefacts4achange's picture

you could also ask the question why did three millionaires involved in the organic food industry fund millions into the CA labeling poll when their products already are labeled and they wouldn't be able to charge more for their products if people thought GM products were safe (oh I answered my own question)

Bart's picture

Your comment that GM crops are needed to serve future increased populations are false.
GM crops do not produce higher yields and have done poorly in drought conditions--something that will be a greater issue in the future.
I agree that the market should decide as long as they are given ALL the information, which companies like Monsanto fight hard to supress. That would include product labeling.

Cornlover's picture

Bart did great last year in the Midwest during the drought .

Know Them By Their Fruits's picture

The statement that GMO food is nutritionally the same as non-GMO is NOT TRUE. this study showed GMO corn as nutritionally inferior to non-GMO corn.

It also showed higher levels of toxins:

And referencing any FDA studies to try and show GMOs are safe is like asking the thief to guard the bank vault!

Michael R. Taylor was VP for Monsanto, now working at the FDA... come on, really? How is there no conflict of interest?

As long as there are Monsanto ex-executives working for the FDA and USDA, to cite either one of these organizations is really not helping the case for GMOs, as they have no credibility as long as these conflicts of interest exist.

It is a travesty that men who worked FOR the very company that profits from GMO are now shaping policy at the FDA and USDA.

You are insulting us, the public, by using such references, shame on you.

Listen not to what a person SAYS, but rather observe what he DOES, as action reveals the hearts true intentions.

Sanger's picture

The reason many consumers feel they cannot trust GMOs and their producers is because there has been a lot of deception from you. I applaude that you started this site, but was disheartened when I saw you lie! In this post, you state, "We are often accused of being against labeling. We are not." However, in an earlier post you stated, "We oppose mandatory labeling of GMO food because we believe such a label would convey to consumers that food made from farmers’ crops grown with our seeds is less safe or nutritious or different from conventional or organic food." So which is it? Do you support or oppose labeling?

Ian Anderson's picture

People don't seem to understand the difference between mandatory labeling and labeling at all. Ms. Enright can be against forced labeling and not be against labeling at all. They aren't the same thing. When you're required to label something for being inferior/unsafe when there is no scientific evidence to back up that claim, it's incredibly unfair.

concerned carol's picture

From the beginning I have been concerned that the biotechnology companies have been able to have two contradictory perspectives accepted and benefit from this. Namely, their GMO are different enough to warrant a patent and different enough that they can identify that a farmer's field has been contaminated with these GMO's. (Cf.,e.g., the case of Percy Schmeizer in Canada) AND yet also claim, as Dr. Enright does above, that they are not different from conventional crops.
If they were truly not different, they should not be patentable and it should not be possible to detect them!
My concern is not only for the crop itself, but for the massive amounts of herbicides that are sprayed upon them. I believe that there is substantial evidence that beneficial soil microbes are being killed and the soil itself is being harmed.

gmosrock's picture

Without every GMO labeled, it's impossible to know if a product contains GMOs or not. That is the logic behind labeling. It's not a punishment; it's an identification. If GMOs are safe and healthy, there is no need to resist the overwhelming consensus of the American people. Just label it.

Cornlover's picture

Gmosrock read Anderson's he has it right.

Rex Peterson's picture

I read your link.
GMO's for corn borer traits are to reduce risk. If the crop has no corn borer, it is more profitable to be without. It is like any insurance. No casualty, the insurance is wasted. There are multiple approaches to insect control, and most farmers do use integrated pest management.
The roundup ready trait offers some other advantages besides yield. Conservation tillage farmers believe plowing and cultivating for weed control to be catastrophic to the soil, promote erosion and greenhouse gas release, in addition to destruction of the biosphere. The ability to apply glyphosphate after planting and up to 6 weeks after emergence is a tremendous benefit. With proper supplemental herbicides and crop rotations, even super weeds can be controlled. Glyphosate is one of the least toxic herbicides. I know that the organic guys claim they have burn down weed control, but the sterile soil where my silage pile used to be tells me that ascetic acid and oxalic acid can be problems also (and they take a lot more to do the job). I know that cover crops can be crimped to kill them and form a mulch, but in my climate the growing season is too short to wait for them to bloom (which is when the crimping finally works) and the Rodale studies included transplanting tomato plants which quickly provided cover. Unfortunately, I have no market for tomatoes. Organic works for some, but not all of us.

AgrSci1's picture

Food labeling laws need to be based on science not fear. If we start down this path, there is no limit to the information that could be demanded to be displayed on the label. For example:

- may contains crops planted during a full-moon
- may contains crops planted on the 13th day of the month
- may contains crops harvested on the 13th day of the month
- only contains crops planted using no-till techniques
- only contains crops planted using conventional tillage
- . . . .

QuestionEverything's picture

Know Them By Their Fruits - You are the only one insulting anybody in this thread - Did you ever think that maybe someone who worked in the Biotech industry, and at a pretty high level, may have exactly the experience and skill set needed in order to navigate and shape the complicated regulatory processes needed to ensure that the technology is safe? Monsanto may have set up protections for themselves and their assets, but those holding the highest regulatory positions will have hell to pay with the American people if they make wrong choices (remember Michael Brown after Katrina?) Why are you here if not to have an open mind and at least listen to what is being said? If you think it's all lies and propaganda, then why read it at all?

MommyRiz's picture

I think it’s also important to note that the labeling campaigns have not been about supporting the general publics “right to know” what they are eating. If that was the case, the push for GM specification would be on the ingredient list not on a warning label “with the words "genetically engineered" stated clearly and conspicuously on the front of the package”. This warning lable on a safe food is what the Food/Ag/biotech industries were fighting.

It has been determined by many credible scientific organizations (AMA, WHO, National academy of Sciences, The European Commission, Royal Society of Medicine, to name a few) that there is no evidence to support that GM foods are not safe. Demanding warning labels on the front of packages, implying that they are not safe, is unreasonable when respected science says otherwise.
If we follow GM-labeling proponent reasoning (sighting studies contradicting the stance of the vast scientific majority), we would also require warning labels for high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, preservatives and dyes.