Brandon Zimmerman's picture
Why did your industry fight so hard to water down the recent GMO labeling law passed in Connecticut? Also, why did your industry spend over $50 million in 2012 to defeat similar labeling laws in California?

A:Expert Answer

The industry is spending money to defeat legislation that is largely drafted out of misunderstanding and fear. Those pressing for this legislation in many cases are ultimately looking to ban a technology that we absolutely need to continue to feed our growing population at affordable prices using less inputs and less land. I’ve recently posted an article that addresses Prop 37,  "Standing Up to the True Mission of the 'Just Label It' Crowd," on the  Truth About Trade & Technology blog.  A previous response on GMO Answers, available here, addresses the Connecticut labeling issue.

The response, included below, addresses issues raised in your question. If you have additional questions after reading this response, please ask.

Anti-biotech activists are like zombies in a horror movie: No matter how many times you defeat them, they keep snapping back to life, determined to wreak brand-new havoc.

"So, a month after suffering a bad loss in California on Election Day, they’re shifting their misconceived movement to Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont and elsewhere. The next engagement is already well underway in the state of Washington, where the frightening extremism of what they really hope to achieve is also on full display.


"Their outrageous goal is nothing less than a complete ban of crops enhanced by biotechnology—and they must be stopped.

"The opponents of biotechnology try to present a reasonable face to the public, but their real agenda is radical—and it’s already on full view in the state of Washington.

"On Election Day, as Californians were casting their ballots against Prop 37, voters in Washington’s San Juan County considered an even more dangerous measure: a total ban on the growing of GM crops.

"San Juan County, home to fewer than 16,000 people, is tiny compared to California and its population of almost 37 million. So its drastic initiative didn’t generate much attention during the campaign season—and neither did the result, in which 61 percent of the county’s voters decided to outlaw the kinds of plants that farmers in much of the rest of the country take for granted.

"This is the true mission of the anti-biotech movement: the utter elimination of genetically modified crops from the United States.

"If the 'Just Label It' crowd wanted to stop at labeling, its leaders would have condemned the vote in San Juan County. But they did no such thing. For people who love to spew out press releases and shout on blogs, their silence was curious—and also revealing.

"The rest of us must speak out against both the effort to push new food-label laws and the even more harmful agenda that lies behind it. We know the truth about modern food and agriculture, and it’s our job once again to make sure voters hear about it as well."


RichBrooks's picture

Let deal with the FACTS:

According to evidence from the archives of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), it has been established that MONSANTO was FULLY AWARE of the potential for glyphosate to cause CANCER in mammals, as long ago as 1981. [ Read the attached links to a couple of THEIR documents at the EPA, from 1982 & 1986. (1)(2)]

>>Instead of disclosing it, they called the science "inconvenient" and hid the facts from other scientists, the courts, and the people, as a trade secret, while at the same time telling us it was safe.
Dr. Brian John says: "In 1981 both Monsanto and the EPA were already aware of MALIGNANT TUMORS and PRE-CANCEROUS conditions in the test animals which were fed small doses of glyphosate in the secret feeding experiments”<< (3)

There has been a huge Increase in Herbicides since the introduction of GMO’s. 527 million pound increase in the United States between 1996 and 2011. With 73% increase in 2013 alone, and higher increases since. A large increase has been attributed to weed resistance.

The main herbicide is Glyphosate (with the additional POEA. Which increases it’s toxicity).

In USA, it is now impossible to find a GMO product that does not have a measurable amount of a carcinogenic chemical in it.

USDA scientist Robert Kremer, confirmed that Glyphosate damages soil.

Farmers who have developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic kidney disease from working with these chemicals, are starting to succeed in lawsuits against Monsanto, in Hawaii and Nebraska.

Glyphosate is being detected in the water and most of the food, currently consumed in this country.

GMO’s do not benefit consumers. They are no more productive than a farmer using well maintained rotated crop management. They are not cheaper, healthier, or taster. They restrict farmers from saving seeds, and force them to buy expensive seeds and more chemicals.

Farmers should be protected, and consumers given a choice of what food they purchase, especially if it contains measurable amounts of chemicals that Monsanto, the manufacturer, and the EPA, show to be CARCINOGENIC (1)(2)(3)(4)(5).

(1) Report from 1986. US EPA Archives

(2)Report from 1982. US EPA Archives


(4) Schinasi L and Maria E. Leon ME (2014) Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure to Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Groups and Active Ingredients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11: 4449-4527.

(5) Glyphosate pathways to_modern diseases IV cancer and related pathologies: