U.S. GMO labeling foes triple spending in first half of this year over 2013

Sept 3 Wed Sep 3, 2014 12:01am EDT

Sept 3 (Reuters) - Opponents of mandatory labeling for foods made with genetically modified organisms spent more than $27 million in the first six months of this year on GMO-related lobbying, roughly three times their spending in all of 2013, according to an analysis released Wednesday.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and major food makers such as Coca-Cola Co and PepsiCo Inc and top biotech seed makers Monsanto Co and DuPont were among heavy spenders on GMO labeling-related lobbying, according to a report issued by the Environmental Working Group.

The group analyzed lobbying disclosure forms that cited labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) along with other policy issues.

Coca-Cola spent $4.8 million through the second quarter of this year; PepsiCo spent $2.34 million; DuPont spent $2.4 million, while Monsanto spent $1.08 million, according to the report.

All told, the opponents of GMO labeling disclosed $15.2 million in lobbying expenditures for the second quarter of 2014, bringing the six-month total for 2014 to $27.5 million. That compared with $9.3 million disclosed on lobbying the issue by food and biotechnology companies in 2013, according to EWG, a Washington-based nonprofit that supports GMO labeling.

In contrast, supporters of GMO labeling disclosed $1.9 million in lobbying expenditures for the first half of 2014, up slightly from $1.6 million spent in 2013.

The expenditures by food and biotechnology companies come as the group pushes for passage of a bill introduced in April by U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo that would block state laws that require GMO labeling on food packages.

Vermont in May became the first U.S. state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling law that requires no other trigger to become effective. More than 20 other states are considering mandatory labeling of GMO foods, including Colorado and Oregon, which have the issue on the ballot for the November election.

Consumer groups and lawmakers pushing for mandatory labeling of GMOs say there is no scientific consensus on their safety, and consumers have the right to know if GMOs are in the food they eat. They say high pesticide use associated with GMOs and pesticide residues on food containing GMOS is a health concern. Last year, a group of international scientists said more independent research is needed on GMOS.

But the food and agriculture industries, including the makers of genetically modified corn, soybeans, canola and other crops widely used in packaged foods, say their products are proven safe. They have sued to block the Vermont law and say that labeling will imply GMO products are unsafe, confuse consumers and increase costs for consumers as well as farmers and food companies. (Reporting by Carey Gillam in Kansas City; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
MischaPopoff wrote:
When you refer to “Consumer groups and lawmakers pushing for mandatory labeling of GMOs,” what you really need to mention is the fact that these are pro-organic activists. Organic activists are certainly allowed to claim whatever they want when it comes to the safety of GMO crops, but they cannot claim that GMOs contaminate organic crops. and this explains why organic farmers are not pushing for the mandatory labeling of GMOs. They know it’s none of their business what their neighbors choose to grow on their land.

Sep 03, 2014 10:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.