GMO companies spend millions of dollars – billions of them, collectively – to stop or at least slow down federal and state GMO labeling laws.

At the moment, food processing companies only have to list a few superficial information about the ingredients, nutritional value, and allergens. GMO labeling laws aim to also list a food’s GMO ingredients on its packaging, thus providing complete details on said product. And given the controversial information we have on GMOs so far, labeling laws seem compulsory. Not to mention the thorough record keeping that would offer information on how GMOs affect other crops and the environment.gmo companies who oppose labelingSo, here are the companies that invested the most into fighting GMO labeling laws and what motivated them to do so.

List of GMO Companies that Fight GMO Labeling Laws

Washington’s I-522 initiative and California’s Proposition 37 are the most popular GMO labeling initiatives of the last decades. Even though highly endorsed by public opinion, neither of these made it to the implementation stage. They were voted out at the beginning of this decade after pressure and financial motivation from companies that use GMOs in their daily activities.

The first opponents of GMO labeling laws are, of course, the GMO seed companies that make the GMO food industry possible. But such laws would also affect giants of the food industry, which we’ll get to in a bit. For now, here’s the GMO company list with the biggest fish in the industry that would probably starve out or drift away if GMOs were labeled:

Monsanto

logo of monstanto

Monsanto has 23% of the global proprietary seed market. However, they seem to be responsible for 87% of the 2007’s GMO crops by also licensing other companies into the biotech seeds technology. Therefore, it’s safe to say they dominate the GMO seed market in the U.S.A. and worldwide. Here’s how much Monsanto spent in 2012 and 2013 to prevent GMO labeling initiatives from becoming laws:

Washington’s I-522: $5,374,411.

California’s Prop 37: $7,100,000.

DuPont

lofo of dupont

In the U.S.A., DuPont is just as big and harmful as Monsanto is, but not many consumers know that. The company’s main income sources are their artificial fertilizers and pesticides, but after seeing how well these pair up with GMOs, DuPont quickly followed Monsanto into the GMO seed market. And just how much they spent on only 2 initiatives that would have meddled with their profit and sustainability? Over $ 9 million:

Washington’s I-522: $3,880,159.

California’s Prop 37: $5,200,000.

Bayer CropScience

the logo of bayer crop science

Bayer is generally known for their pharmaceuticals, but there are plenty of other industries the company is successful in. Agriculture is another one, with Bayer CropScience profiting from selling pesticides, fertilizers, and bio-engineered seeds. Bayer registered its highest sales point in 2012, with over $52 billion that year alone. Therefore, it’s only natural their CropScience subdivision generously donated over $2.6 million to stopping labeling laws in the U.S.A.

Washington’s I-522: $591,645.

California’s Prop 37: $2,000,000.

Dow Agrosciences

dow agrosciences logo

Dow Agrosciences is all about manufacturing pesticide-resistant crops and developing artificial pesticides from dangerous chemicals. With aggressive attempts to push for approval for a new herbicide that’s more toxic than glyphosate, the company tries to increase its profits even further. Even though they had a budget generous enough to afford more than $2.5 million on labeling laws in 2012 and 2013.

Washington’s I-522: $591,645.

California’s Prop 37: $2,000,000.

GMO Food Companies

But the list of GMO companies that would be affected by labeling laws goes beyond seed production. Plenty of food processing giants would face a crisis if their products would be labeled as containing GMOs. These include General Mills, Nestle, Coca Cola, Kellogg’s, Kraft, and many, many others. Here’s a comprehensive list of GMO companies and their GMO products.

non GMO companies

Of course, this doesn’t mean each and every one of their products is packed with GMOs. It only means that, whenever possible, they replaced non-GMO ingredients with GMOs. Let’s take Coca Cola for example. After taking a look at their list of products that contain GMOs, one might wonder why so many beverages have GMOs. Well, sugar is one of the basic ingredients in their products. And a great deal of our sugar supply comes from GMO sugar beets.

But sugar is not a GMO per se since it never was an organism in the first place. The refining process eliminates every strain of DNA and proteins from the beet, leaving behind sugar that is structurally identical to sugar extracted from organic plants. The first instinct would be to call sugar a non-GMO product. But it still comes from GMOs, doesn’t it? Would it be fair to label this product as having GMO ingredients, even though no altered DNA was found in it?

A Short Rundown

GMO companies continue to infiltrate institutions and political groups, to manipulate the public perception, and to sell their products at premium prices for their own benefit. this might make the fight difficult, but never impossible. If we can’t eliminate GMO companies from the market through justice, we can at least vote with our money and choose not to fund what might be a crime against humanity.

Just be sure to check out the non-GMO seed and food companies when grocery shopping, only buy produce from reliable sources, and thoroughly wash and cook all foods.

Image sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.