Claim GMO labeling opponents outspend pro-labeling groups 50 to 1

money corn

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

The debate being waged over whether or not to label genetically engineered (GMO) foods is an especially contentious one. Are both sides spending big to win the fight? Not exactly.

As we’ve reported, while the precise amount spent by the food and agriculture industries isn’t possible to tally*, an August estimate by the Environmental Working Group suggests that the number could be as high as $51.6 million for the first half of 2015 alone. This figure comes from federal lobbying and disclosure declarations filed by spenders that include the Grocery Manufacturers of America, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Monsanto, DuPont, Kellogg, Kraft, and General Mills.

In response to this reporting, some have suggested that labeling proponents are spending nearly as much in an effort to bolster their own products. We decided to take a look at what companies and groups in favor of GMO-labeling have spent. Here’s what we found.

The companies backing the JustLabelIt campaign, a collaborative effort of organizations and businesses working to label GMOs provided figures directly to Civil Eats, as did the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and U.S. Right-to-Know.

Here’s what these groups spent in 2015:

JustLabelIt: $580,000
Organic Valley: $20,000
Organic Trade Association: $94,400
U.S. Right-To-Know: $114,000
Environmental Working Group/EWG Action Fund: $467,000
Consumers Union: $150,000
Center for Food Safety: $20,000

Grand Total: $1,425,500

Spending by these same groups in 2014 came to just over $1,030,000. In other words, it looks as if the pro-labeling side is being outspent by as much as a ratio of 50-to-1.

* Federal lobbying and disclosure declarations filed by registered lobbyists show money spent on GMO issues, but these are often bundled with other spending, so exact numbers are not publicly available.

Read full, original post: GMO Labeling Fight: Big Spending on Both Sides?

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Diet Soda with Measuring Tape 2
Science challenges anti-soda activists: No, sodas won’t make you fat
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Strawberry Clamshell with Warning Sticker
Viewpoint: Activists hype ‘dangerous level’ of pesticide residues in Driscoll berries: Separating health concerns from fear-mongering
Screenshot 2026-10-16 at 5.38
PFAS in Agriculture: Science, Uncertainty, and Risk Communication
Rustic Skillet of Raw Brains
‘Weird food’? Testicle- and brain-eating, supplement-gulping MAHA health food enthusiasts defend their ‘natural’ diets
Government Briefing on Autism Trends
Viewpoint: ‘Statistical murder’: Kennedy’s expanding record of “duplicity and mendacity”
Serene Mature Woman in Abstract Waves
Testosterone’s growing appeal to women: It anecdotally mildly improves sex life, but are there any other potential benefits—or red flags?
Prescription Capsules Scattered on Twenty-Dollar Bills
Facts & Fallacies podcast: America's health care system is broken. A doctor explains how to fix it, Part 2
png_cheese_Raw_milk
100% raw milk, 100% misguided: As MAHA-fueled demand for unpasteurized milk soars, American Academy of Pediatrics renews call for a ban on its sale and distribution
Silhouettes Beneath the Mosquito Nets
Guinea-Bissau halts widely condemned RFK Jr.-backed vaccine trial that would have withheld life-saving vaccines from thousands of newborns
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.