New investment rules would limit shareholder advocacy attempts to influence company stance on GMOs, climate change

danimals

The U.S. Security and Exchange Commission formally proposed a new rule on [November 6] that could make it harder for shareholders to submit proposals dealing with social issues like executive pay and climate change.

The proposed rule …. would hike re-submission thresholds for shareholder resolutions, or recommendations that ordinary retail investors can make to a company’s board.

Investors who own at least 1% or $2,000 worth of a company’s stock can file shareholder resolutions and add their input to various board decisions. The SEC proposed changing that eligibility requirement.

According to shareholder advocacy groups …. higher re-submission thresholds can help quash awareness around social issues that take time to prove financially material to the company’s operations.

In 2013, for example, As You Sow filed a shareholder proposal that would require Abbott Laboratories to stop using genetically modified crops until long-term studies show that GMOs are not harmful to humans. While only 3.2% of Abbott shareholders supported the resolution, As You Sow filed similar resolutions until 2015, where 6% of Abbott shareholders supported it. Despite the thin support, Abbott Labs eventually released a non-GMO baby formula to meet consumer demand.

Read full, original article: Shareholders would have tougher time submitting resolutions under SEC’s proposed rule

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

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

Screenshot 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot 2025-08-25 203032
Mazzenga’s 20-year old muscles: How a still-going-strong 92-year old sprinter wins every race she enters
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-3.33.44-PM
Viewpoint: Vaccine deniers are attacking a life-saving Vitamin K shot for newborns that isn’t even a vaccine
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-1.44.09-PM
Viewpoint: Scientists have scrapped the worst-case climate scenario. Is that proof that climate change is a hoax, as Trump claims?
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-1.35.30-PM
Viewpoint: Social media and fake natural health propaganda fuel surge in use of mostly useless supplements
px extra strength tylenol and tylenol pm
Why ‘null-findings’ on Tylenol’s safety for pregnant women barely move the needle on countering misinformation
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-10.19.30-AM
‘Natural’ wellness supplements linked to liver injury
Screen Shot at AM
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Right-wing politics bad for your health? Separating speculation from science
ChatGPT-Image-May-28-2026-12_56_54-PM
Viewpoint: Vaccines' non-specific effects? The ‘shoddy’ Danish couple whose 'research’ inspires RFK, Jr.’s health delusion
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-10-2026-12_57_24-PM
Viewpoint: Why gene-editing babies is moral and certain to happen
Credit: ACSH
Viewpoint: Who and what’s to blame for the surge in vaccine-preventable diseases?
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-2.12.30-PM
Some plants can poison you. So how did humans figure out what is safe to eat?
glp menu logo outlined

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