Advertisement

July 25, 2014

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Labeling Amendment Rejected Overwhelmingly in the Senate

On Thursday, by a vote of 27-71, the Senate defeated an amendment to the farm bill from Senator Bernie Sanders that sought to ensure that states can enforce their own laws requiring genetically modified foods to have special labels. 

Some, including Senator Sanders, believe that biotech food companies are pursuing a legal strategy to prevent states from requiring the labels. "When the state of Vermont, and other states go forward in passing legislation to label genetically modified food, they have been threatened by Monsanto and other large biotech companies with costly lawsuits," Sanderssaid on the Senate floor. 

The amendment would have stated in federal law: "Notwithstanding any other Federal law (including regulations), a State may require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that State have a label on the container or package of the food, beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient."

Data: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to the Senate from the PACs of key companies supporting the use of genetically engineered crops for the 2010, 2012 and 2014 election cycles (January 1, 2009 - March 17, 2013). Contributions data source: FEC

Company

2010 Election Cycle

2012 Election Cycle

2014 Election Cycle

Grand Total

American Crystal Sugar

$194,500

$188,500

$22,500

$405,500

Monsanto Company

$79,250

$83,500

 

$162,750

American Farm Bureau

$77,483

$74,951

 

$152,434

Syngenta Corporation

$55,500

$61,500

 

$117,000

Archer Daniels Midland

$39,500

$57,500

$1,000

$98,000

National Cotton Council

$42,500

$50,500

 

$93,000

Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative

$36,400

$34,000

$2,000 

$72,400

Cargill, Inc.

$39,000

$31,500

 

$70,500

Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative

$25,800

$37,000

 

$62,800

Scotts Miracle-Gro

$19,500

$6,500

 

$26,000

Total:

$609,433

$625,451

$25,500

$1,260,384

  • Members of the Senate have received $1,260,384 from the PACs of these organizations.

  • Senator Debbie Stabenow, author of the Farm Bill and Chair of the Agriculture Committee, has received $90,500 from these organizations, more than any other senator.

  • Senator Sanders has received no money from these organizations.

Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions from PACs to current members of the 113th Congress since January 1, 2009, based on latest available data from the FEC as of March 17, 2013.

Image credit: WILPF

© Copyright MapLight

About the Author

MapLight is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, research organization that reveals money's influence on politics.

Elected officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws. This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal.

MapLight connects data on campaign contributions, politicians, votes, industries, companies, and more to show patterns of influence that could never be seen before. 

We currently research money and influence in the...

510-868-0894

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Te