Who benefits from GMO prohibition? Big chemical and agtech would make a fortune on designer crops. I imagine they could easily lobby if that was simply a matter of money.
Different for different types of GMO. Some would allow use of currently unusable land and easier entry so those who already have the usable land and don't want new entries perhaps. Everything that labels itself 'Organic', too or builds their brand around it, too I'd imagine.
At any rate, I'm not convinced it's so much a lobbying problem than appealing to a questionable public sentiment. How much of that sentiment is driven by profit and how much of it is driven by more mundane misconception is hard to tell (for me).
Edit:
> Big chemical and agtech
Not necessarily. Some GMO strains require less chemicals and make some of the tech redundant.
Lobbying can be very powerful, but it's also very far from the cynical caricature that legislation is consistently sold to the highest bidder.
One trivial example is that Google, one of the richest company in the world, has been trying to build housing in its home town of Mountain View for 20 years. Last I heard, nothing had happened.
Non-GMO and organic products still require fertilizers and pesticides that are manufactured by the chemical and agriculture industries. Organic, specifically, is essentially just freezing pesticide technology to the 50s. Somehow that's a good thing.
Organic is a huge industry which actively fights gmo products. Regardless of actual organic produce, you have to pay to get the organic certifiers and organic labeling.
Don't prohibit GMO, just invalidate the patents and regulate the results. If everyone can select the seeds that are designed best downstream farmers and consumers benefit from the reduction of monopoly.
Pesticide manufacturers, fertilizer manufacturers, seed companies without the gene editing know how. A very large number of people who are happy with the status quo and see disruption as a danger to their bottom line.
My point is that if all crops go organic, then they no longer have the higher margin of a premium product and are still at the current commodity price.
And my point is that everyone involved in organic certainly doesn’t want their narrative muddied by GMOs. If people accept that modified food is better, that destroys the demand for organic.
At any rate, I'm not convinced it's so much a lobbying problem than appealing to a questionable public sentiment. How much of that sentiment is driven by profit and how much of it is driven by more mundane misconception is hard to tell (for me).
Edit:
> Big chemical and agtech
Not necessarily. Some GMO strains require less chemicals and make some of the tech redundant.