I'm not up on recent agriculture data but I seem to recall that even before the rise of GMO the US alone produced enough surplus wheat to feed a large portion of the rest of the world. Is GMO necessary to prevent starvation, or is it more a way for agribusiness to patent the food supply?

This doesn't answer your question, but many farmers are happy to plant GMOs because they have a different risk profile than non GMO.

(For instance, Roundup Ready crops get planted because farmers prefer the risk profile, not from lack of other seed)

In Punjab we believe that the much of these farmer suicides and issues are related to genetically modified organisms.

https://www.rt.com/news/206787-monsanto-india-farmers-suicid...

> Monsanto, which has just paid out $2.4 million to US farmers, settling one of many lawsuits it’s been involved in worldwide, is also facing accusations that its seeds are to blame for a spike in suicides by India farmers.

> The accusations have not transformed into legal action so far, but criticism of Monsanto has been mounting, blaming the giant company for contributing to over 290,000 suicides by Indian farmers over the last 20 years.

http://naturalsociety.com/farmers-in-india-reject-gm-crops-a...

> Farmers in India are having doubts that genetically modified cotton is providing much benefit after a whitefly attack ravaged their fields.

> The whitefly attack on the Bt cotton variety in Punjab and Haryana reportedly contributed to the suicides of at least 3 farmers around the city of Bhatinda and tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets to demand state aid. [1]

So no, actually, we are most certainly free to reject genetically modified crops.

So why is there such a strong lobby against GMO labeling laws?

I've seen a few reasons that make sense;

1. GMO is really really hard to define. Figuring out what would need to be labeled would be ripe for manipulation. (i.e. is material genetically inserted from the same species, like doubling up a promoter region, GMO? Or if you discover something through a GM but recreate it 'naturally', is that still considered GM?)

2. The average consumer knows very little science, they'll likely avoid products that are labeled GM, whether or not it makes any sense to do so. Handicapping a potentially important technology to appease the scientifically ignorant seems like pretty bad policy.

From my perspective, opt-in initiatives like the non-GMO project are a better way to handle the labeling requirements.

That's a really good question. Surprisingly, I don't think there's just the one simple explanation - that it's regulatory capture based in the activities of lobbyists.

I think it's also a reaction to the fairly draconian anti-tobacco lobby from say, 1980 until the United States v. Phillip Morris decision. This is part of the Prohibtionist American anti-pattern.