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.

The existing agri corporations.

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.

I can imagine that a huge corporation does both fertilizers and genetic engineering. German BASF is one such example.

I can imagine a lot of things, most of them cost a lot of money.

> Who benefits from GMO prohibition?

Literally the entire current farming industry. Especially the high markup “organic” segment.

I don't think that applies for monoculture commodity crops like corn and soy.

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.

Why would a prohibition on GMO lead to a benefit of all the farming community? (That was your original comment)

Because it preserves the status quo. GMO crops, if they live up the promise, will disrupt the majority of current food crops.

Major economics changes in any industry entirely wipe out lots of participants. Investments in certain types of equipment no longer make sense, farms in particular areas stop making sense, etc.