The line from Monsanto has not changed: biotechnology enables the production of better crops; "better for the consumer, better for the farmer and better for the environment".
This is vigorously contested by Genetic Concern although, much to their frustration, the case brought by one of their founder members, Ms Clare Watson, had to focus on how the Environmental Protection Agency evaluated Monsanto's application, not the scientific merits of either side.
She claimed the EPA should refuse the application until the US company had proved its sugar beet, which contains a gene making it resistant to Roundup herbicide, posed no risk to humans, animals or the environment.
The outcome is an endorsement of the EPA in what was effectively the biggest legal challenge to its operation since its foundation.
From Monsanto's perspective (not to mention the beleaguered European Commission), it represents an important endorsement of the EU evaluation procedures for release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Defeat, it conceded in May, could have had a snowball effect across Europe with regulatory authorities getting cold feet on their technology.
The outcome will be regarded by the genetically modified food industry as a significant win after a difficult time in Europe. Field trials have been sabotaged and some countries have stood over their GM food bans, while others banned individual products, and there are moves to tighten the evaluation of products, prompted by consumer resistance.
Far from being an untested, unpredictable technology as Genetic Concern claims, Monsanto insists its products have undergone extensive research. The EPA said it had put the application "under the most rigorous examination, more rigorous than Monsanto had experienced in any other country".
After evidence concluded in July, Monsanto said it was happy that Ms Watson "now accepts the case concerns regulations governing foreseeable risk, rather than some outlandish Frankenstein-food scenario as had been maintained by some opponents of the technology". Mr Justice O'Sullivan said: "If the intricate balance of nature is capable of instilling respect, not to say awe, in a relatively untutored mind such as my own, it is small wonder that persons of elevated sensibility as the applicant [Ms Watson] express deep misgivings at what they perceive as experimental tampering at the heart of this delicate balance." But he emphasised the case was not about "the merits and weights of strongly held opposing opinions" on genetic engineering.
On what was perhaps the only scientific issue determined by the court, he ruled the EPA was not required to ensure all risks to health and the environment be reduced to "effectively zero".
With the judge finding that Ms Watson had failed to substantiate any of the grounds supporting her judicial review application, an appeal to the Supreme Court is unlikely.
So what now for Genetic Concern? In a recent submission on GMO policy to the Government, it expressed concern at how the PR company Burson Marsteller, global specialists on crisis management, had advised the European biotechnology sector on overcoming negative perceptions of genetic engineering.
The submission claimed the organisation EuropaBio had been told most reporters/editors were preoccupied with producing saleable material under extreme deadline pressure. Burson Marsteller, the submission claimed, advised that EuropaBio "turn itself into the journalists' best and most reliable continuing source of biotechnology/bioindustries' inspiration and information."
In a sense Genetic Concern borrowed that particular idea and in less than 18 months became an effective campaign organisation. This should continue with new campaigns, notably against the EU labelling system for GM foods and in favour of segregation of GM crops from non-modified produce.