By Chip and Bernadette Tuthill

Proposition 105 would rehire labeling of genetically modified food in Colorado.

In a ABC poll on July 10, 2014, 75 percent (plus or minus 4.38 percent) of Coloradans supported mandatory labeling and would vote yes to require labeling of GMOs.

Argument 1 in the State Ballot Information "Blue Book," suggests food prices will rise if Prop 105 were enacted. Much of the information is similar to that found in a Northbridge Environmental Consultant's study paid for by "No on 37." This California anti-labeling group was funded in part by agribusiness and food industry giants: Monsanto ($8.11 million), DuPont ($5.4 million), PepsiCo ($2,14 million), BASF ($2 million), Bayer ($2 million), Dow ($2 million), Syngenta ($2 million), Coca-Cola ($1.69 million), Nestle ($1.46 million) and ConAgra Foods ($1.17 million). In 2014, these and other businesses have spent over $27.5 million through June in opposing state GMO labeling initiatives.

The European Union in 1999 introduced mandatory labeling for GMOs. When the current labeling regime was introduced in 1997, it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests. Similarly, when Norway introduced its current labeling regime, it did not provoke any price increase or disruption in trade.

Joanna M. Shepherd-Bailey, a professor at Emory University School of Law, found that: "Consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required." Among the report's findings is that companies' fear of losing customers is a significant deterrent to passing on the "trivial" labeling costs to consumers.

Other U.S. food processors agree that changes in labeling have no effect on consumer costs. "We, as with most manufacturers, are continually updating our packaging. It is a regular cost of doing business - a small one at that - and is already built into the price consumers pay for products," said Arran Stephens, founder of Nature's Path.

When GMO products are labeled, "the information is just one more piece of information on already crowded labels," USDA economists found. They found that label readers are mostly looking for attributes, like fat or fiber.

No one understands this better than the food industry. In 2010, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Marketing Institute agreed to put important information about fat, sugar and sodium on the front of their packages. Giving consumers the right to choose whether to buy products containing GMO ingredients doesn't mean that most or even many consumers will buy organic or non-GMO foods. Labeling will give Coloradans the right to make choices for their families - just like consumers in 64 other nations.

Chip and Bernadette Tuthill are longtime residents of Mancos.