State legislators, like most of us, generally aren’t rocket scientists, nor are they cuttingedge health researchers.

So when it comes to genetically modified organisms, they just want what all of us want to know: Are GMOs safe? And should we know if they’re in our food?

Therein lies the rub over GMOs: There is no consensus.

GMOs are plants or animals created through the gene-splicing techniques, merging DNA from different species so the GMO can be hardier, droughtresistant, withstand direct application of herbicide or produce an insecticide.

Backers of state bill HB 6519 are against GM foods; the bill would require labeling for all foods containing more than nine-tenths of 1 percent GM ingredients.

While there are similar proposals in 37 states, Connecticut would be the first to mandate labeling.

Backers point to anti-GMO guru Jeffery M. Smith’s contentions that GM foods are “inherently unsafe” and are related to a jump in soy allergies, Bt-triggered immune response and reproductive problems.

Opponents of the Connecticut bill — such as giant seed maker Monsanto, the biotechsector group Connecticut United for Research Excellence and the state food industry group Connecticut Food Association — say GMOs are already in many products through GM corn, soybean or cotton; labeling would put a “scarlet letter A” on foods and be costly to grocers; and there is no strong science saying GMOs are unsafe.

A labeling bill last session was shot down over litigation concerns; the new bill is considered stronger but could still face legal challenges.

Opponents of the bill say proponents of labeling should be lobbying the Food and Drug Administration, not the state legislature. He said his group has branded itself “pro-science,” and this debate reminds him of the one over stem cell research (which has abated). Stan Sorkin of the CFA said he supports voluntary instead of mandatory labeling — which Whole Foods recently announced for its stores in the next five years.

Fears about GMOs initially led to bans, severe restrictions and labeling in Europe and Japan. Proponents say GM crops can help feed a growing population, and even though Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops are bred for the herbicide, they allow farmers to conserve fuel and cut the overall amount of herbicides used.

Anti-GMO crusaders dispute such benefits. In any case, they say they have a right to know if GMOs are in their food, while opponents of labeling challenge the anti-GMO crowd to produce real scientific evidence of harm.

Back and forth, much like the old debate over TV violence that led to the V chip and “labels” but little or no change in viewing habits.

But the labeling issue isn’t going away. And the senior scientist for Consumers Union has come out for labeling.

You wonder why the labeling crusaders are so dedicated to calling back this GMO ship that has long sailed into our food supply.

Well, GMO opponents are often environmentalists, organic farmers, vegetarians and “natural” food lovers who know that, for instance, the outside aisles of the supermarket hold the most healthful food because it is less processed.

They know America has a nasty obesity and diabetes problem, not to mention Connecticut’s high incidence of reported cancers compared to other states, according to recent figures from the National Cancer Institute.

For these reasons, we think labeling should be done, but phased in slowly over a few years so small producers and shops have time to revise labels.

By then, other states should be on board, more scientific evidence will be available, and consumers can better decide if it’s a health issue or not to them.

— The New Haven (Conn.) Register