The debate over whether genetically modified produce sold in Hawaii should be labeled as such came to a close at the state Capitol this week with the House snubbing a Senate resolution that called for several state agencies to study the issue.

Rep. Jessica Wooley, chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee, said she chose not to hear Senate Concurrent Resolution 34 when it moved to the House because she thinks "it’s a waste of time and energy."

"When we’re just talking about produce, I mean, this is ridiculous," said Wooley, who supports labeling. "There’s just no purpose except to distract us from the real issue."

Wooley (D, Kaneohe-Kaha­luu-Haiku) said she plans to work with stakeholders before the 2014 Legislature to improve on the wording of House Bill 174, which Senate committees deferred earlier this session.

Sen. Clarence Nishihara (D, Waipahu-Pearl City), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said he supported the resolution because a study would have shed light on the economic impact of labeling.

"Although one side says, ‘There’s no effect; you could do it for cheap; it won’t cost you anything,’ (if) you talk to the people who are in the retail side, they say there is an effect," Nishihara said. "This (resolution) was a way of saying, ‘OK, on one side you have people saying it doesn’t cost you anything; the other side (is) saying it’s going to cost you money. Let’s find out: What is the economic impact?’"

The study would have involved six state agencies: the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization; UH College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources; the departments of Agriculture and Health; the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism; and the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Wooley said enough information has already been presented to legislators and that there is no need to "research the simple issue of people’s right to know what is in the food they eat."

"It would just delay our ability to take action because we’d be waiting for them to tell us something that we already know," she said of the resolution.

As reasons to hold off on labeling, Nishihara pointed to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision that GMO food is no different from non-GMO food and to the American Medical Association’s determination that there is not enough scientific evidence to warrant labeling.

"Because people believe certain things, it’s hard to get them to step back and say, ‘OK, let’s have a discussion on the science and the facts of the matter,’" he said. "They seem to not want to talk about the facts; they want to believe the facts they want to believe."

GMO opponents have found it hard to respect the resolution as a reasonable alternative to passing a labeling requirement.

"It’s better that we improve the House bill for the next year and bring it back to the Senate and say, ‘This is what needs to go into law,’" said Juanita Brown Kawamoto, vice chairwoman of the Food and Farm Sustainability Committee of the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

"A resolution is not sufficient for where we want to go," she said.