For years, consumers have made food-purchasing decisions based on their personal health and lifestyle choices as well as philosophical and religious beliefs. The market has responded by providing voluntary labels for foods that are kosher, halal, organic or "all natural."

More recently, some consumers have demanded that the "genetic status" of food (namely, genetically modified food or GMO) be labeled and again, the market has responded. Today, there are thousands of affirmatively labeled, non-biotech foods available in stores from Wal-Mart to Whole Foods. In fact, Whole Foods, the leading organic supermarket in the United States, has publicly said, "As long as GMO crops have been in this country, GMOs have been in the U.S. food supply. The most effective action we can take now is to label the food that DOESN’T include GMOs."

Activists pushing for mandatory labeling of biotech foods in Hawaii argue that they have the right to know what’s in their food. We agree. Consumers have a right to ask for information about the products they buy and to choose those that most closely meet their lifestyle choices. But decades of sound public policy have reserved government-mandated labeling for information that has a material impact on consumer health and safety.

Scientific bodies, including the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, have found biotechnology to be at least as safe as and, in some cases, safer than conventional breeding. Nevertheless, biotech foods have undergone more testing and government scrutiny than practically any other products in history. There is no scientific justification for mandatory labeling, which is why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t mandate blanket labeling of bioengineered foods.

The FDA requires specific labeling if, and only if, the composition of those foods differs significantly from their conventional counterparts. Material differences include introduction of allergens or toxins, reduction or increase in nutrients, or even a change in expected storage or preparation characteristics. Alerting consumers to the presence of a potential allergen is much more important than telling them which breeding process was used to grow a product.

Altering thousands of product labels is expensive, but the biggest cost comes from the huge burden of carefully monitoring and tracing — from farm to fork — every single ingredient in tens of thousands of packaged foods.

And how does a small state like Hawaii implement a labeling mandate when 80 percent of our food is imported to the state? Either food manufacturers will choose not to sell to Hawaii or they’ll simply increase their costs to comply with the mandate.

Hawaii already leads the nation in the cost of food, up to 40 percent higher on some products. With 75 percent of all foods containing biotech ingredients, a state labeling mandate will be a burden to most Hawaii families already struggling with our high cost of living.

Perhaps more important, from the activists’ perspective, a new "GMO" label would serve as an unmistakable signal to consumers that there is something fundamentally different and worrisome about the products families are purchasing.

Activists do not have a right to force producers through government regulation to disclose information about their products that is irrelevant to health, safety, or some other important interest. Using philosophical or religious beliefs to single out one of the safest and most heavily regulated breeding methods in order to stigmatize it does not qualify.

Competitive market pressures to address food-purchasing decisions have already created a vibrant and expanding market for voluntary labeling options that gives consumers the choices some seem to want.