ST. LOUIS, Mo. — Californians will have more to decide on election day than who they want to lead the country for the next four years – they’ll also vote on a proposition that would require labeling of genetically modified (GMO) products sold in the state.

While labeling requirements on products containing proven damaging components, such as cigarettes, are appropriate, the labeling of GMOs would actually be bad for people and the environment, according to David Zilberman, professor of agriculture and resource economics at the University of California-Berkeley.

“A labeling requirement creates a stigma effect that will reduce the demand for (GMO) products and may reduce investment in new (GMO) traits,” Zilberman stated in The Berkeley Blog earlier this month. “The net effect will be to slow the development of agricultural biotechnology, and this in turn may negatively affect health, the economy and the environment.

“It is actually counterproductive to the many environmental and social goals that we cherish. Therefore, labeling of GMOs will be a step in the wrong direction.”

Zilberman feels the public is divided among those who believe GMOs are bad, those who find them valuable and many who are indifferent or undecided.

“The last group may not see the damage of requiring labeling of GMOS since they do not see the big loss. However, labels make a difference,” said Zilberman, who insists the adoption of GMOs has been good for not only food commodity prices but also the well-being of the poor and the environment.

“Adoption of herbicide-tolerant varieties enabled transition to minimal tillage techniques. GMOs make it possible to produce food on less land, reducing the incentive of converting wild land into agricultural land. There is evidence that by replacing toxic chemicals in India and China, adoption of GMOs directly saved many lives. Reduction of exposure to pesticides and the resulting health effects has been a major cause for adoption in the U.S.,” Zilberman said.

“Our calculations suggest that the magnitude of the impact of GMOs on reducing food commodity prices was the same or even bigger than biofuels had on increases of these prices (15-30 percent reduction in the price of corn and soybeans overall). If African nations and Europe would have adopted GMOs, current prices of food would have decreased significantly, and much of the suffering associated with the food shortages could have been avoided.”

Nathan Fields, director of biotechnology and economic analysis for the National Corn Growers Assoc. (NCGA), agreed that labeling GMO products would be misleading or, worse, stigmatize the product in the consumer’s view. If GMO products require labeling, nutritional information should be required on the label to help assuage public concern, he said.

“But if people are truly concerned about (the safety of GMO products), they have an option. Anything labeled USDA certified organic cannot (be GMO),” said Fields. “So there is already an option out there.”

Though the organization doesn’t feel special labeling of GMO products should be required, the NCGA stands firmly against any kind of GMO label that doesn’t convey additional safety or nutritional information. “(A label) may influence the purchase of items,” said Fields.

Last November, a grassroots coalition of consumer, public health, environmental organizations and food companies in California submitted the “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” to the state attorney general. It was circulated as an initiative measure for the Nov. 6, 2012, election, and the attorney general later announced the initiative had garnered enough signatures – nearly a million – to be included on the ballot.

The coalition is known as The Committee for the Right to Know, online at www.labelgmos.org