There will be more than one important vote in California this Nov. A grassroots movement of organic farmers has rallied in support of Proposition 37, which calls for genetically modified (GM) foods to be labeled and would prohibit these foods from being marketed as natural.  Monsanto Co. and allied food conglomerates have come up against the movement’s ‘Right to Know’ campaign.

“I firmly believe that people have a right to know what they are consuming, particularly food,” said Cara Cea, president of the Suffern Farmer’s Market and adjunct professor of environmental science at Pace. “I believe in offering consumers locally grown products that are not GMOs.”

The new surge in the debate is due in part to a recent study conducted by a team of French scientists which found that GMOs and the popular weed killer Roundup increased the risk of tumors in rat test subjects. Many in the scientific community question the study’s legitimacy.

“I try to never draw conclusions from a single report and always try to look at peer reviews before drawing conclusions,” said the Director of the Environmental Center Angelo Spillo. “As far as food labeling goes, I am all for having as much information available about our foods as is practical.  I believe we all have the right to know what’s in our foods, how they are produced, and where they come from.”

In his blog “Dot Earth” on the New York Times opinion page, senior fellow for environmental understanding Prof. Andrew Revkin expressed doubts about the recent study and Prop 37.

“While I’m for transparency, I don’t like the California initiative,” said Revkin. “It’s rife with exemptions and special cases, all of which speak of a double standard and point to the intent being less to protect public health than make life complicated or costlier for some agriculture sectors. If a fair labeling process were somehow created, I actually think it’d build public support for genetically modified foods in the long haul, primarily by illustrating how many safe, nutritious foods now unremarkably contain some constituent from this form of agricultural technology.”

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine published a report finding that “GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients’ and the public’s health.”

However, the FDA has said there is no scientific research to support the claim that GMOs are harmful.

“The jury is out on that. I don’t feel like enough studies have been done to really determine that,” said Cea. “GMOs have not been around long enough to really determine the long term effects of widespread consumption of them. Personally, I want to consume locally grown, natural food that has not been altered in any way. There should be complete disclosure in all labeling. That’s my opinion.”

On NPR’s food blog “The Salt”, Dan Charles wrote, “No one has found new toxic substances in these crops. And the giant feeding experiment that’s been going on for the past fifteen years — hundreds of millions of Americans consuming GMO ingredients — hasn’t produced evidence of harm, either.”

But many others remain skeptical.

“Something like that has to be studied for a very long period of time to understand the long term implications of humans ingesting these types of food,” said Cea. “If you smoke a cigarette today, you’re not going to get lung cancer, but fifteen years from now, if you keep smoking, you are going to.”