The Senate’s recent decision not to pass House Bill 174 is a lost opportunity for Hawaii in two ways.

The first was our chance to make history by being the first state in the country to successfully pass a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law. In 2013 similar bills were introduced in 23 states nationwide and global trends indicate that GMO labeling is not a question of "if" but of "when."

Many thought California would be the first state to do so, but even though its Proposition 37 garnered more than 6 million votes last November after leading in polls, it was narrowly defeated at the last minute with the help of a $45 million counter-campaign by the biotech industry.

Hawaii would have been the ideal place for such a bill to pass, since our islands are the worldwide epicenter of GMO seed experimentation and our high dependence on imported foods raises the question of why we are using our limited agricultural resources for a product that we don’t even consume. But the intense public debate in recent weeks and lawmakers’ decision to kill HB 174 reveal one of the weaknesses of this grassroots movement: a communication gap.

As a communications professional, I’ve noted that the groundswell of support for this citizen’s right-to-know issue has been crippled by its prevailing stereotype of "crazy anti-GMO activists." As is often the case with grassroots movements, the vanguard is more radical, having been spearheaded initially by environmentalists and Native Hawaiians — but that was a decade ago.

Today, supporters of GMO labeling include a much broader segment of the population: concerned families, foodies, farmers, surfers, health professionals, policymakers — and this was evident in the overwhelming turnouts at hearings for HB 174 as well as the marches, panels and media coverage that put this issue at the forefront of public debate recently.

Unfortunately, this groundswell of support for GMO labeling (which, as many point out, is not the same as "anti-GMO") was overshadowed by the industry’s tendency to reduce it to the irrational shenanigans of "crazy activists."

The movement should have actively sought ways to counteract those misperceptions by building effective communication within its own ranks and with the public. There are numerous groups working on the GMO issue statewide, but there is no clear spokesperson or message for the movement. Some tactics — such as leaving threatening messages for Sen. Clarence Nishihara — contradicted other efforts to build meaningful dialogue with lawmakers and community leaders. This lack of coordination weakened the passionate work of the many citizens who volunteered thousands of hours to advance this cause.

But the real loser in all this is the general public — including many curious about the issue, but confused by all the conflicting information and data being thrown at them by opposing parties. If a more coordinated effort is made among all those who support GMO labeling to develop a coherent communications strategy, perhaps next year the bill will pass. Even if we lose our place at the forefront of this national right-to-know movement, it would be embarrassing to be left behind.