Gary Hooser, former state lawmaker and head of the state Office of Environmental Quality Control, had seen his share of public-policy debates. They’re all generally complex issues, but few are more so than the community upheaval over crops developed through genetically modified organism (GMO) technology.

On one side are industry spokesmen, representing both the scientific and corporate sectors, asserting that the laboratory-assisted modifications are essentially no different than the crop hybridization farmers have done for generations. Crossbreeding accomplishes genetic changes just as surely, although in the lab it’s accomplished more quickly.

Opponents are food-safety advocates and others who say the safety of these foods over the long term is at least undetermined. Foes also include those who see the seed developments by large agribusiness corporations as a disturbing element of the globalized food market, as well as those who worry that it’s all leading to increased human exposure to pesticides and herbicides.

Hooser, recently elected to the Kauai County Council, counts himself among those dubious about GMOs, but added that his concern isn’t entirely based on safety.

"The GMO industry has certainly become a focal point for globalization, for corporate greed, pesticides for a lot of bad things going on in the world," he said.

At a minimum, he said, labeling food as containing GMO ingredients would be in the interest of disclosure. And, he added, the Legislature’s failure to pass House Bill 174 was disappointing. The surviving legislation, Senate Concurrent Resolution 34, instead requests an economic impact study of a GMO labeling requirement.

Hooser and other supporters of the original bill, including a group of University of Hawaii law students, argued that the constitutional issues, principally the argument that the federal government could pre-empt state law, could have been overcome. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture now oversee GMO developments.

"Food manufacturers are already complying in other countries," he said. "The Legislature could pick one of those models and follow that format.

"There are lots of reasons why I as a consumer want to know what’s in my food," he said. "Part of it is political, part of it might be health.

"Laws are passed for many reasons, and I think a valid reason is the public wants you to do it," Hooser said. "The polls are clear — people want their food labeled."

GMO supporters argue as vociferously that the technology is solving real problems that farmers face, pointing to the way UH researchers developed a papaya hybrid that resisted ringspot virus and, thus, saved that agricultural industry. On a larger scale, they say, seeds have been developed that solve real problems of crop yield, pest threats and other adverse conditions farmers face, adding that genetic engineering has been at the heart of more products than people realize.

Bruce Chassy, a biochemist and professor emeritus in food science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, attended a recent Star-Advertiser editorial board meeting as part of a group hosted by Syngenta. That’s one of the companies growing GMO crops in Hawaii (see story on page F4 for a primer of the Hawaii agricultural players).

"People seem almost oblivious to how much we depend on genetic engineering to make intermediates and biochemicals that we use in the food supply and in pharmacology and agriculture, and we have this controversy about GM crops," Chassy said. "Somehow, we haven’t communicated why we do this, what the benefits are, how we know they’re safe.

"What we do in the safety determination, and what FDA does, in ensuring food safety when they examine each and every new GM crop, is assure that it is identical, in its nutritional value and its safety, to its conventional counterpart," he said. "That’s their language; my language is it’s just the same as any variety of the same crop."

Labeling would almost certainly cover most things people find in their shopping cart, Chassy said.

"There certainly are a great number of products in the supermarket," he said. "Almost anything that has a label on it that a bunch of ingredients, one of those ingredients would come from a GM food and would be labeled."

The industry has opposed proposals such as HB 174 because labeling suggests to consumers that something is wrong with the product, a contention that science has not held up.

"Ultimately, it’s our opinion that it‘s unnecessary, said Tim Pastoor, toxicologist and principal scientist for Syngenta. "It’s not going to add value to the food, because the food is safe."

In this context, of course, science is controversial. Studies come out, such as the one last fall issued by a French research group that pointed to tumors in rats fed GMO corn, and then are roundly critiqued. The study, headed by Gilles-Eric Seralini, was published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Seralini was criticized for various irregularities in his research design and other cited flaws.

One problem with the research was that Seralini’s results have not been replicated, said Fred Perlak, vice president of research and business operations for Monsanto in Hawaii.

"It bothers me a lot that people don’t worry about the reproducibility of the work because that is one of the standards of good science," said Perlak, whose doctoral degree is in microbiology. "Our studies are well controlled, and they have to pass review and analysis by the EPA, the FDA and the USDA."

On the other hand, there are scientists who say trial studies haven’t been ideal. Michelle Marvier, who chairs the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University, has published a critique of how a GMO variant known as Bt corn was evaluated.

Marvier said in an email response to the Star-Advertiser that her primary concern is that the tests of the effects of Bt crops on target organisms (typically worms, honey bees or ladybird beetles) weren’t replicated enough.

"My bottom-line recommendations were that studies should include at least a few more independent replicates per treatment to be more convincing, and that someone (ideally the EPA) should require data from these studies to be entered into a standardized database so it will be easy to … see what the weight of evidence tells us," she wrote.

Monsanto is the focus of many detractors, partly because of its international presence and dominance in genetic engineering, and partly because it also produces chemical products that generate their own set of suspicions.

It is accused, for example, of developing its seeds with resistance to herbicides a desired trait in order to spur sales of one of its products, Roundup. Perlak countered by saying that the company’s patent on Roundup expired in 2000, with generic versions of the weed-killer long on the market.

Revenue related to seeds, including license fees that come with patented traits developed using both conventional means and GM methods — account for about 70 percent of Monsanto income. "Crop protection" products such as Roundup comprise the remaining 30 percent.

While the Legislature decides whether or not even HCR 34 passes muster, some businesses have perceived a market demand for labeling and are trying to fill it. One is Whole Foods, which has pledged to require GMO labeling on all stocked products in its store by 2018.

In the meantime, shoppers can seek out products labeled as GMO-free, a certification provided by the nonprofit Non-GMO Project, said Claire Sullivan, who coordinates purchasing and public affairs for the Hawaii operations.

"Clearly labeled products enable shoppers who want to avoid foods made with GMOs to do so," she wrote in an email reply to the Star-Advertiser.

Perlak believes that the changes in the produce as a result of genetic modification is too infinitesimal to have any food-safety impact.

"This is about one or two genes out of 50,000," he said. "Think of that as 50,000 books in a library. We’re adding one more book on that shelf."

The GMO industry counts farmers among its most fervent supporters, he added.

"They want something new and they want something that addresses their problems," Perlak said. "And if you don’t produce it, they’ll go someplace else."