Advocates for GMO labeling are getting another shot in the Arizona Legislature. Six representatives submitted a bill to require food containing even just one genetically engineered ingredient be labeled as such.

Modeled after Vermont’s legislation, HB 2462 will also prohibit manufacturers from advertising GMO products as “all natural.” (Prepared food would be exempt from labeling.)

State Representative Juan Mendez, the bill’s primary author, says it’s about consumer protection. “Saying no to labeling means I don’t think I should have the choice to know what I’m consuming,” Mendez tells New Times. He says this initiative isn’t different from requiring manufacturers to list nutrition facts and ingredients because it’s just stating the facts, not making a value or safety judgment.

Arizona is not alone in considering GMO-labeling legislation. According to the Center for Food Safety, more than 30 states have introduced bills and three have passed laws: Connecticut and Maine approved laws with trigger clauses, meaning they won’t go into effect until more states pass similar laws, and Vermont’s labeling law will take effect next year.

In Arizona, it’s only a matter time before some very vocal adversaries surface. Mendez expects a lot of pushback from those worried about their bottom line. (Chemical and food companies spent $100 million in major anti-labeling campaigns in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California.)

The Arizona Farm Bureau is one entity guaranteed to fight the bill. It opposes mandatory labeling because it “will give consumers a false impression that these foods are different and “may lead to decreased demand for GM goods.”

Julie Murphree of the Farm Bureau says the main issue is the word “mandatory.” Mandatory means more production costs; costs that invariably will be passed on to the consumer. The Farm Bureau, she says, has no problem with manufacturers choosing to label their products as containing GMO ingredients — but given the stigma, what company would advertise that?

“Corporations should be proud of their products,” says Mendez. “So what does it tell me as a consumer if a corporation wants to hide that information?”

Murphree believes that while proponents of labeling claim “a right-to-know,” it’s actually about “a right-to-misinform.” She doesn’t oppose the bill because she opposes transparency. She opposes it because it creates unnecessary fear without bringing any value to the consumer. If you want to avoid GMOs, just stick to the outer aisles of the grocery store and buy organic, she adds.