For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page and our Colorado News page.

In just over a month, voters in Colorado and Oregon will go to the polls to decide, among other items on the ballot, whether to label genetically engineered foods-making this the time for final pitches from opposing camps in races that promise to be tight. The message from the pro-label camp is fairly simple: Consumers have the right to know whether the food they’re buying and consuming has been genetically modified. Opponents of labeling, backed largely by big food and biotech corporations, have, for their part, relied on a handful of arguments: that labels would only confuse consumers, that the proposed laws are poorly written, and that labeling would be costly for manufacturers, raising food prices for the rest of us.

But research from Consumer Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, may sway some voters in Colorado and Oregon nervous about paying more at checkout for food labels. Compiling data from six previous labeling cost studies-including a 2012 study reporting that each California resident would pay $15 extra per year under G.E. food labeling-the new report, released Wednesday, found that labeling laws result in a median cost of $2.30 per person, per year. Basically the equivalent of a cup of coffee or two annually.

“The anti-labeling contingent hasn’t ever had a leg to stand on in terms of cost,” says Katherine Paul, associate director at the Organic Consumers Association, which has donated more than $50,000 and $200,000 to support labeling initiatives in Colorado and Oregon, respectively. “In the 60 countries in the world where labels are required, it has never raised the cost of retail for consumers. This has never been an issue; it’s just the opposition making it an issue.”

Of course, that doesn’t mean anti-labeling groups won’t make cost an issue between now and Nov. 4. In Colorado, the website for the No on 105 Coalition states that the initiative “would increase grocery costs for Colorado families by hundreds of dollars per year.” In Oregon, the No on 92 Coalition site, which is eerily similar to Colorado’s site, says the exact same thing, save for the state name.

Paul admits that in California, where the Proposition 37 labeling initiative lost handily in 2012, the cost argument was highly effective. Support for labeling in California was close to 65 percent in July of that year but dropped to 39 percent in October following a $46 million media blitz made possible by corporate food and agriculture companies. The thrust of the “no” campaign’s argument was that labeling would cost each Golden State family dearly at the checkout.