Genetically Modified Organisms, more commonly known as GMOs, were first introduced in the early 80s. A GMO involves a process that modifies genes on an organism to attain a certain characteristic. I was intrigued when I was introduced to this process in my Biology class. I used my background in Biology to develop a clear and educated stance. After I did further research, I became aware of the recent interest of the topic. Although I don't support GMO for human consumption, I was even more surprised when I found out that GMOs aren't required to be labeled in stores. I can relate to this to because I have been a healthy eater for a couple years now and I try to choose food options that are GMO free. I think food that contains genetically modified organisms or was fed a GMO diet, should be labeled. 

The central claim in Author Caplan's "GMO-labeling Should Be Labeled, but Not For Safety: Bioethics", is that Americans are arguing the wrong reasons for GMO-labeling. While many argue that GMOs pose a health risk, Caplan says the food-industry should voluntarily label it because the consumer has a right to know what they are eating. Most of the debate can be related back to the economical fight between the companies who sell GMO products and the organic/all natural companies. As Caplan says "Both of them are watching their wallets". The author, Author Caplan is a professor in Bioethics and has PhD in Bioethics also. Along with this he is the founding director of the Division of Medical Ethics in NYU Langone Medical Center's Department of Population Health. Author Caplan and the publisher, NBC News, are both very credible and reliable sources.

In Mary Clare Jalonick's "GMO Labeling Law Worries Food Groups", she expresses the tension between the food industry and congress as Vermont acts on passing a GMO labeling law. This law will require food labels for all genetically modified ingredients. The food industry wants Congress to pre-empt Vermont's law and argues that GMOs contain no nutritional differences, pose no health threats and labeling is not necessary. There have been rumors of a possible compromise between state governors and the food industry of a digital labeling idea. This idea would allow customers with smartphones to access more specific information on any given food. Advocates disagree; saying a high-tech smartphone with a data plan shouldn't be required to know what is in their food. Mary Clare Jalonick is a reported for one of the biggest News Agencies in America, Associated Press. She has covered numerous articles on Congress, and on food policy. Jalonick's record makes her a very credible source. Associated Press is one of the biggest News Agencies in America, making it a credible source also. 

Daniel Grushkin is a journalist who covers the intersection of biology, culture and business. Many of his articles have appeared in The New York Times, National Geographic Adventure, Popular Science, and etc. His recent article "The Problem with GMO Labeling" was published in Popular Science, a well-known science and technology magazine. The article goes into detail of the issues with GMO labeling advocates and their argument. If foods are going to be labeled GMO or nonGMO than that only offers a yes or no decision to bioengineering. Grushkin argues that the traits modified should be what is labeled rather than just GMO or nonGMO. A good example he uses is the trait that is resistance to herbicide. Since herbicide resistance was introduced, farmers have been able to use herbicide on their plants for cheaper and easier. The ultimate health risk can lead to herbicides themselves rather than the plants. This article gave me a new and improved perspective on GMO labeling. Daniel Grushkin has a very impressive background, making him a very credible source. Popular Science is one of the most recognized modern-day science and technology magazine, also making it a very credible source.

This topic of GMO labeling has been a highly talked about topic in the news, between the state and federal government, and of course the food industry. The public wants it labeled and the industry along with biotech companies hate the idea. One of the biggest disagreements occurring to this date is whether states individually should legally require GMO labeling. This is a big case of federalism because Congress is currently making a bill restricting states from doing that. Also the food industry and biotech companies' state there are no health risk with GMOs in food, while others argue that is far from proven and labeling should automatically be required. There has been talk of a possible agreement between the two resulting in digital labeling so the user could see more specific information. My perspective on GMOs has definitely changed after I did my research. I am now for GMOs seeing the economical and large supply it offers but I still think foods that contain GMOs or have been fed a GMO diet should be labeled. Daniel Grushkin's article had a different perspective on GMO labeling which was very interesting and I may look further into. If I changed my research question it may need to become more specific on what qualifies the need to be labeled. 

