On July 23rd, 2015, Congress passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. This act, in short, restricts individual states from passing labeling laws for foods that contain genetically modified organisms (H.R. 1599). Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine are the only states to have already passed laws that require such labeling. 64 countries around the world require GMO labeling and there are even a few who have banned them. Genetically modified organisms have been around since the 1990s and recent interest has sparked over whether GMOs should be labeled or not. A poll conducted by ABC shows that 93% people agree that the federal government should require labeling. The FDA claims foods that have been genetically modified are safe for human consumption. Many are skeptical of this because the FDA does not conduct their own experiments but rather reviews tests completed by the companies who produce the product. Genetic engineering is still a new field in technology & science, and there is much to learn from. Many believe more testing is necessary before it can be trusted. Genetically Modified foods have been linked to unpredictable changes in human health and the environment. People should also have the right to know what's in their food. Foods that contain genetically modified ingredients and animals that have either been fed a genetically modified diet or have been genetically modified should be labeled to protect human health, the environment, and human rights. 



Biotechnology's purpose is to "harnesses cellular and biomolecular processes to develop technologies and products that help improve our lives and the health of our planet ("What Is Biotechnology")". These processes can be traced all the way back to 8,000 years ago. Fermentation is one of the earliest forms of biotechnology. Fermentation is when "microorganisms such as yeast, molds, and bacteria break down sugars in the absence of oxygen ("What Is Biotechnology," 2010)." Beer, wine, yogurt, cheese, and bread are examples of when humans have used biotechnology to make food. As time progressed, so has biotechnology. There are many different forms of modern day biotechnology including, DNA profiling, DNA cloning, genome analysis, and much more. 

In the past couple decades; the use of biotechnology has exponentially increased. This is a result of the increased understanding of DNA. A lot has been learned from DNA and "many techniques were developed for working with DNA that contributed to our ability to sequence genomes from many organisms ("What Is Biotechnology," 2010)" Our ability to sequence genomes has led to a breakthrough in science. Scientists today, have the ability to modify an organism's genome which leads to something known as a Genetically Modified Organism. 

A Genetically Modified Organism or "GMO" is "living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering ("GMO Facts"). Genes that express a characteristic in an organism will be artificially removed and inserted into another species, to give that species the characteristic. This process has been used to modify plants, animals, food, and other organisms. About 70-75% of processed food in supermarkets contain GMOs says The Grocery Manufactures Association. There is a good chance that every American who doesn't eat organic foods all the time have eaten a food that contains GMOs today. A study from 2011 found that "88% of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 94% of soy, 95% of sugar beets, 90% of canola oil, 90% of cotton, and about 80% of Hawaiian papaya ("GMO Foods Should Be Labeled," 2011)." Everything from cereal, soup, fruit snacks and about any processed food contains GMOs. Surprisingly, foods that contain genetically modified ingredients are not required to be labeled. Despite the numerous efforts from anti-GMO activist and organizations to get it labeled, the government claims mandatory labeling is necessary because it has no effects on human health or the environment. It's important to understand what a gmo is and the potential effects it has on human health and the environment before understanding the controversy over labeling. 

GMO advocates and companies say their main goals with GMOs are to increase yield, drought tolerance and nutritional benefits, while the two main products today offer herbicide resistance and to produce its own pesticide. The "Bt Concept" is an example of this genetic engineering process. The bacteria in soil naturally produce a protein, called Bt Toxin. This protein is toxic to many insects. When an insect consumes this protein, the toxins become active and destroy the gut of the insect, eventually killing it. Scientists today are able to identify the genes associated with producing Bt toxins, and are able to insert them into plants. This allows the farmers to continue having high crop yield without spraying the plants with chemical pesticides. These actions have no health benefits but only fiscal advantages to the companies producing the crops. The recent boom of these GMOs raises concern to consumers nationwide. 


Are genetically modified organisms safe for human consumption? The process that goes into creating a GMO is highly specific and complicated. Genetic engineering can cause unpredictable changes in an organism and produce proteins that are not expected. This can potentially cause allergic/toxic reactions. The Federal Drug Association (FDA) has assured the public there are no safety concerns with genetically engineered crops and foods. Although, the FDA does not conduct its own safety tests but rather reviews the safety assessments that are conducted by the biotech companies that produce the GMOs. This sounds an alarm to consumers and some scientists. Many are skeptic of this and fear there is a lot of bias going into the testing. Along with this, there have been no long-term studies because this engineering is still new to the science community. 

The health risk with GMOs is simply unclear. Many scientist and biotech companies have reassured the government and public that GMOs are safe and don't pose a threat to humans. Other scientist's claim that this process pose risks that we don't know enough about. Toxicity, allergic reactions, and loss of nutrition are the major concerns of GMOs on human health. In many cases, genes from one organisms that are inserted in an unintended organism can cause adverse effects and reactive negatively causing it to be hazardous/toxic. Humans who are allergic to some foods are at risk for allergic reactions with foods that contain GMOs also. The current list of genetically modified products have crossed with eggs, milk, fish, peanuts, shellfish, soy, tree nuts, and wheat. These ingredients happen to be some of the most common food allergies. Loss of nutrition is also a big concern while using GMOs. Dr. Donald Davis, who is a research associate at the University of Texas, has analyzed the nutrition content of 43 fruits and vegetables for the past 20 years. The results showed a decline in "protein of  --  6%, calcium:   -- 16%, phosphorus:  --  9%, iron:  -- 15%, riboflavin:  --  38%, and vitamin C:  --  20%." This is direct evidence demonstrating the loss of nutrition over the years from GM crops. On top of this, there have been numerous studies that show immune system damage, organ failure and more in animals. The experimental study "Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice" evaluated mice internal responses to genetically modified maize called MON810. Over 90 days of testing, the results found significant changes in the mice's immune system and gut that were fed the GM diet. The National Institute of Research of Food and Nutrition in Italy conducted this study. GMOs should be labeled because numerous studies have showed that GMOs have the potential to be toxic, cause allergic reactions and lose nutritional value. Genetically modified organisms can have effects not only on people and animals but on the environment as well. 

How do GMOs affect the environment? Toxicity, infection, and long-term effects are the three major concerns that come into play when the environment is at risk. Toxicity becomes a major issue when plants begin to develop their own pesticides and when there is in increase in chemical herbicide use. A majority of GM crops today have been modified to develop their own pesticides, which can target organisms other than insects. This has become a problem for bees and monarch butterflies. The bees have seen a giant decrease in their population and are endangered due to modern day farming techniques including GMOs. In 2014, a reported 37 million bees were found dead after GMO corn was planted on a farm in Ontario, Canada. The cause was pointed towards a common pesticide, neonicotinoid. A study completed by the Journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that neonicotinoid shuts down a bee's immune system, eventually killing them. The use of this pesticide has increased due to GMO crops withstanding more of these pesticides. Bees play a crucial role in today's ecosystem to pollinate many food crops and without their existence; it can affect the environment tremendously. Crops that have been genetically modified have the potential to infect the soil and surrounding environment. Toxins and genetically modifies DNA from GM crops can be released into the soil from plant routes, which could affect the amount of soil bacteria. The bacteria are crucial to the soil's health and nutrients. Along with the soil, the irrigation techniques used with GM crops can carry these toxins into water and the air. Cross-pollination is another issue. GM crops can release pollen with GM DNA and cross-pollinate with non-GMO crops that are close by. Bees and other pollinators can transport toxins, and GM DNA to nearby plants and all this has the potential to affect the surrounding environment. This has to be looked at the bigger picture because genetically modified DNA can end up in surrounding environments, insects, and animals. This could be turn to be an uncontrollable issue that could affect the human race later on in life. These problems may not be prevalent during our lifetime, but could gradually affect humans and the environment. These are environmental issues and many do not support GMOs for some of these reasons. If generically modified crops, food products, and animals are labeled, this would create a larger awareness of the potential issues. The affects GMOs have on human health and the environment could be negative, but some claim this is not the right argument for the labeling of GMOs. 

Arthur Caplan is a professor and head of the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University. He, along with many others, claim that GMOs should be labeled, but not because of Safety. Caplan says "The reason GMO food should be voluntarily labeled by the food industry is that it is clear some consumers want to know what they are eating and they have a right to know what is in their food (Caplan, 2015)." Caplan is right about what people want. A poll was conducted by ABC News found that about 93% of Americans say that the federal government should require labels for genetically modified foods. ABC News phoned and asked over a thousand adults across America. Arthur Caplan along with 93% of Americans say these foods should be labeled because people should have the right to know what is in their food and it is ethically the right thing to do. Ethics has been a highly talked about topic in the anti-GMO community also. When you transform and insert genes in plants and animals, new organisms are being created, organisms the world has never seen before. This is a scary process, what happens when we are able to do this with humans? GMO engineering alterations are being made on the genetic level that affects life itself. Many have described the process for GMOs as "playing with god." People have different views on the process but the companies should at least label it. So why don't they label it?


Why don't the biotech companies just slap a label on it? These companies are watching their wallets and will pay however much it cost to prevent labeling of GMOs. These companies fear that if they are forced to label, it will scare away customers and lose a lot of money and even go out of business. This is why they are spending millions of dollars to prevent labeling and attack and destroy the credibility of scientist who are against GMOs. They also claim that required labeling will cost more. This is simply not true because labeling is schedule to change. It's hard to trust these companies as they have a very misleading past. 

If you read an article or have a discussion about GMOs, Monsanto most likely will pop up in the conversation. Monsanto is one of the biggest biotechnology and agrichemical companies. Monsanto provides genetically modified seeds, agriculture chemicals, and biotechnologies to farmers. Monsanto and other biotechnology companies have been known to reject evidence that shows negative findings. These companies are even known to have attack scientist who find and publish negative findings of their products. This can be traced all the way back to 1960s. In 1962, a biologist named Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a critique on an insecticide called DDT. When the pesticide makers saw this, they put an attack to discredit Silent Spring and the author that was funded from around $250,000. Actions like these from the biotech companies have occurred a lot more recently.

Journalist who write about biotechnology and science happen to get caught in the drama as well. In 2012, writer Ari LeVaux, published an article on one of Monsanto's biotechnologies they use. RNA interference is one of Monsanto's patented practices that they use to insert insecticidal traits on crops. Chinese researches from Nanking University found that "when humans eat plants containing the insecticidal RNAi, it could reach the bloodstream and trigger an increase in blood levels of low-density lipoprotein, also known as "bad cholesterol," leading to a heightened risk of heart attacks. (Koberstein)." LeVaux published an article acknowledging these results. Monsanto counteracted with a strong rebuttal accusing the results were incorrect because of contamination on lab equipment. Yea right. A couple months later, Monsanto invited Vicki Vance, a botany professor at the University of South Carolina to give a talk on Genetically Modified Organisms at the International Symposium. Vance said she had intentions to discuss the results from researchers at Nanking University, and Monsanto officials told her to ignore the results. After she refused, Monsanto cancelled her talk. Vance told a reporter "I'd said [my lab] had data consistent with the Zhang paper, and they wanted to 'help me with experiments' because I had results that were in conflict with their results. I was really surprised that Monsanto took the time and effort to try to squash my research . . . I'm a little old lady running a little lab in South Carolina (Koberstein)."Since than, five more scientific papers have been published that confirm the Nanking Universities' results. It is very obvious that these companies will do a lot to make sure negative information about their products don't get out to the public, even if it's the means of public safety. But what has been done?


Food Companies and the government say there is no need for mandatory labeling for GMOs because they are environmentally safe and do not have a negative impact on human health. Although there is an abundance of evidence that says otherwise, the government will continue to abide by the FDAs evidence, which only reviews the safety assessments done by the biotech companies themselves. The California Proposition 37 was one of the first initiated state statues on mandatory labeling for Genetically Modified Organisms. An initiated state statue a ballot process used to initiate a new. This proposition would require labeling of raw or processed food that has been genetically altered or engineered in a specific way and prohibit foods that contain GMOs as advertising them as "natural". This proposition is a scary thing for biotech companies and many involved with the food industry. That's why these companies have spent over $46 million dollars in campaigning against this proposition. Monsanto spent a little over $7 million, DuPont $5 million, PepsiCo Inc. $2.5 million, and other big named companies such as Coca-Cola, Hershey, Kraft Foods all contributed large sums of money to make sure this proposition would not pass. This proposition was on the California ballot on November 6, 2012. With other 12,000,000 votes recorded, it was an extremely close call of 51.4% for NO and 48.6% for YES. Although the anti-GMO community faced a tough loss, they continue to fight. Almost an exact year later on November 5, 2013, Initiative 522 was on the Washington Ballot. This Initiative, like Proposition 37, would require certain foods and seeds that have been genetically modified to be labeled. The results were even closer than Proposition 37. With over 1.6 million votes, 51.09% voted NO and 48.91% voted YES. Of course, Monsanto and other companies contributed around $15 million dollars campaigning against this. The food industry and biotech companies are using their power of money to make sure labeling does not become a real thing. 

Recently, the GMO labeling debate has escalated. About 30 states have introduced bills regarding GMO labeling. New York has had around 70 bills related to GMOs introduced to legislation since 2011. Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont are the first three states to have passed laws requiring the labeling of food that contain GMOs. Although these states have passed the laws individually themselves, Congress recently passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. This act would block states from individually passing labeling laws and give companies the option to label their foods. Representative Mike Pompeo was the one who authorized the bill, said ""Precisely zero pieces of credible evidence have been presented that foods produced with biotechnology pose any risk to our health and safety (Wheeler & Macros)." There are plenty of scientific studies that go against what Pompeo is saying. Democrats, Peter DeFazio and Rosa DeLauro and consumer groups are calling the Federal Act the "DARK Act (Denying Americans the Right to Know)". DeLauro told reporters "The FDA already requires clear labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives and food processes. GMOs should be no different (Wheeler & Macros)." Pompeo and other legislators argue back that if labeling would be required it would drive up food cost around $500 a year. This is completely inaccurate. The reality is, labels change all the time. Labels are expected to change! And adding a couple words on the back of their product won't raise food prices and won't harm anyone but the biotech companies. GMOs are required to be labeled in 64 countries and are banned in 34. Why don't we label it? 

There have been talks of a digital labeling idea. This idea has been introduced from food companies and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Vilsack suggested that consumers would be able to reach the labeling they wanted through their smart-phones or in store scanners. Food industry has offered something similar to this, giving consumers the option to reach detailed information with an online search or some type of digital labeling. Anti-GMO labeling advocates don't like the idea. The head of the Just Label It campaign, Scott Faber said "Consumers shouldn't have to have a high-tech smartphone and a 10-gigabyte data plan to know what's in their food." If digital labeling were to become a real thing, it would be discriminate of people who don't have smartphones or let alone know how to use it. The solution? Slap a damn label on it. If the biotech and food industry companies claims are real and don't offer any harm to humans or the environment, why should you hide it? These companies should be embracing it! They have the technology and science to be able to make a plant and more accessible to people around the world. And if they don't want to look at it like this, than they should label it because it's ethically the right thing to do. People should have a right to know what's in their food; these companies should be voluntarily labeling their products and not putting up such a big fight. Companies like Campbell have already acted on this and prepare to start labeling their products that contain GMOs with "Partially produced with genetic engineering". Do what Campbell is doing and just SLAP A LABEL ON IT. The environment, consumer's health, and human's rights are all at stake. Foods that contain genetically modified ingredients and animals that have either been fed a genetically modified diet or have been genetically modified should be labeled to protect human health, the environment, and human rights. 

