The genetic modification of organisms has been a cause for concern, especially in recent years, as the use of crop modification has increased. Genetic modification of organisms (GMO's) are defined as "foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, for example, through the introduction of a gene from a different organism." (Who, 2016). Over the past decade, there has been a steady increase in the acreage of genetically modified crops worldwide.  The United States had 47.6 million hectares of land used for genetically modifying crops in 2004, while in 2014 this number grew to a whopping 73.1 million hectares of land. This increase supports the fact that the use of genetic modification, for the organisms that we eventually will consume, has risen greatly in recent years. This rise in genetic modification of organisms has caused an increase of groups in opposition of GMO's. Though, the use of genetic modification is becoming more of a necessity to sustain the increasing population, the main issue revolving GMO's is "Should genetically modified foods be labeled?" Foods that have been genetically modified should be labeled, in order for the consumer to be completely aware, that the foods they are about to consume, have been altered in an unnatural form. 

Labeling GMO's, means placing an informative label, on all products that have been genetically modified or contain genetically modified ingredients. This label will be placed in plain view on the outside of the product, and will serve as a notice that the product is no longer completely natural and has been manipulated in some way, shape or form. The main debate of GMO labeling, is between the consumers and the manufacturers. Consumers feel that it is necessary to be informed of what is inside their foods before consumption. This stance is supported from research that has been exposed recently of the negative side effects which could be developed from consumption of GMO's. "Last spring, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization declared glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide on GMO crops, to be a probable carcinogen. And just last month, the FDA announced it would begin testing food products sold in the U.S. for glyphosate residue." (Trotter,2016) Manufacturers are on the other side of this debate, causing it not to be considered an issue of safety, but being considered an economic issue. This being because most companies are against GMO labeling do to the production cost increase that would occur with mandatory labeling. This excess cost will in turn cause the cost of the product to increase, causing a greater burden on the customer. Another, main reason that manufacturers are wary of mandatory labeling of their products, is because this will give a sense of a misleading warning to the consumer. Consumers who are not aware of the current genetic modification advances will automatically assume that an item is "bad" because it has been genetically modified, when in fact a large portion of genetically modified foods are safe for consumption. Both consumers and manufactures are looking towards the government to be on their side of this debate, causing the government to make some laws of compromise. 

There are multiple policy options being discussed by government officials regarding this issue. The options are: "1) Allow no labeling regarding the use or nonuse of GMOs 2) Require mandatory labeling of products that use GMOs 3) Allow voluntary labeling of products that do or do not use GMOs 4) Allow voluntary labeling of products that do not use GMOs, with an accompanying disclaimer noting the government's judgement about the differences (e.g.,safety) between products that use and do not use GMOs." (Caswell, 1998) The second option should be enacted into our food market. This option allows for the consumer, to be completely knowledgeable about the genetically modified ingredients used in the creation of their food. This will enable the customer to make an informed buying decision. If GMO labeling does become a requirement for foods, there are two types of labeling being discussed. The first type of labeling is referred to as "positive labeling". "Positive labels would involve the statement: "This product may contain GMO's". Given the extent in which GMO's have already entered the food and fibre chain." (Runge, Jackson, 2000). The issue with the "positive labeling system is that little information is given about what "GMO" means. This labeling idea could be more beneficial to the consumer by adding the definition of GMO. Another form of labeling would be "negative labeling". "A negative label would read: "This product (or seed) contains no GMO's". Such a label has numerous advantages." (Runge, Jackson, 2000). This labeling system will allow the customer to be completely sure that there was no genetic modification used in the production of the food they are going to be consuming, while not having a negative outlook on the manufacturer. 

Vermont has recently created a July 1, 2016 deadline which will require foods to have GMO labeling on them within the state, being the first state to successfully enact such a law. "The bill would apply to all food (except meat) and drink (except "fluid dairy") sold in grocery stores. It would apply to chewing gum, but not chewing tobacco. And, it wouldn't apply to food sold in restaurants." (Renter, 2014) Within the text of this bill, the legislation addresses issues supporting GMO labeling such as, "(D) Cross-pollination of or cross-contamination by genetically engineered crops may contaminate organic crops and, consequently, affect marketability of those crops. " and "(D) Persons with certain religious beliefs object to producing foods using genetic engineering because of objections to tampering with the genetic makeup of life forms and the rapid introduction and proliferation of genetically engineered organisms and, therefore, need food to be labeled as genetically engineered in order to conform to religious beliefs and comply with dietary restrictions." (Governer, 2014) Though this law was passed, there has been extreme backlash from large corporations regarding this change. "The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), along with three other trade associations, has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Vermont state labeling law as unconstitutional." (Moore, 2016) Manufacturers feel as though they are being forced to place a view of their product that they feel will have a negative outcome pertaining to their sales, which goes against their rights as a company. "'The proscriptions in Act 120 are beyond Vermont's power to enact. The State is compelling manufacturers to convey messages they do not want to convey, and prohibiting manufacturers from describing their product in terms of their choosing, without anything close to a sufficient justification. The State is forcing the costs of this experiment on out-of-state companies and citizens to which it is not politically accountable, and it is undermining and impeding the federal government's interest in uniform, nationwide standards for food labeling prescribed by duly authorized expert federal agencies.'" (Robinson, 2014) However, the state took account for the backlash that inevitably would be received "the bill not only mandates the labeling of GMO foods, but also establishes a fund of up to $1.5 million to help pay for the state's defense for an expected lawsuit." (Motley, 2016) Even though some large food companies will participate in GMO labeling, many companies still refuse to observe the negatives of genetically modifying their products. If genetically modified foods are going to be on the shelves of grocery stores in communities, correct labeling is an ethical necessity.

Other states have tried to enact similar laws such as, Connecticut and Maine. However, the law for mandatory labeling will not be enacted until surrounding states pass similar laws. This is known as the "Trigger Clause". According to James Gormley of Nutritional Outlook there are three parts to this "Trigger Clause": 1) Four other states must enact similar laws, 2) One of the four states must share a border with the state attempting to enact the law 3) The combined population of the northeastern states that enact GMO-labeling laws must total more than 20 million, based on the 2010 census. This could be a major challenge for these states, considering the small size of each state neighboring Connecticut and Maine. This would mean that more and more states would need to enact the law, in order to meet the population requirement. The "Trigger Clause" was a response to push back from major grocers and manufacturers. Also, "The trigger was written into the law in part because state lawmakers were reluctant to allow Connecticut to go it alone in the legal battles likely to ensue when agricultural corporations are ordered to be fully transparent." (Radelet, 2015) 

The controversy regarding labeling of genetically modified foods is not only a topic of concern in America. GMO labeling has become a worldwide conversation. The best way to handle the prevalence of genetically modified foods, is to acknowledge all of the concerns that surround the issue. "The significant public opposition to the use of GMOs in many regions of the world clearly indicates that only by addressing environmental concerns and consumer demands with improved risk management (specifically monitoring), and appropriate labeling will it be possible for the industry to introduce GMO's into worldwide markets without significant resistance." (Haslberger, 2000) Many other countries rely on genetic modification extremely more than America does, do to their higher populations. There are 64 countries, around the world that currently have mandatory labeling laws for genetically modified foods or foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. This labeling has helped to ease the transition and exposure of genetically modified foods into their markets, and provide a necessary knowledge for the consumer. GMO labeling has had a very large impact on many countries worldwide. An example of this, would be the European Union. "The European Union appears set to lift it's 4-year ban on foods made from genetically modified organisms, following the drafting of a new directive on food labeling late last month. The new rules will require a GMO label on any food containing more than 0.9% GMO material, this allows for accidental contamination to be accounted for. These are among the tightest regulations in the world." (Weiss, 2002) This action taken by the European Union, accurately demonstrates the effect that labeling GMO foods has on the consumer and the market, in regards to the safety of genetically modified foods. 

As the use of genetic modification continues to grow, it is important to analyze what will be of GMO labeling in the future. Many activists are continuing to fight for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products on a national level. Most activist are against the compromise of the "Trigger Clause" labeling it as "the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act" or "DARK Act". They believe that Congress is allowing corporations to have too much of a say in something that effects the consumer greatly. This sense of unfairness will cause an even greater and more persistent protest from activist, which could in turn allow for more actions to be put in place in upcoming years. Alongside the activist for mandatory GMO labeling, are many famous faces. "This week, actress Blythe Danner and her daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow, attended a Capitol Hill press conference with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to promote legislation the senator co-sponsored that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods. The actresses are part of a "Just Label It" campaign that includes a petition drive that will ask General Mills, Kellogg's, Quaker Oats, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo to quit funding "anti-labeling efforts."" (Radelet, 2015) 

The Just Label It campaign is also a major driving force for the GMO labeling efforts, allowing for consumers to obtain the knowledge necessary to take an informed stance on this debate, and to be able to take action in standing for what they believe in. The website for the campaign addresses topics such as, The Current Labeling Policy, State Labeling Initiatives, and Why Labeling Makes Sense. This background information is necessary when posing a valid argument for GMO labeling. The website also includes statistics such as, "90% of mothers and 88% of fathers favor requiring labels of foods that have been genetically modified or contain genetically modified ingredients." Data such as this, is appealing to the Ethos of the reader, encouraging the "parents know best" initiative. There is also a "Take Action" portion, which allows for the audience to send a pre- typed letter to the Food and Drug Administration, Congress, and/or the Big Food companies. This will help in the fight for mandatory labeling and allow for the consumers to actually feel as though their voice is being heard.

The use of Genetically Modified Foods continuous to grow in our modern day society. This growth is necessary for the increased production of food that is required to sustain the world's growing population. It is important to ask yourself, as a consumer, are you aware of what is in the food that is going in your body? Consumers have a right to know what foods they are providing for themselves and their loved ones. There are a multitude of cancer causing agents in genetically modified ingredients that consumers are completely oblivious too. Food allergies are also very common when conversing about genetically modified foods. Since there are many foreign substances within the ingredients used for genetic modification, this can cause for a higher risk in food allergies to these substances. Ingesting a food that a person is unaware they may have allergies from, due to the ingredients within the food, could possibly have a deadly ending result. The omnipresent importance of labeling of Genetically Modified Foods is higher than ever. Foods that have been genetically enhanced should be required to be labeled for the safety of the consumer. It is detrimental for citizens to not know what is inside of their foods and to be left in the dark about what they are consuming. In order for consumer's to have an informed decision concerning the foods that large scale manufacturers are providing into their local markets, stronger labeling laws need to be enforced. The current labeling laws within America do not have the consumer's best interest in mind. Corporations are having way too much sway in Congress's actions and our government is becoming more in favor of transnational corporations rather than the people of America, which is what our democracy was built on. The labeling law initiatives that have been enacted by states such as Vermont, Maine and Connecticut play a major role in the hopes of mandating a nationwide mandatory labeling law. With the help of many organizations, activists, and celebrities, GMO labeling will hopefully continue to grow throughout the country. The use of labeling on GMO products will ultimately allow the consumer to feel safer in consuming the product, and for manufacturers to be held more responsible for what is being put into their foods. It is necessary for informed consumers to speak out against this issue through sites such as, "Just Label It", there is power in numbers and the more people to act upon this relevant issue, the more impact and the better chance of requiring results we have as a community. 

