There is not a lot of awareness in food safety in general public. People rarely pay attention to the actual ingredients of the food or food production. Food manufacturers tend to exaggerate their advertisements to draw the attentions of its potential consumers. Consumers more often than not get distracted by the "health facts" the companies put on the fancy packages with the perfect graphic design. A research on food safety issues not only provides a more persuasive point of view, it also allows us to look at this issue on a larger scale. When I walked into a grocery store, I couldn't help but see the "gluten free" and "organic" products. Merchants put the "health facts" on their products for better prices. However, non-wheat products such as juices or animal products that self evidently contain no gluten do not make it more "gluten free." Determined to become a chemist, I have paid a lot of attention to food safety issues and the ethics of chemical usage. In my applied biology class, we watched a documentary discussing the thrive and regulation of GMOs. I was very surprised that the country that consumes and produces the majority of the GMOs is one of the few countries that do not have a labeling system for GMOs, meaning most people do not realize they are consuming GMOs. It is important to know what is in the food we eat and be aware of the influence it has on our body. After all, we are what we eat. 

America is notorious for its chemically synthesized food additives and its labeling. When we walk into a convenient store for a Danish as cheap as one dollar a piece, and we wonder what the it is made of and turn the package to read the ingredients. Surprisingly, instead of just flour, egg and sugar, it takes hundreds of never seen chemicals to make a Danish while some of them are banned for their harmfulness in most countries. After a few bites of fake and sugary Danish we yearn for a drink to save ourselves from the thirst the chemicals cause. The citrus flavor of an orange soda, such as Mountain Dew or Fanta Orange sounds complimentary with the creamy Danish. Just out of curiosity, we turn to the back and read the ingredients again, only to find Brominated Vegetable Oil, a commonly banned food additive in the world(Snopes). Brominated vegetable oil is vegetable oil, made from corn or soy, bonded with the element bromine.  "It's added as an emulsifier, to prevent the flavoring from separating and floating to the surface. Bromines are common endocrine disruptors, and are part of the halide family, a group of elements that includes fluorine, chlorine and iodine."(Mercola) The reason why it is so dangerous is that it competes for the same receptors that are used to capture iodine. If you are exposed to a lot of bromine, your body will not hold on to the iodine that it needs just like what makes carbon monoxide dangerous. And iodine affects every tissue in your body, not just your thyroid. Bromine is known to act as a central nervous system depressant, it causes a series of psychological diseases as well as other physical side effects such as skin rashes, severe acne, loss of appetite and abdominal pain, fatigue, metallic taste and Cardiac arrhythmias. Additives like Brominated Vegetable Oil have been long banned by European Union but the FDA approves the use of Brominated Vegetable Oil for food manufacture out of the out dated research data from the 70s. FDA is trusted by most American consumers. If FDA does not serve as a good supervisor for the manufacture industry, the consumers must stand up for themselves and be aware of what they choose to eat.

According to the survey of consumer behavior conducted by Cogent Research of Cambridge, almost all American consumers reported to pay attention to the food labeling but very few would look at the health symbols. The result indicates more than half of the Americans are confident and satisfied with the current food safety regulations. Over three quarters of Americans receive food safety information form media and advertisement. Most Americans reported their preference for hearing "what to eat" instead of "what not to eat." (Mathews) Meanwhile, a research from law school professor, Julie Muller, pointed out the fact that the food manufacturers have been utilizing this consumer mentality. Billions of profits are made out of the "all natural" labeling although it is most likely to be genetically engineered to save the costs despite the fact that their target customers are usually the anti-GMO supporters(Muller 511). These "healthy lifestyle" advocates often have no idea the "healthy foods" they thought they have been consuming tend to be the other way of their expectation. FDA is the one to blame for being unwilling to provide the official definition of "natural." 

To our dismay, food companies have a significant influence and control to the FDA, where the food regulations are made. A law school student, Edward Bonnette's article published by IVN reveals that many of the high ranking FDA government officials are involved with the largest GMO food company, Monsanto. The most well recognized person is Michael Taylor, the former vice president of Monsanto.  Michael has been working in important positions at the FDA and is recently promoted as the deputy commissioner of FDA. The improper relationship between Monsanto and the FDA is highly controversial.  Monsanto company is the target to blame these years, especially Michael Taylor. 

On December 2 2015, news program, CBS This Morning invited the CEO of Monsanto, 

Hugh Grant, to talk about the company's visions toward food labeling policy regarding GMO products. Grant had a "positive" attitude and is looking forward to the federal GMO labeling for the convenience of the food manufactures. In response to the uncompetitive reputation of the company, Hugh explained that Monsanto being a seed supplier, has little to do with the restaurants and far from direct contact to the customers. The company now has a new prospect, to educate the consumers what GMO really is --  a cure to the hungry rising population and a savior for the change of climate as well as natural disasters. 

Eco-Watch, a non-profit organization dedicating to environmental information and sustainability, has indicated that almost all of the agricultural products in the US have been genetically modified. Recently, FDA has approved GMO animals for human consumption. The House of Representatives passed a law against GMO labeling. Monsanto and large food manufacturers such as Coca-Cola and Nestle, who spent millions of dollars on stopping the GMO labeling, are responsible for the result of the anti labeling legislation. (Chow)

Are GMOs actually bad for human consumption? Science Show TV host, Hank Green addressed the fear human have towards the idea we are consuming a series of unknown foreign genes. Reports show that we have been consuming genetically modified organisms for decades without any signs of negative effects to our health because genetically modified organism is no different than other organisms, produces numerous proteins, only some of them are proteins that were selected on purpose of human use. We have been consuming the meat fed by GMOs our entire life. (Green) However, despite of the fact that GMOs are not bad to consume. People still have the right to know what they eat just like some choose to be vegetarian, others choose to become vegan. If the vegetables came from the process of hurting animals to obtain their genes, this might potentially be against veganism. 

In terms of the transgene issues, many are concerned about the safety regarding the intake of mysterious DNA from the GMO foods. However, Dr. W. Doerfler's research on Foreign DNA in Mammalian Systems provides the fact that "humans typically consume a minimum of 0.1 to 1 gram of DNA in their diet each day. Therefore, the transgene in a genetically engineered plant is not a new type of material to our digestive systems, and it is present in extremely small amounts."(Doerfler) Although this fact supports the norm of human consumption of foreign DNA, provided that the DNA of the species are not labeled, there is no evidence that the unknown DNA would not have potential effect on human bodies, regardless it is positive or negative. 

To determine the microbiological safety of GMO food , we look at the potential toxicity of the GMO food with its foreign DNA transcription. In respect to the toxicity of the effect of the DNA intake to the human body mentioned in the source above. The research done by Society of Toxicology has shown that " the potential toxicity of the transgene product attention must be paid if the transgene produces a known toxin such as the Bacillus thuringienisus [Bt] endotoxins or a protein with allergenic properties." One of the debating issues of GMO food is whether the inserted genes would cause the toxicity of the food in replace of the host genome, the original gene prior to modification. The process of the genetic modification is not creating a new risk that the conventional foods already had, "Unintended effects of gene insertion might include an over-expression by the host of inherently toxic or pharmacologically active substances, silencing of normal host genes, or alterations in host metabolic pathways. With the exception of the introduction of marker genes, the process of genetic engineering does not, in itself, create new types of risk. Most of the hazards listed above are also inherent in conventional breeding methods." 

Despite the fact genetic engineering does not necessarily create a new risk of toxicity that the traditionally grown foods already had in its natural breeding, we can not overlook the effect of diminishment in biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variety of phenotypes developed from the exchange of genes from the natural breeding. If the biodiversity is decreased significantly, the "phenotype," the outer visible appearance or features of the geno arrangement like our the shape of our nose is the result of the phenotype combination of our parents' genes, of the geno combination is also dominated by the replacement of a segment of host genome by the inserted gene. 

Sven-Erik Jacobsen, a sustainability biologist specified in biodiversity from university of Copenhagen, published a journal article, "Feeding the world: Genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity" reveals the truth that Monsanto is hiding from consumers: the real, long-term, sustainable alternative cure to keeping up the food production of global population -- by naturally conserving and developing the breeds in a bio diverse way so that one day the environmental conditions changed that the current phenotypes could not survive we would still have enough food ,in other words we need new genes other than using other animals' current genes and stop breeding new ones.  However, the development of biotechnology threatens the research fund for biodiversity. If we are not aware of this serious issue, our future generations might not be able to survive in case of the major changes to the environments. 

Companies like Monsanto and other manufacturers pull all their strength to fight against the mandatory labeling at the state level to reduce the cost of producing different labels specifically for the States. The idea of mandatory labeling is supported by the majority of general public. Vermont being the first to have its own mandatory GMO labeling law, has led the federal courts and the congress to determine whether mandatory labeling should become national wide. Whatever the result, it is up to the consumers to decide if they want to support the GMOs and its current legislation system. (Pifer) The problem is the awareness of GMO labeling varies in each state. States like Vermont are historically greener than other states. California has held 2 GMO mandatory labeling votes. The labeling act failed to reach half of the eligible voters each time although much more people voted the second time. On the interest level, if all the food manufacturers were required to label their products as genetically modified, all natural products became not so "natural," the sales would decline. This is part of the reason why, the FDA, funded and supported by a lot of manufacture companies still hasn't officially defined what "natural" is and reserve their attitude to the mandatory GMO labeling.

The reason the companies like Monsanto can get away is because a lot of consumers don't care enough about what they eat, or perhaps it's the hard-to-read chemical ingredients that prevent us from reading the food labels. Food Labeling has become a critical issue with the advance of biotechnology in food manufacturing industry. Surveys of consumer behavior indicate the unawareness of the insufficient information on the package labeling legislative wise (Matthews). Evidence has proved the inappropriate collusion between the government and the manufacturers is a major contribution to the cause of improper labeling. (Bonnette) Genetically modified organism thrives with the progress of the biological engineering with its research fund sponsored by the manufacturers.  (Jacobsen; Sorense; Weiner; Pedersen p651-662) On the other hand, this also limited the alternative approach to solve the lack of food with the fast growing population oppressed by the GMO research fund. The current legislation is responsible to establish a tangible system to handle the problem.

