The health of the American population is put at risk due to the increased use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production. According to Ruhs, "a genetically modified organism is an organism that has been genetically altered using a laboratory process ... in which genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially placed into the genes of another organism to produce a desired trait" (4). GMOs are becoming exceedingly prevalent in foods that are consumed daily across the country, such as the heavily processed snacks that dominate the American food industry. GMOs are also starting to take over specific food products, such as soybeans and corn. According to Smith, "93 percent of all soybeans, 78 percent of all cotton, and 70 percent of all corn grown in the United States in 2010 were genetically modified to be herbicide tolerant" ("Say No to GMOs" 47). Not only do GMOs negatively affect human health, the absence of laws to require GMO labeling on foods have caused society to be completely unaware of what they are consuming and how it may be harming their bodies.

Consumption of genetically modified foods can have negative effects on human health. Melissa Smith discusses many "health risks associated with eating GM foods, including infertility, immune system problems, accelerated aging, disruption of insulin and cholesterol regulation, gastrointestinal problems, and organ damage" ("Say No to GMOs" 48).  When organs were examined in a 2009 study, genetically modified corn that was approved to be put on the market was linked to kidney and liver damage, along with changes in other organs, in rats that had been consuming the corn for only ninety days (Smith, "Say No to GMOs" 48). Smith also addresses scientific research showing "thousands of toxic and allergic reactions in humans" along with "damage to virtually every organ studied" (48). The increase in the use of GMOs and the dramatic increase in food allergies is not something that just happens by coincidence, these increases go hand-in-hand. Genetically modified soy has been found to have about seven times more trypsin inhibitor, a soy allergen, than non-genetically modified corn (Smith 48). Smith states that "genetically modified soy also has higher levels of herbicide residues, which might trigger reactions, and preliminary research suggests it contains a new potential allergen not found in non-GM soy" (49). These health risks alone should be enough to diminish the production of GMOs used in the food industry.

Along with these health risks comes the even more common risk of obesity. Allen addresses the increase in obesity stating that "in 26 years the U.S. went from a thin nation to the fattest nation in history, sixty-eight percent of the population is overweight and 34% are obese" (N.p.). While genetic factors play a significant role in weight gain, such a dramatic increase of overweight and obese people involves something more than genetics. Another strong factor in this escalation is the change of diet over the past decades. Several new foods and food additives have been introduced into the standard American diet, including the use of genetic engineering in the production of corn, cotton seed, soy, and canola (Allen N.p.). These four ingredients are found in abundance throughout processed foods, which has become one of the most prevalent food markets in the country. Allen adds that "the new finding that GMO foods caused weight gains in test animals is especially alarming, and indicates that increased consumption of such foods is probably a significant factor in our recent dramatic increase in obesity" (N.p.). Obesity can lead to many other health problems, such as type two diabetes, that can be easily prevented by staying away from genetically modified processed foods. My dad has a moderate case of diabetes that is controlled by medication. However, he is able to come completely off of his medication when he maintains a healthier weight by cutting out processed foods containing GMOs. The cycle of obesity and its corresponding health conditions will continue to be a prevalent problem in the United States if something is not done about the use of GMOs in heavily processed foods. 

While the use of genetic modification has many opponents, it also has its supporters. Those that support the use of genetically modified organisms make claims that they are cheaper to produce, can add nutrients, are resistant to insects, increase crop yields, are immune to certain diseases, decrease pesticide use, and are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (Donovan). Hsaio addresses how GMOs are meant to be more resistant to pesticides or to produce synthetic pesticides themselves (N.p.). Increased exposure to such pesticides can result in poisoning to the human body and have been linked to other chronic health conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and neurological defects (Hsaio N.p.). This puts farmers at great risk due to their consistent exposure to such pesticides. Along with the use of pesticides, GMO advocates claim that genetic modification can be used to increase crop yields. Kolseth discusses this claim by stating "yield of maize, wheat, rice and soybeans have stagnated or collapsed over the last 50 years in several areas of the world, causing yield gaps compared with expected production" (99). Genetic modification is argued to hold potential to reverse such dramatic declines in crop yield. Smith addresses this opposing side by stating that "genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields ... and pesticide use has actually dramatically increased" ("Say No to GMOs" 50). Genetically modified seeds are able to spread to non-GMO crop fields, posing an extreme environmental hazard rather than beneficial purposes (Smith 50). Glass addresses these concerns further by stating that "toxicity is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides, used commonly with GMOs, in addition to the toxicity inherent to these plants." The toxicity may effect "non-target organisms" such as bees and butterflies, disturbing the natural pollination cycle (Glass N.p.). If genetic modification can be causing harm to these "non-target organisms", they can just as easily be causing harm to the human population. This shows that the so called "benefits" of GMOs are questionable as a whole. 

GMO advocates argue that genetic modification can actually be a huge advantage to the United States and the rest world. Johnson discusses a potential benefit of genetic modification, specifically in relation to the introduction of "Golden Rice." This crop is a genetically modified type of rice that is envisioned to fight worldwide hunger by introducing certain vitamins back into the food system (Jonson 34). Golden Rice is intended to reduce malnutrition on a global scale by adding beta-carotene, a Vitamin A precursor, back into the food supply (Johnson 34). Vitamin A deficiency can compromise the immune system, causing millions of people to die each year from diseases that they would not normally be susceptible to (Johnson 34). A major assumption Johnson makes is that advocates of Golden Rice believe that the real purpose is just to gain support for the use of GMOs, questioning the actual viability of the crop. Johnson also addresses the skeptics by stating that they "view it as a wolf in sheep's clothing -- a way for biotech companies to further infiltrate the global agricultural marketplace under an altruistic guise with little regard for broader human health and environmental impacts" (34). Whether someone is a supporter for Golden Rice or not, the actual health benefits of the rice are questioned. It has been over a decade since this crop was introduced into the food system and it is still not linked to any improvement in worldwide hunger (Johnson 35). This shows the lack of benefits that come along with the use of genetic modification in food production. Due to the widespread use of GMOs, what people consume on a daily basis may actually be harmful, whether or not anyone is actually aware of it. 

Foods containing genetically modified organisms are not required to be labeled before going out into the food market in the United States. The absence of labeling laws takes away the human right to choose not to eat these products, due to not being able to distinguish between foods that contain GMOs and those that do not. Dizon addresses the absence of such laws by comparing the United States to the 64 other countries that require labeling of GMOs (R288). If that many other countries have laws in place to enforce GMO labeling, there is no reason why laws that require labeling should not be in effect in the United States. Consumers have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies on a daily basis to be able to make informed decisions based how it can effect their health. The Food and Drug Administration argues that they "do not have evidence concluding that GM foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way" (Dizon R288). However, voluntary labeling of GM products throughout the United States is in effect. As Dizon addresses, "in 2001, the FDA proposed voluntary guidelines for companies that chose to label foods as to whether they do or do not contain GM ingredients if they see suf cient market opportunities for doing so" (R288). It is not possible for consumers to be properly informed if the opponent gets to choose what information they do, or do not, provide. Food companies still have the choice to omit the information altogether, showing no progress in GMO labeling.

Avoiding genetically modified organisms can help to prevent the mentioned health concerns and even possibly reduce the production of GMOs. Smith states that "when as little as 5 percent of the population is vigilant about avoiding genetically modified foods when shopping, it can create a tipping point -- a moment when major food companies realize that using GMOs is a liability, and they start pulling GM ingredients from their products" ("Say No to GMOs" 50).  To avoid GMOs, shoppers can choose to look for foods labeled either USDA Organic or Non-GMO Project Verified. While these two labels may seem to be the same, they actually have two different meanings. Smith discusses the Non-GMO Project Verified label being the "fastest-growing label claim in the natural foods industry," explaining that "in order to earn this distinction, products undergo a rigorous review process by the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit organization that operates North America's only third party verification program for GMO avoidance" ("Non-GMO Vs. Organic" 70). While this focusses solely on GMO avoidance, those who prefer natural foods may want to stay away from this label. Smith then states that to "meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and processors must show that they aren't using GMOs, and also that they are protecting their products from contact with GMOs through a variety of methods" ("Non-GMO Vs. Organic" 70). Yaworski adds that "buffer zones must also be created to avoid GMO or pesticide contamination from neighboring conventional farms that may grow genetically engineered seeds" (17). To obtain the organic label does not require testing for GMOs, so some people may desire the added protection of GMO testing by choosing the Non-GMO Project verification. Reduction in the use of GMOs, due to an increase in organic and non-GMO food sales, can better the overall health and wellbeing of the American population. 

While choosing to eat an all organic diet may be more expensive, the benefits can outweigh the costs. These elevated prices come from five major areas of productions costs; seed acquisition, pesticide and fertilizer purchase, equipment rental or purchase, labor, and transportation and advertising (Felton N.p.). The heightened cost of organic seeds, which are required to produce a crop labeled as organic, comes from the demand being higher than the supply (Felton). Organic farms are prohibited from using synthetic compounds, such as pesticides and fertilizers, which leaves them to rely on "mechanical methods of controlling pests" and are required to "maintain on-site composite piles for fertilizing" (Felton). Organic farms do not have the financial resources, such as loans and subsidies, that larger scale conventional farms are provided (Felton). This is how conventional food products are able to be sold at a lower price and still make a substantial profit. These conventional farms are offered reduced rates on packaging and transportation systems, which also enables them to produce a cheaper crop. The debate over whether or not organic foods are better for the human body is ongoing, but "organic foods ...  have higher levels of antioxidants and other nutrients, and lower levels of pesticides" (Watson N.p.). Organic fruits and vegetables seem to have the most health benefits, when compared to other categories of organic and inorganic foods. This is because of their increased level of vitamins and antioxidants, which help to neutralize free radicals that can be toxic in large amounts (Watson). Organic foods are typically fresher due to being more locally grown. Freshness and nutrition go hand-in-hand, due to the nature of nutrients to diminish with time. Even for those that are on a tight budget, there are ways to change shopping habits to include organic, non-GMO food products into daily diet. Watson recommends "choosing the organic foods that have the most nutritional impact" and "buying fruits and vegetables at the peak of the season, when they're not only the freshest, but also the least expensive." While the price difference for organic foods may be substantial, so are the benefits that come from these foods.

The continued use of genetic modification in food production will be a detriment to American society if nothing is done to decrease their prevalence. While the complete eradication of GMOs may not be feasible, products containing GMOs should be required to be labeled to uphold the autonomy of people's decision making. Whether or not someone believes that genetic modification is truly harmful to the human body, everyone has a right to know what the foods they are eating contain. Vermont has recently been the first state to take a step toward this purpose by passing a mandatory labeling law to go into effect this July (Kling 1180). Many legal issues lie within this law and are being investigated further, such as a possible violation of the first amendment and violation of the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution by "placing an unnecessary burden on trade between the states" (Kling 1180). These allegations can be defended due to the main purpose being to inform consumers. While the law has not yet gone into effect and is still being reviewed, this could be a guideline for other states to follow. It is important for a state to get a law like this passed to push other states to follow in that direction, turning it into a nationwide law. Success in one state will justify the introduction of this new law and cause a snowball effect, moving from state to state. Once GMOs are required by law to be labeled, consumers will have a better opportunity to get educated on the subject matter to make informed decisions for their households. Proper education could potentially help to diminish the consumption of GMOs altogether, helping to make the United States a stronger and healthier nation.

