Genetically modified organisms are constantly around us when we shop in grocery stores; however, it is impossible for consumers to tell the difference. Genetically modified organisms, short termed GMO, are crops created using genetic engineering methods in biotechnology using certain desirable traits to enhance the product, for example pesticide and herbicide resistance (Powell par 2 Over 70% of the processed food sold in stores contains genetically modified ingredients but the consumers have no way to distinguish which product is a GMO by the given labels (Kimbrell par 1).  If labeling genetically modified organism does not go into effect, then society will continue to consume and purchase these GMOs products for their families, unaware of the possible effects from the products. The topic of GMO labeling has been debated throughout the United States and globally in other countries for the past 10 years (Casewell, "Should Use of Genetically"). The consumer has a right to know what products are genetically modified equally to the farmers knowing what the ingredients are when purchasing the modified seeds which grow the GMO products. There should be mandatory labeling policies on genetically modified organisms to ensure that consumers are knowledgeable and are able to consciously decide to purchase them.  

Genetically modified organisms are produced through genetic engineering using advanced procedures in biotechnology (Powell par 1). The main process in genetic engineering is to identify the desired trait from a given organism, isolate that trait,  insert the chosen trait into the new organism of interest, and then breed the new genetically modified organism (Powell par 4). The process and available technology used for genetic engineering has transformed over the past years. These process include selective breeding, being able to insert genes from one organism into another, and recently researchers have developed a new process that allows them to directly edit the genome of an organism (Powell par 1). The use of GMOs is very important as the population is growing at an inclined level; the need for food will continue to increase at an accelerated rate. Genetically modified organisms also increase the amount of food being produced which can supply more food to third world countries and reduce the pressure on the prices of food (Chen and Tseng 147). While these benefits are important, a public opinion poll was taken in 2015 that found that 52% of participants said that they felt GMOs were not needed and 15% did not know what a GMO was (Langer par 2). Even with the advantage of mass production of GMOs, which would help world hunger, the public will continue to be wary about GMOs if they are still unaware of what a GMO is or its benefits. 

One of the main uncertainties about genetically modified organisms is if they are truly safe for consumption. This uncertainty is due to the fact that many people do not have any background information or any knowledge on what a genetically modified organism actually is. Without knowledge on genetically modified organisms when consumers go to purchase a product and see a GMO label this could infer to them that there is some type of health hazard or a safety issue with this product and cause the consumer to avoid the GMO products all together. With the implementation of GMO labeling laws, information and education on genetically modified organisms will need to be presented to the public so they can become knowledgeable and aware of how it is made and what a GMO encompasses. Labeling genetically modified organisms can be beneficial for both the consumers and the food manufactures as it would inform the consumer and promote the companies GMO product. If the process of genetic engineering and the genetically modified organisms themselves are truly safe, "...then slap a smiley-faced DNA helix on the package and promote the heck out of the fact that high-tech genetically modified ingredients are in most of our foods" (Caplan par 8).  Many supporters of pro-labeling genetically modified organisms make the claim that the safety of the GMO is unknown as no research has effectively proven them to be safe or unsafe and the consumers have the right to know what is in their foods (Dahl A359). 

The phrase "the right to know" has been repeatedly used in arguments for supporters of mandatory labeling policies for GMOs. However, by stating that labeling should be mandatory for GMOs based on the "right to know" will only create more demands for additional information that could fall under an umbrella of "the right to know" (Cerier par 7). One of the dangers in mandating GMO food labeling laws based on the claim that it is our right to know is the concept of having an information overload (Glasgow 134). Consumers will continue to request more information on products to the point where they are overwhelmed and will be unable to choose products based on all the information presented (Glasgow 134). The current provided labels on packages inform consumers if the use of high fructose corn syrup or trans-fats are in the product; genetically modified ingredients should be made public and included in those nutritional concerns. In 2015 a survey was conducted by The Mellman Group, an independent research group with no affiliation to the GMO debate, for The Center of Food Safety which found that 89% of people were in favor of mandatory labeling laws for genetically modified organisms (The Mellman Group par 1). If the consumers feel that it is their right to know what altered ingredients are in their foods then the concept of them knowing which foods are genetically modified will be beneficial in the end, despite the potential confusion with introducing these labels.

The importance in determining if the current GMO labeling laws need to be mandated is so that consumers can be aware and be able to consciously decide whether or not to purchase them.  Since companies willingly include the nutritional values, high fructose corn syrup presence, and trans-fats in the labels of their products; including genetically modified ingredients should not be a problem for these companies. The argument of labeling genetically modified organisms has been present since the early 2000's but still no common ground has been found between the consumers, the FDA, and the big food corporations. The main issue in not being able to mandate the GMO labeling policies is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA. According to the FDA, food manufactures may voluntarily label their foods with information about whether or not the foods were produced using bioengineering, as long as such information published is truthful and not misleading to the consumer ("Guidance for Industry" par 10). However, given the previous statement, the food manufactures are being misleading by not placing labels on the food products that have genetically modified ingredients. More than 89% of society wants mandatory GMO labeling laws, but the FDA is being uncooperative toward enacting these labeling policies (Glasgow 118; The Mellman Group par 1). The FDA is granted the authority to mandate labeling policies due to the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act (FDCA). This Act allows the FDA to mandate any specific label "if the existing label is false or misleading in a material respect" (Glasgow 118). As the FDCA does not give any clear indication on what materiality actually means, the FDA interprets the mandatory label requirement as "the absence of 'material' information that leads the consumer to assume that a food has the same nutritional and functional characteristics of the food it resembles when in fact it does not" ("Background on the Public Hearing" par 19).  Meaning if a certain bar of butter is sold at stores and this butter looks the same as the organic counterpart but really 50% of its genes are from various organisms, than a mandatory GMO label is required. In 2010 a coalition group challenged the FDA's decision in not requiring mandatory labels for GMOs. The court ruled in favor with the FDA and released a statement concluding "only when materiality has been established may the FDA consider whether a label is required to disclose a material fact" ("Background on the Public Hearing" par 25). Although it may seem as if the FDA's hands are tied, they are still able to interpret the meaning of materiality in new terms that grant mandatory GMO labeling policies. 

When dealing with the safety of genetically modified organisms the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, does not conduct their own safety test on GMOs but merely reviews the companies' own safety assessments on the products themselves (Bartolotto par 4).  This is very daunting as the FDA only reviews documentation of handling procedures and practices , the use of test methods, and reviews if any of the food marked organic is a certified organic food product ("Guidance for Industry" par 30-32) but does not conduct any individual or long term studies on the genetically modified organisms to eliminate any biased data from the companies. So when protestors of mandatory GMO labeling policies such as Reza Rasoulpour, toxicologist at Dow AgroSciences, claims that GMO labeling is unnecessary as the GMO is nutritionally the same and as safe as the natural counterpart (Rasoulpour 0:31); one can't help but notice the huge bias as Dow AgroSciences is one of the biggest bioengineering agricultural companies. Any employee of agricultural bioengineering companies is going to have bias when talking about the safety of GMOs as their jobs and the reputation of the company is dependent on it. Without more independent studies done on genetically modified organisms there can be no real assumption that GMOs are truly safe. This uncertainty on the safety of genetically modified organisms should raise some internal red flags in the scientific community as well as in the minds of the consumers. In some scientific communities this has raised red flags as Richard Dahl gives evidence of a study conducted with pigs, which were fed genetically engineered soybeans and maize. The study revealed that the males developed liver problems and the females developed kidney problems with the GMO diet (Dahl A360). Dahl claims that there are many different kinds of studies in scientific literature on the effects of genetically modified organisms that have raised red flags, which ultimately needs to be followed up on with more research by the FDA (Dahl A360). Even though there is some bias when determining if a GMO is 100 % safe or not from testing, the FDA does make sure that the GMO foods that are sold in stores meet the same food safety requirements as the foods produced through traditional plant breeding. In reality, if there was any significant safety issues with the GMOs the FDA would have stepped in and recalled the product from being sold in stores ("Consumer Info about Food " par 1).

When considering mandatory GMO labeling laws, the outcomes and challenges with implementing these laws must be taken into account. For the United States labeling has been voluntary as the main regulation for companies that produce genetically modified organisms. Mandatory labeling is only enforced if the FDA finds any allergenic potential or nutritional change in the GMO that is different from its natural counterpart (Casewell, "Labeling Policy for GMOs" par 7). Richard Dahl proposes in his article "To Label or Not to Label" a hypothetical situation on the effectiveness of GMO labeling. His example, if a gene from a kiwi fruit is copied and inserted into a tomato which is then turned into a pizza sauce and is sold in stores, the consumer won't think twice about their kiwi allergy when purchasing the tomato sauce. With this product being  perceived to be regular tomato based sauce, then the consumer has an allergic reaction due to the kiwi gene in the genetically altered tomato. This whole situation could have been avoided if there was a label to indicate the genetically modified ingredients (Dahl A360). These genetically modified ingredients could cause an unknown allergic reaction or a health risk to an individual if not labeled. Even if the chances are slim to none the label should still be there, which is why other countries have incorporated mandatory labeling policies. Mandatory labeling policies and laws have been placed on genetically modified organisms in over 64 other countries, while the United States still uses voluntary labeling. Economically in the trading business mandatory labeling would be the best choice for the United States in order to become a more successful trading partner with countries such as Japan, New Zealand, the European Union, and Australia (Casewell, "Labeling Policy for GMOs" par 7). All these countries currently use mandatory labeling laws for genetically modified foods (Casewell, "Labeling Policy for GMOs" par 7). If the U.S. continues to pursue voluntary labeling, the trading companies in other countries will no longer do business with the U.S. because they require labels for GMOs. However, implementing GMO mandatory labeling laws will affect the food companies using genetically modified organisms as their supply chain will be compromised in ways pertaining to separation and verification of GMO products and non GMO products (Casewell, "Should Use of Genetically" par 1). For the food manufactures this at first could be seen as very problematic, but with the help from countries who have had success with these policies, the transition would be smooth for the companies. With current labeling policies there is a difference between being unknowingly unaware of what is in the ingredients in products than from deliberately not being informed for the sake of the companies' income not suffering. As a consumer one would want to know what altered materials are inside their everyday food that they are consuming and purchasing for their family.

The outcomes with possibly changing the voluntary genetically modified organisms labeling policies to mandatory labeling is more beneficial as a whole for the communities and for the country. With the surveys and polls taken, it is clear to see that consumers want a label on food products with genetically modified ingredients. In order for the mandatory labeling of GMOs to be truly beneficial, people would need to be educated on what a genetically modified organism is and how this changes the content of food products. The restrictions on the FDA and how they can mandate the labeling policies is a draw-back, along with the big genetic engineering food corporations that have been overpowering any bill trying to ensure labeling mandatory genetically modified organism as a law (Kimbrell par 2). These set-backs can be defeated by continuously fighting for mandatory labeling laws and by conducting more scientific studies and research in the safety and possible long term effects of genetically modified organisms. Labeling is an important topic for our communities and also for our country as Mandatory GMO labeling will help our economy in the trading business as it will encourage more successful trading opportunities between the U.S. and other countries (Casewell, "Labeling Policy for GMOs" par 17).  The consumer has a right to know what products are genetically modified just as much as the food manufactures and the FDA. The corporations should not be the judge on what we need to know in terms of what ingredients are in the food we are ingesting; consumers should be the judge. All in all, there should be mandatory labeling policies on genetically modified organisms to ensure that the consumers are consciously able to decide to purchase those genetically modified organisms. 

