I have had an interest in genetically modified organisms, short termed GMOs, since my first biology class in high school when my teacher introduced them to me. GMOs are organisms that have been genetically altered/engineered in a laboratory to carry modified genes that hold certain desirable characteristics such as herbicide resistance (Powell par 2). Every time I go to the grocery store I have GMOs in the back of my mind as do other consumers which is why the topic of having mandatory GMO labels has been highly debated throughout the United States. Personally I believe I have a right to know whether the food I am consuming is a natural product or has been altered in a laboratory. Though I don't know if I've had any personal experience with GMO's, I believe if I had the option to choose between purchasing a GMO or a naturally grown product, I would pick the latter as I do not want to eat something from a laboratory. I have researched genetically modified organisms many times for other research purposes and have written scientific papers on them, collecting a good amount of knowledge. Many research papers on genetically modified organisms are available to me which will further my knowledge on them. 

In the article, "The Case for Labeling GMOs" by Andrew Kimbrell, Kimbrell addresses the point that labeling of GMO's should be required for stores and gives evidence that over 70 percent of processed foods produced in stores contains genetically modified ingredients. Kimbrell states that in Washington state, food and chemical corporations together have raised over $20 million in order to defeat a GMO labeling initiative vote in 2013 (Kimbrell par 3). Kimbrell makes it clear for the audience that if GMO labeling does not go into effect, then   consumers will not know if what they are consuming is what it is perceived to be.. People have a right to know if they are purchasing a natural product or a laboratory product; denying labeling is denying society's right to know. Kimbrell is an executive director at the Center for Food Safety, their goal is to protect human health and the environment. Since GMOs are not natural Kimbrell is going to have bias towards labeling GMOs for society. 

The article "GMO Foods should be Labeled, But Not for Safety: Bioethicist" by Arthur Caplan argues that GMO labeling is beneficial. Caplan gives both sides of the arguments over GMO labeling, showing that with either argument GMO labeling is a good thing. If the GMO is truly safe then labeling would just promote the  GMO product along with giving consumers the satisfaction of knowing what they are purchasing and consuming. Caplan denies the audiences beliefs that GMOs are not labeled because they are unsafe, no research has proven them to be safe or unsafe, instead he  questions what is so bad about labeling GMOs? Caplan has a PhD in Bioethics and Health Policy and is a founding head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University Medical Center. Caplan does have bias in his article on GMO labeling, even though he brings both sides of the debate to light his solution favors GMO labeling. 

In Carole Bartolotto's article "Why Genetically Modified Foods Should Be Labeled", she has a similar argument to Arthur Caplan, in that she states that since companies claimGMOs are safe than labeling them should not be a problem.  Since 1996 genetically modified organisms have been  sold and purchased in stores so labeling them should not be an issue for corporations. Bartolotto sheds light on the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not personally perform a safety test on GMOs but in fact they just review the company's own preformed safety tests. Bartolotto denies the thought that GMOs must be safe since the companies don't label them in stores and  brings up instances where in some animal studies with GMOs the findings included symptoms such as immune system deficiency and  infertility. Bartolotto uses an example on the effect GMOs have on the environment as research shows the population of monarch butterflies has been decreasing from the destruction of milkweed. Bartolotto argues that mandatory labels should be placed on GMOs as the consumer should be aware of them when shopping. Bartolotto is a registered dietitian with a master's degree in exercise physiology and a Master's degree of Arts. Seeing as Bartolotto is a dietitian she has bias for labeling GMO's as she wants to know what is going into her body. 

In the article "Mandatory GMO food label not backed by science" by Steven Cerier, he argues that having mandatory labels on GMOs will be counterproductive as this will only worry the public. Cerier points out that the use of a GMO label will cause consumers to be suspicious and could implicate there is a safety concern on the product. Cerier uses examples of everyday products such as medication, cotton, and cheese that are genetically modified to illustrate his argument that a label is unnecessary. As Cerier is only an international economist he incorporates known and credible sources in his article to strengthen his credibility. This article is very biased as it only focuses on why GMOs should not be labeled. 

The argument of labeling GMOs is mainly between big food corporations and the people of society. Among all the articles I have researched there is one common question that is always popping up; why are we not labeling GMOs? Although Andrew Kimbrell, Arthur Caplan, and Carole Bartolotto have different reasons, they all are in agreement that GMOs should be labeled. I am in agreement with these authors, as their articles have only strengthened my opinion. Author Steven Cerier believes mandatory labels will only cause confusion and uncertainty in products.  After further research, I am amazed that mandatory GMO labeling has not been approved as a law for the United States but laws have been placed in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and even China ("Labeling Around the World." Par 1). There are 64 other countries that have already established mandatory GMO labeling laws but the Unites States is still behind and in the dark. 

