Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been the subject of controversy over the last 10 years, but today GMOs are present in nearly 80 percent of the food consumed in the U.S.

Limited research has been conducted on the health effects of GMOs, but  the potential risks of GMOs remain unknown.

The government must label modified plants and crops so that consumers know what they are buying and eating.

Although the American public has been consuming GMOs for decades, there is still no conclusive research showing that these products are harmful. Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in the U.S. has been proposed, but not enacted on the national, state or local levels.

Recently, Whole Foods has made the decision to require labels on foods that contain genetically modified ingredients sold in its stores after 2018.

In its simplest form, GMOs refer to crops that have been altered for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biological techniques. These plants have been altered to become more resistant to disease or  have better nutritional content that cannot be produced through conventional plant breeding methods.

Genetic engineering allows desirable traits, such as drought tolerance, to be isolated and inserted into another plant with great rapidity and accuracy. Not only can a plant gene be transferred from one crop to another, non-plant organisms can also be used. For example, the use of B.t. genes or Bacillus thuringiensis in corn and other crops yields a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae.

To the detriment of the American public, the media has done a poor job of covering the issue of GMOs. Biotechnology is a science that is not explained with any great depth to the public.  Broad generalizations that bank on emotional responses are used to create a greater stir in the news. Since the possible adverse health risks are still not completely known, public ignorance combined with the feud between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ GMO groups have led to hysteric coverage of an important issue.

A study conducted by the Public Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology found that the overall attitude of focus group participants towards GMOs was ambivalent. The focus group “did not reject or accept GMOs out of hand, and discriminated between different types of GMOs. A key finding was that participants did not react so much to genetic modification as a specific technology, but rather to the institutional context in which GMOs have been developed, evaluated and promoted.”

Unfortunately, independent research on the effects of GMOs is scarce due to reluctance of companies such as Monsanto Company and Syngenta to release their seeds for testing. Cotton, canola, soybeans and corn, most of the crops grown in America, are genetically altered. Corn and soybean crops are a key component of many of the products sold in America.

According to the LA Times, “They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they’ve set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options.”

Researchers who have tried to study the link between GMOs and various illnesses have yielded poor or inconclusive results. The fear of cancer has led to a GMO ban in Kenya. Public Health and Sanitation minister Beth Mugo ordered officials to get rid of all GMO products that might be circulating in the market while experts study the health effects of the foods.

“My ministry wishes to clarify the decision was based on genuine concerns that adequate research had not been done on GMOs and scientific evidence provided to prove the safety of these foods (on consumers),” she said.

Public hysteria has increased ignorance and companies like Monsanto, which employs GMO technology to increase the amount of pesticides farmers use. This has put a stigma on GMOs. People fail to differentiate between types of GMOs and by doing so, fail to recognize their benefits.

The recent development of salmon that can grow faster is an example of genetic modification as a powerful technology that is incredibly beneficial. These salmon, developed by the company Aquabounty, will make fish farming more efficient, subsequently aiding the preservation of the perilously endangered wild fish species in the oceans.

Companies that genetically engineer their crops have a lock on what the public knows about the safety and health benefits which is why the health risks of GMOs remains inconclusive. While there are many claims that GMOs can cause health risks, insufficient data cannot provide conclusively  that there is a valid link between GMOs and major illnesses.

While consumer hysteria has become an issue, one positive effect is that consumers have become more aware of what they are putting in their mouths. GMO labeling can be a deterrent to a company’s success because of the stigma that follows genetic modification. Once again, public ignorance and the sheer lack of public awareness of GMO technologies have affected the way people look at their food.

Required labeling can be detrimental because a customer’s skewed idea of GMOs can influence their choices in groceries and many businesses do not want to risk this.

On the other hand, consumers should be aware of where their food comes from and how it is grown. Buyers should be informed and take the time to understand what a GMO really is. In order for consumers to make informed decisions about what they eat, they should not be denied access to information that can help them make these decisions.