This past summer, the state of Connecticut passed a law requiring that any food products on the market containing GMOs, or “genetically modified organisms,” must carry a label on its packaging indicating their use. The bill was designed after a similar food labeling law that was dismissed in California, commonly known as “Prop 37.”

The controversy arises because the law has no official bearing unless four surrounding states in the northeast with a combined population reaching 20 million adopt similar labeling laws. Until this occurs, the state government is not required to enforce it and major food corporations are not held accountable to it.

By design, in order for the law to take effect, New York would also have to pass a law for GMO labeling. Without voter approval from this densely populated state, the law would likely fail to materialize. That being said, there is immense public backing for such legislation.

A recent New York Times survey indicated that approximately 90 percent of the public was in support of labeling GMO products, accounting for the large majority of consumers currently left at the hands of supermarket chains that appear to feel otherwise. However, public demand has resulted in an increased willingness of companies to align with the effort to bring labeling to their products.

In many health food stores, upwards of 60 percent of the goods stocked display labels declaring them as “GMO-free.” General opinion seems to suggest that the reason behind this movement is simply that supplying the consumer with product information bolsters confidence in the product itself, in turn making it a trusted choice amongst buyers.

Even so, there are still many questions that beg to be asked surrounding the issue of GMOs themselves. If there is not enough scientific evidence supporting the theory that GMOs can pose serious threats to human health, how can we determine whether or not their products are safe to eat?

Without any truly definitive answers, what it really comes down to is a matter of personal preference when making a conscious decision about buying food.

“I think that food companies should label their foods if they use GMOs. Since we don’t know if they’re harmful, there would be no harm for food companies to put them on labels,” said junior Marisa Tompski.

“I wouldn’t necessarily be less inclined to buy [GMO products] but I’d definitely have to research it and make sure that it wouldn’t negatively effect my body.”

It is difficult to discern what benefits will come of a proposed GMO labeling law, other than the immediate satisfaction of knowing what your food is comprised of, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t important. The more that we are learning about our food and our bodies through science, the more capable we are becoming of being able to distinguish between what both positively and negatively effects our health.

Despite criticisms from both sides of the argument, it is becoming more and more clear that people want a voice in the matter of GMO research and labeling. With Maine and Vermont on the way to proposals for legislation, it is only a matter of time before New York is tasked with drawing up similar plans for law.