Grocery stores today are filled with genetically modified foods. People can now grow crops with certain preferred characteristics. This endangers the lives of customers who buy these foods without being informed of the health risks. However, if the food company labeled every product genetically modified, there would be a good chance that many people's lives could be saved from disease damage and resulting death. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Genetic labeling of foods provides appropriate information on the contents of food substances. Nutrition information tells consumers what exactly they should buy after considering their safety. Despite the importance of labeling in promoting consumer safety, the United States of America continues to ignore consumer demands for food labeling. Naming genetically modified foods diminishes the various subtleties of well-being and the excesses that result from them. Studies have clearly linked genetically modified foods to the high frequency of kidney damage, liver failure, abnormal growth, and many other serious conditions (Freedman 83). Despite the unforgiving reality of creating, selling, and using these engineered foods, the United States government still allows its masses of consumers to exert themselves by consuming GMOs on a daily basis. Worryingly, “88% of U.S. corn is genetically modified. Likewise, 93% of soybeans, 95% of sugar beets, and 75% of processed foods in supermarkets have been genetically modified” (GMO corn and soy dominate the US market). This means that people have limited opportunities to obtain food products that are safe for their health. People always find it difficult to avoid these harmful food products to lead a healthier life. However, the United States government is committed to preserving healthy business environments that put consumer safety first (Institute of Medicine). This is achieved through the government's continued support and cooperation with organizations such as the World Health Organization and in policies on consumer safety. However, most of these arrangements do not yet focus on the items being sold, but rather on how trades are made and how buyers are mostly treated. The main concerns include the price and quality of the items. With the development of food design patterns and the resulting harms, the U.S. government has already had ample opportunity to consider branding as another effective instrument for reducing the dangers and deaths associated with the purchase of unlabeled food packages. Genetically modified foods are known for presenting many wellness symptoms. The hampered consumer development in the United States will turn into an equally stagnant economy where issues of improvement are not addressed. Additionally, the prevalence of diseases due to engineered foods and the hindrance of safe settings makes the American population an unhappy one. However, it is stressful to see the reluctance on the part of the FDA to update the labeling of genetically modified foods. The number of individuals living in life-threatening conditions caused by these foods requires the choice of preventive measures thatwill reduce or mitigate their impacts. For these reasons, associations like the FDA should not claim that named foods will harm the market by making them appear unique. However, making them distinctive is the best way to save the population from their countless symptoms. This makes the situation in America regarding the agreement and use of constructed foods desperate and in need of strong advances in easing. However, she declines to take note of the ineptitude of organizations like the FDA. They guarantee that naming GMOs would allow them to be extraordinary, but the review carried out by the researcher before their presentation demonstrated the uniqueness of GMOs in terms of substance and impact. It is therefore necessary for the legislator to adopt and completely update the federal law on food and cosmetic products. This demonstration facilitates legal enforcement by institutions like the FDA. This is basically saying that giving misleading data to people in general is akin to killing them in their entirety. The demonstration requires consideration of all correlated data that a consumer should know. The FDA states: "The FDA encourages developers of new plant varieties intended for food use, including GMOs, to engage in a consultation process with the FDA, to ensure that safety concerns of foods intended for food and feed or other regulatory issues (e.g. labeling) are resolved before commercial distribution” (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition). This must be done entirely for the benefit of the people at large. It is therefore unexpected that branches of administration are competing over the essential concern of customer well-being and safety. This is supported by the FDA's clear acknowledgment of industry data on food products, but the data is insufficient to give the exact substance of the food products. Insufficient and misleading livelihood data should prompt corrective government mediation. Marking is the answer to the many cases of built substance murders. Specialists such as doctors, clinicians, and other food professionals recommend that the American population eat safe substances. They use radio, television, the web and many other accessible media. They exercise caution against consuming certain foods contaminated with natural synthetic substances. These subsistence products “include rice, soybeans and sugar beets” (GMO corn and soybeans dominate the US market). Their stern warnings revolve around the many illnesses and difficulties that one may encounter while spending on constructed foods. These diseases include: “failed growth, weakened immune system, stomach bleeding, abnormal and potentially dangerous cell growth in the intestines, and impaired blood cell development, among others” (Sharratt). Nonetheless, providing this important data to society at large accomplishes its goal. reason negligibly if people in general do not have important information about what to buy and what not to buy. In this case, naming proves useful in providing this data. Labeling, which is done legally, allows the customer to decide what to buy taking into account the substance of the item. The FDA is required to provide and facilitate the transmission of relevant information regarding food products that can help consumers make informed choices based on their safety concerns..