A 2013 Scientific American article noted that a “tiny minority” of biologists have published concerns about GM food, and said that scientists who support the use of
GMOs in food production are often overly dismissive of them.
 In December 2009, the American Seed Trade Association agreed to “allow public researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops”.
 There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,
but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.
 Health There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,
but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.
–American Association for the Advancement of Science In 1999, Andrew Chesson of the Rowett Research Institute warned that substantial equivalence testing “could be flawed
in some cases” and that current safety tests could allow harmful substances to enter the human food supply.
 “The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization
that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant
The authors called for the development of better study guidelines for determining the long-term safety of eating GM foods.
The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food (GM food or GMO food) are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity
of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population.
 Surveys indicate widespread concern among consumers that eating genetically modified food is harmful, that biotechnology is risky, that more information
is needed and that consumers need control over whether to take such risks.
 The same year Millstone, Brunner and Mayer argued that the standard was a pseudo-scientific product of politics and lobbying that was created to reassure consumers and
aid biotechnology companies to reduce the time and cost of safety testing.
 In a 2016 review, Domingo concluded that studies in recent years had established that GM soybeans, rice, corn, and wheat do not differ from the corresponding conventional
crops in terms of short-term human health effects, but recommended that further studies of long-term effects be conducted.
He claimed that characterizing differences is properly a starting point for a safety assessment and “the concept of substantial equivalence is an adequate tool in order
to identify safety issues related to genetically modified products that have a traditional counterpart”.
 The review showed that Americans’ knowledge of GM foods and animals was low throughout the period.
The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically
engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.
This lack of knowledge re conventional food means that modified foods may differ in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant,
possibly allowing harmful changes to be missed.
 In October 2013, a group called The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), posted a statement claiming that there is no
scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs, which was signed by about 200 scientists in various fields in its first week.
The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations, however by 2001 multiple follow-up studies had concluded that “the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic
to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields” and that they had “brought that particular question to a close”.
 PABE also found that the public does not demand “zero risk” in GM food discussions and is “perfectly aware that their lives are full of risks that need to be counterbalanced
against each other and against the potential benefits.
“ In 2010, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation reported that “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research
projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g.
The group submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009 protesting that “as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent
research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology”.
Some consumers, including many in the US, came to see GM food as “unnatural”, with various negative associations and fears (a reverse halo effect).
 A 2016 study by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that GM foods are safe for human consumption and they could find no conclusive
evidence that they harm the environment nor wildlife.
They also noted that weed resistance to GM crops could cause major agricultural problems but this could be addressed by better farming procedures.
 Many protests occurred in Southern California, and some participants carried signs expressing support for mandatory labeling of GMOs that read “Label GMOs, It’s Our
Right to Know”, and “Real Food 4 Real People”.
This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future; other scientists still express concern as to whether this agreement has the ability to “alter what has
been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion”.
 Public perception Consumer concerns about food quality first became prominent long before the advent of GM foods in the 1990s.
 With respect to the question of “Whether GMO foods were safe to eat”, the gap between the opinion of the public and that of American Association for the Advancement
of Science scientists is very wide with 88% of AAAS scientists saying yes in contrast to 37% of the general public.
 In a 2016 review, Domingo criticized the use of the “substantial equivalence” concept as a measure of the safety of GM crops.
While favoring protection of intellectual property rights, the editors called for the restrictions to be lifted and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that
independent researchers have unfettered access to genetically modified products for research.
 GMO proponents note that because of the safety testing requirements, the risk of introducing a plant variety with a new allergen or toxin is much smaller than from traditional
breeding processes, which do not require such tests.
 He has also expressed concerns about biotechnology companies holding the intellectual property of the foods people depend on, and about the effects of the growing corporatization
of large-scale agriculture.
 Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.
 Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.
 Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala In this case, the plaintiff argued both for mandatory labeling on the basis of consumer demand, and that GMO foods should
undergo the same testing requirements as food additives because they are “materially changed” and have potentially unidentified health risks.
According to Marc Brazeau, an association between professional conflict of interest and positive study outcomes can be skewed because companies typically contract with independent
researchers to perform follow-up studies only after in-house research uncovers favorable results.
Hence, the authors argue, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for GM food crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty.
 Toxicologists note that “conventional food is not risk-free; allergies occur with many known and even new conventional foods.
 It concluded that “the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops.
Kuiper noted practical difficulties in applying this standard, including the fact that traditional foods contain many toxic or carcinogenic chemicals and that existing diets
were never proven to be safe.
The FDA found that all of the 148 transgenic events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have Japanese regulators for
189 submissions including combined-trait products.
 The movement was founded by Tami Canal in response to the failure of California Proposition 37, a ballot initiative which would have required labeling food products made
 Restrictive end-user agreements Prior to 2010, scientists wishing to conduct research on commercial GM plants or seeds were unable to do so, because of restrictive end-user
 Lawsuits Foundation on Economic Trends v. Heckler In 1983, environmental groups and protesters delayed the field tests of the genetically modified ice-minus strain of
P. syringae with legal challenges.
However, in 2012 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel said that “novel hazards” could be associated with transgenic strains.
 An opposing perception is that genetic engineering is itself an evolution of traditional selective breeding, and that the weight of current evidence suggests current
GM foods are identical to conventional foods in nutritional value and effects on health.
Specific concerns include mixing of genetically modified and non-genetically modified products in the food supply, effects of GMOs on the environment, the rigor of
the regulatory process, and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs.
 Advocacy groups such as the Center for Food Safety, Organic Consumers Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace say risks have not been adequately identified
and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.
 Some organizations, like The BioBricks Foundation, have already worked out open-source licenses that could prove useful in this endeavour.
 Leaders in driving public perception of the harms of such food in the media include Jeffrey M. Smith, Dr. Oz, Oprah, and Bill Maher; organizations include Organic
Consumers Association, Greenpeace (especially with regard to Golden rice) and Union of Concerned Scientists.
“ PABE also found that the public’s scientific knowledge does not control public opinion, since scientific facts do not answer these questions.
 A survey in 2007 by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand found that in Australia, where labeling is mandatory, 27% of Australians checked product labels to
see whether GM ingredients were present when initially purchasing a food item.
Monsanto said that it respected people’s rights to express their opinion on the topic, but maintained that its seeds improved agriculture by helping farmers produce more from
their land while conserving resources, such as water and energy.
 A review article about European consumer polls as of 2009 concluded that opposition to GMOs in Europe has been gradually decreasing, and that about 80% of respondents
did not “actively avoid GM products when shopping”.
 Group member Lucy Harrap said that the group was concerned about spread of the crops into nature, and cited examples of outcomes in the United States and Canada.
 Reviews and polls An EMBO Reports article in 2003 reported that the Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe project (PABE) found the public neither
accepting nor rejecting GMOs.
 In a 2013 review, Herman (Dow AgroSciences) and Price (FDA, retired) argued that transgenesis is less disruptive than traditional breeding techniques because the latter
routinely involve more changes (mutations, deletions, insertions and rearrangements) than the relatively limited changes (often single gene) in genetic engineering.
 A second paper was retracted in March 2016 after The University of Naples concluded that “multiple heterogeneities were likely attributable to digital manipulation,
raising serious doubts on the reliability of the findings”.
The 2010 “Eurobarometer” survey, which assesses public attitudes about biotech and the life sciences, found that cisgenics, GM crops made from plants that are crossable
by conventional breeding, evokes a smaller reaction than transgenic methods, using genes from species that are taxonomically very different.
Most studies were performed years after the approval of the crop for human consumption.
 The ENTRANSFOOD project was a European Commission-funded scientist group chartered to set a research program to address public concerns about the safety and
value of agricultural biotechnology.
The idea has since been adopted to varying degrees by companies like Syngenta, and is being promoted by organizations such as the New America Foundation.
 The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing
degrees of regulation.
 The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them and others permitting them with widely differing
degrees of regulation.
Why are we not given an effective choice about whether or not to buy these products?
 GMO Answers’ resources included conventional and organic farmers, agribusiness experts, scientists, academics, medical doctors and nutritionists, and “company experts”
from founding members of the Council for Biotechnology Information, which funds the initiative.
 A 2009 Scientific American editorial quoted a scientist who said that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were blocked from publication when
they returned “unflattering” results.
[‘”Proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops Response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation paper” (PDF). Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. October 2006.
2. ^ Jump up to:a
b “Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms in the Environment and the Marketplace”. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. October 2013. Archived from the original on March 26, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014.
3. ^ “Genetically
Modified Maize: Doctors’ Chamber Warns of “Unpredictable Results” to Humans”. PR Newswire. November 11, 2013.
4. ^ “IDEA Position on Genetically Modified Foods”. Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association. Archived from the original on March 26,
2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014.
5. ^ “Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods” (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. p. 7. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 7, 2012. Retrieved November
7, 2012. To better detect potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hollingworth RM, Bjeldanes
LF, Bolger M, Kimber I, Meade BJ, Taylor SL, Wallace KB (January 2003). “The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology”. Toxicological Sciences. 71 (1): 2–8. doi:10.1093/toxsci/71.1.2. PMID 12520069.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b
“Substantial Equivalence in Food Safety Assessment” (PDF). Council for Biotechnology Information. March 11, 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 6, 2009.
8. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Winter CK, Gallegos LK (2006). “Safety of Genetically
Engineered Food” (PDF). University of California Agricultural and Natural Resource Service. ANR Publication 8180.
9. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HP, Kok EJ (December 2002). “Substantial equivalence – an appropriate paradigm
for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods?”. Toxicology. 181–182: 427–31. doi:10.1016/S0300-483X(02)00488-2. PMID 12505347.
10. ^ Jump up to:a b “Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods”
(PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 7, 2012. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated
in the peer-reviewed literature. (first page)
11. ^ Jump up to:a b United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies
Press. Free full-text. National Academies Press. pp R9-10: “In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic
engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred
in key components of food.”
12. ^ Jump up to:a b c Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM (June 2008). “Genetically modified plants and human health”. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 101 (6): 290–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. PMC 2408621. PMID 18515776.
+pp 292-293. Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from
that most litigious of countries, the USA.
13. ^ Jump up to:a b c Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). “An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research” (PDF). Critical
Reviews in Biotechnology. 34 (1): 77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. S2CID 9836802. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants
became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.
The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption
has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by
the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.
14. ^ Jump up to:a b “State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the
Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to
eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO,
2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures
(ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of
people have consumed foods derived from GM plants – mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape – without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
15. ^ Jump up to:a b Ronald, Pamela (May 1, 2011). “Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food
Security”. Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative
total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization
of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union’s scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral
part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically
Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms
of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
16. ^ Jump up to:a b
But see also:
Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). “A literature review
on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants” (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants
is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are
as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those
obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published
in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.
Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). “An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment”. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. S2CID 40855100. I began
this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.
Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). “Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons”. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 37 (2): 213–217. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 26767435.
S2CID 11786594. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation
of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.
The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention.
However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them
should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.
Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). “Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health”. Journal of the Science of
Food and Agriculture. 96 (4): 1851–1855. Bibcode:2016JSFA…96.1851Y. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo
and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food… Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health
effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international
science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.
17. ^ Jump up to:a b
“Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods” (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved August 30, 2019. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million
in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research
groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British
Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from
crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). “AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could “Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers”” (PDF). American Association for the
Advancement of Science. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
18. ^ Jump up to:a b European Commission. Directorate-General for Research (2010). A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies,
Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
19. ^ Jump up to:a b “AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)”. American Medical Association.
January 2001. Retrieved August 30, 2019. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods,
and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.” “Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These
foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.
“REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods” (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on
September 7, 2012. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.
Jump up to:a b “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion”. Library of Congress. June 30, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements
regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach
to regulating GMOs.
21. ^ Jump up to:a b National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering; Division on Earth Life Studies; Board on Agriculture Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects (2016). Genetically
Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). p. 149. doi:10.17226/23395. ISBN 978-0-309-43738-7. PMID 28230933. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Overall finding on purported adverse effects
on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock
fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.
22. ^ Jump up to:a b “Frequently asked questions on genetically modified
foods”. World Health Organization. Retrieved August 30, 2019. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is
not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.
GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human
health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate,
adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.
23. ^ Jump up to:a b Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). “Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects”. Nature Biotechnology. 21
(7): 739–741. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. S2CID 2533628. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.
24. ^ Jump up to:a b Some medical organizations,
including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:
“Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement” (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved August 30,
2019. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely
on the basis of information currently available.
When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such
as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Members of the GM jury project
were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial
growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential
The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens
into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further
research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.
25. ^ Jump up to:a b Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). “Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society”. Pew Research Center. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the
general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.
26. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Marris, Claire (July 2001). “Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they
really understand the public?”. EMBO Reports. 2 (7): 545–8. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC 1083956. PMID 11463731.
27. ^ Jump up to:a b Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). “Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies
in Europe”. Commission of European Communities. Archived from the original on May 25, 2017. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
28. ^ Jump up to:a b Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). “Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically
Modified Food in the United States” (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243. S2CID 261060.
29. ^ Jump up to:a b “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms”. Library of Congress.
June 9, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
30. ^ Jump up to:a b Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). “FDA and Regulation of GMOs”. American Bar Association. Archived from the original on June 21, 2018. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
31. ^ Jump up to:a
b Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). “Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs”. Time. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
32. ^ Jump up to:a b Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). “The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United
States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics”. Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on September 29, 2016. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
33. ^ Swann JP. “The 1906 Food and Drugs Act and Its Enforcement”. FDA
History – Part I. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved April 10, 2013.
34. ^ Konnikova M (August 8, 2013). “The Psychology of Distrusting G.M.O.s”. New Yorker.
35. ^ Brody, Jane E. (April 23, 2018). “Are G.M.O. Foods Safe?”. The New York
Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 7, 2019.
36. ^ Pollack, Andrew (May 17, 2016). “Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Finds”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 7, 2019.
37. ^ Borel B (November 1, 2012). “Can
Genetically Engineered Foods Harm You?”. Huffington Post. Retrieved September 7, 2013.
38. ^ Editors of Nature (May 2, 2013). “Editorial: Fields of gold”. Nature. 497 (5–6): 5–6. doi:10.1038/497005b. PMID 23646363.
39. ^ Jump up to:a b Harmon
A (January 4, 2014). “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops”. The New York Times.
40. ^ Jump up to:a b Johnson N (July 8, 2013). “The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?”. Grist.
41. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hunt L
(2004). “Factors determining the public understanding of GM technologies” (PDF). AgBiotechNet. 6 (128): 1–8. Archived from the original (Review Article) on November 2, 2013. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
42. ^ Lazarus RJ (1991). “The Tragedy of
Distrust in the Implementation of Federal Environmental Law”. Law and Contemporary Problems. 54 (4): 311–74. doi:10.2307/1191880. JSTOR 1191880.
43. ^ Kloor K (October 19, 2012). “Liberals Turn a Blind Eye to Crazy Talk on GMOs”. Discover Magazine.
Archived from the original on November 19, 2019. Retrieved January 28, 2014.
44. ^ Hughlett M (November 5, 2013). “Firebrand activist leads organic consumers association”. Star Tribune (Minneapolis) for the Wichita Eagle. Archived from the original
on February 2, 2014. Retrieved January 28, 2014.
45. ^ Alberts B, Beachy R, Baulcombe D, Blobel G, Datta S, Fedoroff N, Kennedy D, Khush GS, Peacock J, Rees M, Sharp P (2013). “Standing up for GMOs”. Science. 341 (6152): 1320. Bibcode:2013Sci…341.1320A.
doi:10.1126/science.1245017. PMID 24052276.
46. ^ Wendel JA (September 10, 2013). “Scientists, journalists and farmers join lively GMO forum”. Genetic Literacy Project.
47. ^ Kloor K (August 22, 2014). “On Double Standards and the Union of Concerned
Scientists”. Discover Magazine’s CollideAScape. Archived from the original on November 20, 2019. Retrieved November 19, 2014.
48. ^ “Biotechnology companies produce genetically engineered crops to control insects and weeds and to manufacture pharmaceuticals
and other chemicals. The Union of Concerned Scientists works to strengthen the federal oversight needed to prevent such products from contaminating our food supply”. Alternatives to Genetic Engineering. Union of Concerned Scientists. Archived from
the original on October 30, 2015. Retrieved November 19, 2014.
49. ^ Jump up to:a b c Marden E (2003). “Risk and Regulation: U.S. Regulatory Policy on Genetically Modified Food and Agriculture”. 44 B.C.L. Rev. 733. By the late 1990s, public awareness
of GM foods reached a critical level and a number of public interest groups emerged to focus on the issue. One of the early groups to focus on the issue was Mothers for Natural Law (“MFNL”), an Iowa-based organization that aimed to ban GM foods from
the market….The Union of Concerned Scientists (“UCS”), an alliance of 50,000 citizens and scientists, has been another prominent voice on the issue…. As the pace of GM products entering the market increased in the 1990s, UCS became a vocal critic
of what it saw as the agency’s collusion with industry and failure to fully take account of allergenicity and other safety issues.
50. ^ “Pew Research Center: The GMO debate is hugely polarizing, but the divide ‘does not fall along familiar political
fault lines'”. December 2, 2016.
51. ^ Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues Archived December 28, 2009, at the Wayback Machine Congressional Research Service: The Library of Congress 2001
52. ^ Bittman M (September
2, 2016). “Opinion | G.M.O. Labeling Law Could Stir a Revolution”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 7, 2019.
53. ^ “What if we open sourced genetic engineering? | Opensource.com”. opensource.com.
54. ^ Fecht S (April 8, 2013).
“Can Syngenta help make open-source GMOs a reality?”.
55. ^ Kaufman F (July 9, 2013). “Let’s Make Genetically Modified Food Open-Source”. Slate.
56. ^ Deibel E (January 9, 2014). “Open Genetic Code: on open source in the life sciences”. Life
Sciences, Society and Policy. 10: 2. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-10-2. PMC 4513027. PMID 26573980.
57. ^ “Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe homepage”. Retrieved October 26, 2014.
58. ^ “Memo from The Mellman Group, Inc. to
The Pew Initiative On Food And Biotechnology” (PDF). Review Of Public Opinion Research. November 16, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 5, 2011.
59. ^ Addario J (Spring 2002). “Horror Show: Why the debate over genetically modified organisms
and other complex science stories freak out newspapers”. Ryerson Review of Journalism.=.
60. ^ Example of protester confusion. Chamberlain S (August 5, 1997). “Sara Chamberlain Dissects The Food That We Eat And Finds Some Alarming Ingredients. Article
On Genetically Engineered/modified Foods For New Internationalist Magazine”. New Internationalist Magazine. What would you think if I said that your dinner resembles Frankenstein an unnatural hodgepodge of alien ingredients? Fish genes are swimming
in your tomato sauce, microscopic bacterial genes in your tortillas, and your veg curry has been spiked with viruses.
61. ^ “Genetically modified (GM) foods”. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand. October 4, 2012. Archived from the original
on April 11, 2013. Retrieved November 5, 2012.
62. ^ “Consumer Attitudes Survey 2007, A benchmark survey of consumers’ attitudes to food issues”. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. January 2008. Archived from the original on February 17, 2011.
Retrieved November 5, 2012.
63. ^ “Opposition decreasing or acceptance increasing?: An overview of European consumer polls on attitudes to GMOs”. GMO Compass. April 16, 2009. Archived from the original on October 8, 2012. Retrieved October 10, 2012.
Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, et al. (October 2010). “Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change?” (PDF). A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research] European Commission Directorate-General
for Research 2010 Science in Society and Food, Agriculture & Fisheries, & Biotechnology, EUR 24537 EN.
65. ^ Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, Fischler C, et al. (February 2011). “The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences”.
Nature Biotechnology. 29 (2): 113–14. doi:10.1038/nbt.1771. PMID 21301431. S2CID 1709175.
66. ^ “2019 Eurobarometer Reveals Most Europeans Hardly Care About GMOs”. Crop Biotech Update. Retrieved May 22, 2020.
67. ^ “Deloitte 2010 Food Survey –
Genetically Modified Foods” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 27, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2012.
68. ^ Kopeck A (July 27, 2013). “Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foods”. The New York Times.
69. ^ Shapiro N (October 24,
2013). “GMOs: Group Refutes Claim of ‘Scientific Consensus'”. Seattle Weekly. Archived from the original on October 28, 2013. Retrieved November 16, 2013.
70. ^ Jump up to:a b Fusaro D (November 7, 2013). “European Scientists Ask for GMO Research”.
71. ^ Morand C (October 16, 2013). “Le prix mondial de l’alimentation à Monsanto et Syngenta? Une farce” [The World Food Prize Monsanto and Syngenta? A joke]. Le Temps (in French).
72. ^ “Choice of Monsanto Betrays World Food
Prize Purpose, Say Global Leaders”. Huffington Post. June 26, 2013.
73. ^ Charles, Dan (June 19, 2013). “And The Winner Of The World Food Prize Is … The Man From Monsanto”. NPR. National Public Radio.
74. ^ “Energy-environment world food prize
event in Iowa confronts divisive issues of biotech crops and global warming”. Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 8, 2018. Retrieved October 1, 2013.
75. ^ Funk C, Rainie L (January 29, 2015). “Public and Scientists’ Views on
Science and Society” (PDF). pewinternet.org. Pew Research Center. p. 37. Archived from the original (Full report PDF file) on April 29, 2015. Retrieved April 28, 2015. Fully 88% of AAAS scientists say it is generally safe to eat genetically modified
(GM) foods compared with 37% of the general public who say the same, a gap of 51 percentage points.Link to key data
76. ^ Take the Flour Back Press Release, 27/05/12 European activists link up to draw the line against GM
77. ^ Driver A (May 2,
2012). “Scientists urge protestors not to trash GM trials”. Farmers Guardian. Archived from the original on September 3, 2012.
78. ^ “GM wheat trial belongs in a laboratory”. BBC News. May 2, 2012.
79. ^ “Don’t Destroy Research Q & A”. Sense
about Science. July 25, 2012. Archived from the original on October 18, 2012.
80. ^ Jump up to:a b Associated Press, 25 May 2013 in The Guardian. Millions march against GM crops
81. ^ Jump up to:a b c Quick D (May 26, 2013). “More than 100 participate
in Charleston’s March Against Monsanto, one of 300+ in world on Saturday”. The Post and Courier. Retrieved June 18, 2013.
82. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f “Protesters Around the World March Against Monsanto”. USA Today. Associated Press. 26 May 2013.
Retrieved 18 June 2013.
83. ^ Jump up to:a b c Xia, Rosanna (28 May 2013). “Hundreds in L.A. march in global protest against Monsanto, GMOs”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 18 June 2013.
84. ^ “Search Results for “March against monsanto””. ABC News.
“Monsanto protests around the world”. The Washington Post. 25 May 2013. Retrieved 18 June 2013.
86. ^ Moayyed M (May 27, 2013). “Marching against genetic engineering”. The Wellingtonians. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
87. ^ Perry B (May 26, 2013).
“Protesters against GMOs, but Monsanto says crops are safe”. The Maui News. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
88. ^ “Hawaii Crop Improvement Association”. Retrieved June 21, 2013.
89. ^ Pollack A (July 28, 2013). “Seeking Support, Biotech Food Companies
Pledge Transparency”. New York Times. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
90. ^ “Experts”. GMO Answers. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
91. ^ “The Council for Biotechnology Information: Founding Members”. GMO Answers. Retrieved June 28, 2014.
92. ^ Statement:
No scientific consensus on GMO safety Archived 2013-11-23 at the Wayback Machine, ENSSER, 10/21/2013
93. ^ Hilbeck A, Binimelis R, Defarge N, Steinbrecher R, Székács A, Wickson F, et al. (2015). “No scientific consensus on GMO safety” (PDF). Environmental
Sciences Europe. 27 (4): 1–6. doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1. S2CID 85597477.
94. ^ Jump up to:a b von Mogel KH (June 24, 2013). “GMO crops vandalized in Oregon”. Biology Fortified.
95. ^ “Fighting GM Crop Vandalism With a Government-Protected
Research Site”. Science Daily. February 28, 2013.
96. ^ “Scientists speak out against vandalism of genetically modified rice”. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. September 20, 2013.
97. ^ Abrams L (September 30, 2013). “Vandals hack down Hawaii’s
genetically modified papaya trees: The destruction is believed to have been the work of anti-GMO activists”. Salon.
98. ^ von Mogel KH (June 25, 2013). “Oregon: Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/traveloriented/13976206001/’]