The arguments against the genetic modification of our food supply fall into four main categories, listed below. Ethical arguments Transferring genes between organisms in a laboratory is not natural and is therefore unethical. This argument ignores the fact that humanity has manipulated the evolution of organisms since plant and animal breeding came into existence. Even nature does it. For example, the wheat varieties that now feed much of the world are the result of a natural hybridization of three wheat species that were indigenous to the Middle East.
Modern corn is considered to be the hybridization of two different species.
One only has to look at fossilized corncobs that are one-tenth the size of modern day cobs to see how a combination of nature and human intervention has changed this crop. Although this historical perspective muddies what is natural and what is not, detractors counter with the argument that methods used by plant geneticists to introduce genes into plants are unnatural, particularly when the genes being introduced are from different species. Safety argument Releasing GM crops will have unforeseen consequences on our health. Thus, any new crop which is genetically modified needs to be treated differently and put through a battery of special tests. The argument is that the insertion of genes often combined with novel DNA sequences that regulate their expression in the plant could result in unpredictable effects.