Genetically modified food

{{gold}}[[File:Genetically Engineered (GE) Food labeling laws map 2.png|300px|thumb|right|Laws regarding GMF. "Banned" (red) means a complete ban or for scientific purposes only. "Allowed" (green) means the bare minimum legal mechanisms where they could become legal to sell at some point. And no, that some countries ban something isn't a reason to ban it elsewhere—unless you would accept that argument for [[homosexuality]], [[freedom of religion]], or basically anything for that matter.]]{{biology}}

{{cquote|'''Interviewer:''' Critics say, with genetically modified food we [[Altruism|could end hunger. We could feed billions of people that we currently are not]]. What do you respond to that?<br/>
'''Hippie #1:''' Uhh, yeah, [[Omnibenevolence|we ''could'' feed billions of people]], [[Slippery_slope|but ''they might grow four eyes'']], you know? I mean [[Argument_from_ignorance|''YOU DON'T KNOOOW'']], [[Appeal_to_nature|you can't play with nature]]!<br/>
'''Hippie #2:''' [[Just_asking_questions|What kind of people would they be?]] What kind of [[Not_even_wrong|people would we ''be creating'']], you know? [[Deepity|You are what you eat!]]<br/>
'''[[Penn Jillette]]:''' ...Well, I guess ''she'' eats: shallow, hateful, self-centered [[bullshit]]! We can't imagine how, but somehow these folks have forgotten that most people don't have the option of hopping on down to the {{wpl|Piggly-Wiggly}} and bonding with the produce. When ''the whole world'' has plenty of food, we'd ''love'' to hear this [[asshole]]'s advice. But we're ''certainly'' not going to mistake it for information.|||''[[Penn & Teller: Bullshit!]]''<ref>''[[Penn & Teller: Bullshit!]]'' &mdash; "''Eat this!''" (S01E11)</ref>}}

'''Genetically modified food''' (more correctly,{{efn|The genomes of nearly all important crops are heavily modified with respect to their wild ancestors through the process of [[selective breeding]] and in many cases also by other techniques such as hybridization and mutation breeding, so using the term "genetically modified" specifically to label recombinant organisms is something of a misnomer.}} '''genetically engineered food''' or '''transgenic food''', and often abbreviated as GM [genetically modified], '''GMO''' [genetically modified organisms],{{efn|GMO can also include organisms genetically modified for purposes other than food, such as [[animal testing|laboratory animals]] used in clinical research or non-food crops, such as cotton and poplars. [https://web.archive.org/web/20060210132643/http://agbioforum.org/v8n4/v8n4a02-sedjo.pdf]}} and '''GMF''' [genetically modified food]) is any food derived from organisms which had their [[genetic modification|genomes modified]] using the technique of {{wpl|DNA recombination||.}} Via [[DNA]] recombination, genetic material is isolated from one organism and introduced into another. DNA recombination has the advantages that the source and target organisms need not be sexually compatible and that transfer of genes can be highly specific (introducing only a single desired trait), unlike conventional breeding, which requires sexual compatibility and results in offspring with a mixture of traits from both parents.

Since the early 2000s,<ref>[https://bch.cbd.int/protocol The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety] Convention on Biological Diversity</ref> genetic modification has become a subject of intense debate. Opponents of GMF claim that GMF production and consumption could have adverse [[environmentalism|environmental]] or health effects, and that for-profit GMF companies (notably [[Monsanto]]) are screwing farmers and/or [[NWO|plotting to control the world food supply]]. Some simply claim that GMF is [[appeal to nature|inherently unnatural]]. Proponents of GMF claim that GM technology has been the subject of a [[manufactroversy]] and accuse opponents of spreading misinformation through the [[media]].<ref name=Kloor>Kloor, Keith [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left] Slate</ref><ref>Gorski, David [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/ More bad science in the service of anti-GMO activism] Science-Based Medicine</ref><ref>[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/ Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea] Scientific American</ref> Current [[#Scientific consensus|scientific consensus]] is that GMF is as safe for human consumption as organic food,<ref name=klumper>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops] by Wilhelm Klümper & Matin Qaim (November 3, 2014) ''Plos One''.</ref> and as such the {{wpl|World Health Organization}} only requires standard food safety assessment based on the [[Codex Alimentarius]].<ref>[http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/ Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods] (May 2014) World Health Organization</ref> While nuanced criticism does exist, opponents of GMF have an unfortunate habit of slipping into [[pseudoscience]].

==GMF traits==
[[File:Golden Rice.jpg|thumb|right|325px|{{wpl|Golden rice|}} is genetically modified to have increased vitamin A content and is intended to be grown in parts of the world where {{wpl|vitamin A deficiency|}} is common.]]
{{main|Genetic modification}}
With one exception, all GMFs on the market are plants. (The one exception is the {{wpl|AquAdvantage salmon||,}} a fish modified to grow larger and faster than its non-GMF counterparts. Although this salmon has been approved by the USA's [[Food and Drug Administration]], as of 2018 it has only been sold in Canada.<ref>[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-genetically-engineered-salmon-sold-in-canada/ First Genetically Engineered Salmon Sold in Canada: US firm AquaBounty Technologies says that its transgenic fish has hit the market after a 25-year wait] by Emily Waltz (August 7, 2017) ''Scientific American''.</ref>

Since DNA recombination is a very powerful technique that allows for almost arbitrary modifications to be introduced into the [[genome]], GMF can have a variety of traits that are extremely unlikely to occur in nature ([[Horizontal gene transfer|but not impossible]]) and can not be obtained using conventional methods of breeding. It is a way to short-circuit the millions of years of [[evolution]] and/or [[Artificial selection|artificial selection]] which would be required for the desirable traits to arise spontaneously. This includes resistance to pests, viruses, and herbicides, drought tolerance, and improved nutritional value.

The majority of GMFs have one or more of the following traits:

===Most common===
The most common GM traits found in commercial crops focus on increasing yields by conferring immunity to pests, weeds, and diseases. These traits translate into easily quantifiable financial gains for the farmer, so they were the first to be commercialized.

*'''Herbicide tolerance (HT):''' This type of trait confers immunity to a herbicide, typically [[glyphosate]] (i.e., the main ingredient in Roundup). Spraying with this herbicide kills the weeds without affecting the HT crop, enabling the farmer to control weeds without tillage. This is especially important as tillage would otherwise increase soil erosion and increase agricultural runoff into local rivers, something that's a serious environmental concern with conventional farming. More alarmingly, agriculture is responsible for nearly a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, and tilling the fields represents nearly a third of that,<ref>[https://theconversation.com/farming-without-disturbing-soil-could-cut-agricultures-climate-impact-by-30-new-research-157153 The Conversation, farming with no-till could cut agricultural climate impact]</ref> so moving to no-till farming is obviously a huge way to reduce climate change. Corn,<ref>In 2010, 16% of U.S. corn had the Bt trait, 23% had the HT trait, and 47% had both. Source: [https://web.archive.org/web/20110615013336/http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre//2010s/2010/Acre-06-30-2010.pdf Acreage] (June 30, 2010) National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.</ref> [[Canola oil|canola]], [[soy]], and sugar beets<ref name=James2011>[http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp ISAAA Brief 43-2011. Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011]</ref> are examples of common HT crops.

*'''Bt toxin production:''' Bt toxins are proteins produced by the soil [[bacterium]] ''Bacillus thuringiensis'' which are lethal to some species of insect pests, primarily moths and beetles. Bt extract is often used as an insecticide in [[organic farming]]. When an insect attempts to feed off a plant that produces a Bt toxin, the toxin destroys the digestive system of the insect and it soon dies. Bt crops require significantly fewer insecticides than their traditional counterparts, and more importantly, kill ''only'' the insects that feed on the plant, protecting the nearby environment. Note that there are now several different Bt toxin strains, each of which is lethal to a slightly different segment of the insect population and each of which has its own tracking number assigned to it by the EPA.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=sUrLT9z9i3IC&pg=PA442&lpg=PA442#v=onepage&q&f=false Hayes' Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology]</ref> Corn and cotton<ref group=note>And yes, cotton is a food crop as well as a textile crop. Its seeds are expressed to make cottonseed oil.</ref> are examples of common Bt crops.

===Less common===
[[File:C5 plum pox resistant plum.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Plums genetically modified to be resistant to {{wpl|plum pox|}}.]]
*'''Virus resistance:''' By introducing genes coding for viral coat proteins, plants can be made resistant to viruses. The best-known example is the Rainbow variety of papaya, which is resistant to the papaya ringspot virus (''Potyvirus'' sp.) and is credited with saving the papaya farming industry in Hawaii.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120203203155/http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/PapayaHawaiianRainbow.aspx Transgenic Virus-Resistant Papaya: The Hawaiian ‘Rainbow’ was Rapidly Adopted by Farmers and is of Major Importance in Hawaii Today], on APSnet</ref> Unfortunately, the specific variety chosen to receive the ringspot virus resistance transgene turned out to be vulnerable to blackspot [[fungus]] (''Asperisporum caricae''), so now the second round of genetic modification is trying to breed in blackspot fungus resistance.  Other virus-resistant GM foods include yellow squash.<ref>Tricoli DM, Carney KJ, Russell PF, McMaster JR, Groff DW, et al., 1995. "Field evaluation of transgenic squash containing single or multiple virus coat protein gene constructs for resistance to cucumber mosaic virus, watermelon mosaic virus 2 and zucchini yellow mosaic virus." ''Bio/Technology 13:1458–65''.  See also [https://web.archive.org/web/20120519094106/http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=15 this page from the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Statewide Biotechnology Workgroup].</ref>

*'''Rennet production:''' The {{wpl|chymosin}} used in cheese making can be produced by genetically-modified microorganisms. The gene for rennet production is taken from a ruminant animal (such as a cow or [[goat]]) and inserted into a bacterium, fungus, or yeast, which will then produce chymosin as it ferments nutrients. About 80% of cheese worldwide is made with such Fermentation-Produced Chymosin.<ref>E. Johnson, J. A. Lucey (2006) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16537950 Major Technological Advances and Trends in Cheese] J. Dairy Sci. 89(4): 1174–1178</ref>  This has benefits for anyone who might have [[Vegetarianism|issues against eating meat]] or mixing [[Kosher|milk and meat]], as well as providing another source of rennet if we ever have a need for it.

===New traits===
*'''Starch breakdown:''' A GM corn strain called ''Enogen'' contains a transgene for alpha amylase, the enzyme that breaks starch down into maltose. This reduces the amount of processing necessary to turn it into ethanol.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/business/12corn.html U.S. Approves Corn Modified for Ethanol], ''NY Times'', 12-Feb-2011</ref> As of mid-2014, Syngenta, the company that holds the patent on Enogen, has embarked on an incentive program to encourage farmers to plant it.<ref>[http://agwired.com/2014/08/27/get-paid-to-plant-enogen/ Get Paid to Plant Enogen], AgWired, 27-Aug-2014</ref> Theoretically, this trait would also reduce the amount of processing necessary to turn it into corn syrup, but this possibility has not been commercially pursued.

*'''Non-browning:''' The Arctic Apple<ref>[http://www.arcticapples.com/ Acrtic Apples]</ref> has the 4 genes that cause browning turned off. Since no transgenes were spliced into the apple's genome, Okanagan Specialty Fruits proudly touts "no frankenfood here!" (implying that they want to distance themselves from all those "nasty" GMF producers). The Arctic Apple was approved for commercial sale in the U.S. by the [[United States Department of Agriculture|Department of Agriculture]] (USDA) and the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) in early 2015.

*'''Improved handling characteristics:''' Simplot's harder-to-bruise Innate potato<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20131206140724/http://simplotplantsciences.com/index.php/about/overview Simplot's website]. Like the Arctic Apple, Simplot doesn't use transgenes from other unrelated species, but instead manipulates the potato genes directly.</ref> was approved by the USDA on 7-Nov-2014<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/genetically-modified-potato-from-simplot-approved-by-usda.html .S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans.], ''The New York Times'', 7-Nob-2014</ref> and by the FDA on 20-March-2015.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150326040055/http://www.simplot.com/news/innate_potato_receives_fda_safety_clearance INNATE&trade; Potato Receives FDA Safety Clearance]</ref> [[McDonald's]] won't be using it for their French fries or hash browns,<ref>[https://fooddigital.com/franchising/why-mcdonalds-rejecting-simplot-innate-gmo-potato McDonald's rejects Simplot's genetically modified potato], ''Idaho Statesman'', 15-Nov-2014</ref> but that's because there won't be enough available for McDonald's to even ''consider'' using them for some time,<ref group=note>McDonald's uses 3.4 billion pounds of potatoes per year in the U.S. alone, according to [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32983108/ns/business-us_business/t/mcdonalds-holy-grail-potato-farmers/ this article]. To keep their product uniform from one restaurant to the next, they have to use the ''same'' potato variety everywhere in the country.</ref> not because of any executive decision to reject GMOs.

*'''Fungus resistance:''' The third generation of Simplot's Innate&trade; potato includes a gene for resistance to late blight, the disease that caused the Great Irish Potato Famine in the 1840s. This gene comes from a different variety of potato, and so is considered a cisgenic trait rather than a transgenic one.<ref>[https://potatonewstoday.com/2019/12/15/us-approves-three-gmo-potato-varieties-that-can-be-planted-and-sold-in-retail-outlets US approves three GMO potato varieties that can be grown and sold in retail outlets], ''Potato News Today'', 16-Dec-2019</ref>

===In development===
There are also many other possible traits in the research stage or awaiting regulatory approval.

*'''Increased intrinsic yield:''' There is an ongoing research project called C<sub>4</sub> Rice, which aims to create rice which uses the more efficient C<sub>4</sub> photosynthesis pathway from corn, rather than the C<sub>3</sub> photosynthesis native to rice.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090609102311/http://c4rice.irri.org/ International Rice Research Institute: C4 Rice]. As of December 2012, the [https://web.archive.org/web/20130312000502/http://c4rice.irri.org/index.php/partners/2012-12-05-02-37-55 C4 Rice Consortium] apparently hasn't yet isolated the genes responsible for C<sub>4</sub> photosynthesis.</ref> The C<sub>4</sub> pathway requires only ⅓ the water as C<sub>3</sub>, meaning C<sub>4</sub> rice could be grown in hot semi-arid environments and provide a stable food supply even during droughts. C<sub>4</sub> plants also fix about an order of magnitude more [[Global warming|CO<sub>2</sub>]] than C<sub>3</sub> plants, which could offset quite a bit of harm. If it ever proves successful, it may open the door to creating C<sub>4</sub> wheat, C<sub>4</sub> potatoes, C<sub>4</sub> sugar beets, etc..

*'''[[Nitrogen fixation]]:''' There is a project to achieve a symbiosis between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and cereals, a feature now restricted to legumes, which would obviate or significantly reduce the need for artificial fertilizer in their cultivation.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120720222637/http://news.jic.ac.uk/2012/07/cereals-self-fertilise/ John Innes Center: Major investment to persuade bacteria to help cereals self-fertilise]</ref><ref>PLOS, [https://phys.org/news/2018-08-corn-variety-nutrients-bacteria-potentially.html Corn variety gets nutrients from bacteria, potentially reducing need for fertilizer], phys.org, 7-Aug-2018</ref>

*'''Disease resistance:''' This ranges from blight-resistant potatoes<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10254905 BBC News: Blight-resistant GM potatoes field trial begins]</ref> to bananas resistant to ''Fusarium'' wilt.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140730015922/http://news.theage.com.au/national/diseaseresistant-banana-plant-developed-20081028-5agj.html The Age: Disease-resistant banana plant developed]</ref>

*'''Biofortified food:''' Biofortified food has increased nutritional value or contains essential nutrients not present in traditional varieties. The best known example is [[Golden Rice]], a humanitarian project to develop rice containing vitamin A (beta-carotene) in order to prevent vitamin A deficiency induced blindness in developing countries.<ref>[http://www.goldenrice.org/ Golden Rice Project]</ref> Uganda is similarly developing Golden Bananas.<ref>[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-21945311 Uganda's genetically modified golden bananas], ''BBC News'', 27-March-2013</ref> Other biofortified food plants currently under development include tomatoes containing anthocyanin (the [[antioxidant]] that makes blueberries blue),<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25885756 Genetically-modified purple tomatoes heading for shops], BBC News, 24-Jan-2014</ref> and [[soy]]beans containing [[omega-3]] fatty acids.<ref>[http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Suppliers2/DSM-and-Monsanto-to-commercialize-soybean-oil-rich-in-omega-3-SDA.-But-will-anti-GMO-sentiment-hinder-its-progress DSM and Monsanto to commercialize soybean oil rich in omega-3 SDA. But will anti-GMO sentiment hinder its progress?], Food navigator-usa, 8-April-2013</ref>

*'''Flood tolerance:''' A swarna rice cultivar incorporates the SUB1 gene from other rice varieties so that it can survive the erratic flooding in India and Bangladesh.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150915190235/http://irri.org/rice-today/indian-farmer-kick-starts-two-green-revolutions Indian farmer kick-starts two green revolutions], ''IRRI''</ref> This trait wasn't introduced transgenically, though; it was searched for among existing cultivars via marker-assisted breeding. Basically, lots of rice was bred and the marker for the SUB1 gene was screened for in each seed.<ref>The "Convergence between biotech and conventional breeding" section of [https://web.archive.org/web/20161029145104/http://fafdl.org/blog/2016/10/27/moving-beyond-procon-debates-over-genetically-engineered-crops/ Moving Beyond Pro/Con Debates Over Genetically Engineered Crops], Food and Farm Discussion Lab blog, 27-Oct-2016</ref>

*'''Drought resistance:''' Although it's called a "hybrid", the Genuity DroughtGard&trade; trait involves a transgene from the soil bacterium ''Bacillus subtilus''. Currently under development for corn crops.<ref>Minford, [https://web.archive.org/web/20150129030539/http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/corn/farmers-test-drought-tolerant-corn-hybrids Farmers test drought-tolerant corn hybrids], ''Corn & Soybeans Digest'', 23-Jan2015</ref>

===Limited/abandoned===
*'''Sterility:''' Known as Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), or disparagingly known as "terminator genes", this would render the plants sterile. There are two types: sterility, and inactivation of genes if/unless exposed to some chemical. These have been abandoned in agriculture by the biotech companies due to excessive backlash; instead, biotech companies now have contracts requiring farmers to not save seed. Arguably in the event of a national disaster, it's for the best that the supply chain is as simple as possible just in case, however there are some legitimate uses. It's helpful if you need to make sure that the plant doesn't breed with wild cousins, or if you want to make sure your crops don't sprout if they get wet. It does however see some use outside of agriculture; mosquitos can be bred en masse with an intentionally defective gene that only lets larvae survive in a lab. The defective mosquitos are released into an environment and breed naturally with the local mosquitos, and the next generation of mosquitos mostly die off.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/28/382168407/florida-health-officials-hope-to-test-gmo-mosquitoes-this-spring Florida Health Officials Hope To Test GMO Mosquitoes This Spring, NPR]</ref> This will only suppress the mosquito population for a generation or so until it needs to be applied again, but so does spraying with [[DDT]], and unlike DDT, it only harms mosquitoes and there are few—if any—residual effects decades after the first application.<ref>DDT is now found in polar bears in the arctic—a place where no significant quantities were ever used</ref>

*'''Frost resistance:''' One of the earliest attempts at producing a GMF involved taking the gene for producing "anti-freeze" inside the winter flounder, and introducing it into a tomato. The hoped-for resistance to frost didn't appear (plant sap and fish blood don't freeze the same way), and the experiment was abandoned. This did not prevent legions of anti-GMF activists from using the "fishmato" as their poster child for Frankenfood.

*'''Delayed ripening:''' The now-discontinued Flavr Savr tomato. No fish genes.

*'''Improved digestion:''' The "Enviropig"<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20021028110410/http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/ Enviropig™] University of Guelph</ref> was engineered to more efficiently digest plant phosphorus, eliminating the need to feed it phosphorus supplements and reducing phosphate pollution from the pigs' manure. It was discontinued in 2012.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/science/gene-altered-pig-project-in-canada-is-halted.html Move to Market Gene-Altered Pigs in Canada Is Halted], ''New York Times'', 3-April-2012</ref>

*'''Altered starch characteristics:''' A GM potato strain called {{wpl|Amflora}} has the gene for amylose production turned off. This makes its starch waxier, making it more useful in industrial applications that call for amylopectin such as paper making. It was approved for industrial applications by the European Union in 2010, but this approval was nullified in 2013.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/13/eu-gmo-potato-idUSL6N0JS1TH20131213 EU court annuls approval of BASF's Amflora GMO potato] (Dec 13, 2013 | 6:23am EST) ''Reuters''.</ref>

==GMF impact on health==
:''See the more in depth article on this topic at Wikipedia: {{wpl| Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Health||}}''
Several health concerns (some justified, some not) have been raised over GMFs.

===Lack of independent testing===
Concern exists over the lack of independent testing of GMFs. FDA regulations require new GM strains to be tested for things like allergen potential and toxicity, but these tests are allowed to be conducted by the manufacturers (with FDA oversight), which may lead to biased studies. While the concern is valid (striving for more studies furthers the scientific endeavor, whether GM or non-GM), the common argument that GMFs are not subject to independent testing <i>whatsoever</i> is false.

In 2012, the non-profit organization [http://www.biofortified.org Biology Fortified] began compiling the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA), an ongoing project to catalog [[peer-reviewed]] studies regarding GM health risks. Currently, there are more than 2000 studies on the list which confirm GMO safety, and more than one-third of which were conducted from independently funded, non-manufacturer sources, making GMOs one of the most analyzed subjects in science.<ref>[https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/ With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science] by JoAnna Wendel (October 8, 2013) ''Genetic Literacy Project''</ref><ref>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/#4e62da558a7d 2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable] by Jon Entine (Oct 14, 2013,11:23am EDT) ''Forbes'' </ref><ref>[http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/ Studies with independent funding], Biology Fortified, 10-June-2014</ref>

Additionally, there are ''no'' regulations requiring the testing of new crop strains produced by non-GM means, such as cross-breeding or induced mutation; thus, non-GM varieties are not tested at all. Historically, this has resulted in the disastrous release into the marketplace of the Lenape potato<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html The case of the poison potato], boingboing, 25-March-2013</ref> and celery containing excessive psoralens.<ref>[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=44 Unintended Health Effects: A Conventionally-Bred Celery Cultivar], National Academies Press, 2004</ref> To conclude, although testing that is funded by the manufacturers is not ideal (independently funded studies reduce the introduction of many forms of possible biases such as the [[sunk cost]] [[fallacy]], [[confirmation bias]], and/or bias blind spots), any testing is better than no testing (also consider that manufacturers have a vested interest in protecting their [[PR]] image, which when dealing with GMFs is already [[poisoning the well]], and introducing harmful products could damage that image quickly).

===Food allergies===
The rise in [[food allergy|food allergies]] correlates to the rise of GMFs. A 2013 article in the popular world lifestyle magazine ''Elle'' claimed that the author's apparent allergy to corn wouldn't have happened if our corn wasn't genetically modified. This premise was criticized by many as being [[Pseudoscience#Political|pseudoscientific]] as it lacked any empirical evidence, and the article has since been called "particularly appalling" by Slate.<ref>[http://www.elle.com/beauty/health-fitness/allergy-to-genetically-modified-corn The Bad Seed: The Health Risks of Genetically Modified Corn], in the Hair and Beauty section of the 24-July-2013 ''Elle''. Rebuttal on ''Slate'': [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/08/can_gmo_corn_cause_allergies_don_t_believe_elle_s_scary_story.html No, You Shouldn’t Fear GMO Corn], 7-Aug-2013.</ref>

All that can be said is [[correlation does not equal causation]]. The rise in allergies is a common phenomenon in developed countries, even though the popularity of GMF varies wildly between them. Furthermore, new proteins introduced by genetic modification are required to have short digestion times in order to be found fit for human consumption, precisely because long-digestion proteins are potential allergens. Starlink corn is a famous example of a GMF that was found unfit for human consumption (long before it was brought to market as cattle feed) on this basis.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130922073315/http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/november/prelim_eval_sub102500.pdf EPA Preliminary Evaluation of Information Contained in the October 25, 2000 Submission from Aventis CropScience], page 3</ref>

Transgenic crops containing certain genes from other species can pose a serious food allergy risk if unlabeled. A gene from a cold-water fish to give fruits frost resistance can trigger a reaction in someone allergic to seafood.<ref name="Transgenic">[https://web.archive.org/web/20010515145458/http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H16/cofp/tmrcofp.html The Transgenic Tomato] by Timothy Rockey</ref> However, most transgenes code for proteins whose digestion times are too short to trigger an allergic reaction.

A simpler explanation for the rise in food allergies is the increased variety of food available.  Centuries ago, people would only be able to eat what was grown locally; if you never saw a peanut in your lifetime, how would you ever know if you were allergic?  And if you were allergic to one of the few foods available, well, dead people don't have allergies.

===Cross-pollination and health===
{{hatnote|For cross-pollination and its relation to law, see [[#Cross-pollination and law|Cross-pollination and law]].}}
{{hatnote|For cross-pollination and its relation to the environment, see [[#Cross-pollination and the environment|Cross-pollination and the environment]].}}
The health implications of cross-pollination between GMFs and non-GMFs planted on other farms nearby have garnered some attention.

Starlink corn, a Bt corn variety using a different gene from Monsanto's, was declared unfit for human consumption because one of the introduced proteins (Cry9C) had a long digestion time and was thus a potential allergen. Starlink corn was, however, deemed fit for animal consumption, and was grown as cattle feed. Soon thereafter, Cry9C proteins were found in foodstuffs that ''were'' deemed fit for human consumption.<ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/23/news/mn-25314 Taco Bell Recalls Shells That Used Bioengineered Corn]</ref> Pollen containing the Bt genes had apparently hopped the fence into neighboring cornfields. While no cases of allergic reaction to Cry9C have been confirmed,<ref>CDC, National Center for Environmental Health. Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn: A Report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta,GA:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001.</ref> this raises the spectre of other GM traits escaping isolation.

===Inherently bad===
[[File:SpotGMO.jpeg|250px|right|thumb|This demonstrates how products produced (or partially produced) with genetic engineering are substantially equivalent to the conventional versions. Sugar doesn’t even contain DNA by the time all of the processing is done to make it. ]]
The most prevalent claim is that all GMFs are harmful to health and cause a variety of illnesses and disabilities: [[cancer]],<ref>[[NaturalNews]]: [http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html SHOCK findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early!]</ref> [[autism]],<ref>[[Institute for Responsible Technology]]: [http://www.responsibletechnology.org/autism Are Genetically Engineered Foods Promoting Autism?] (No)</ref> reproductive problems, infant mortality, liver problems and many other things.<ref>[[Institute for Responsible Technology]]: [http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks Health risks of GMOs] (are nonexistent)</ref> Some activists went as far as dressing up in Hazmat suits while destroying GMFs to make it look as if researchers needed protection against the plants.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20151101015340/http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/greenpeace-gm-wheat-hazmat-suits-theatre/2268325.aspx Greenpeace GM wheat Hazmat suits 'theatre'] by Colin Bettles (24 Aug, 2011 06:55 AM) ''The Land'' (archived from November 1, 2015).</ref>

===Influence on rodents===
{{main|Seralini#"GMO causes cancer" study}}
:''See the more in depth article on this topic at Wikipedia: {{wpl|Séralini affair||.}}''
Most GMF maize is ''commodity corn'', i.e. corn not meant to be eaten directly but used as source for starch. Although GMF maize is harmless for human and mammal consumption, paranoia in [[China]] claimed that several models of Pioneer maize and soy is affecting the reproduction of rats and Chinese pygmy hamsters and thereby affecting the food chain. This was due to a 2010 [[Russian]] study.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html] by Jeffrey Smith (08/09/2010 01:45 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011) ''Huffington Post''.</ref> 

Another study released in the journal <i>Food and Chemical Toxicology</i>, conducted by [[Gilles-Eric Séralini]], supposedly showed a link between GM maize and a higher incidence of [[cancer]] in the Sprague–Dawley strain of rat.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/news/rat-study-sparks-gm-furore-1.11471 Rat study sparks GM furore: Cancer claims put herbicide-resistant transgenic maize in the spotlight] by Declan Butler (25 September 2012) ''Nature''.</ref> The study was later retracted by the journal after a large number of scientists protested its poor quality and its "inadequate data to support its conclusions" (specifically that the sample size was too small and the type of rat used was already prone to tumors).<ref>[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/ Study Linking Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors Is Retracted: Publisher withdraws paper despite authors' objections, citing weak evidence] by Barbara Casassus (November 29, 2013) ''Scientific American''.</ref> This latter retracted study is the [[Point refuted a thousand times|one most often cited]] to back the [[pseudoscientific]] claim that GMFs cause cancer.

===Cry1Ab protein in blood===
Some anti-GMF advocates have cited a study, "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada", which found traces of Cry1Ab (a protein from pesticides incorporated into [[Monsanto|MON]]810 corn) in 93 per cent of the pregnant mothers and 80 per cent of the umbilical cords.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670 Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.] - PubMed - NCBI</ref><ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8525165/Toxic-pesticides-from-GM-food-crops-found-in-unborn-babies.html Toxic pesticides from GM food crops found in unborn babies], The Telegraph</ref> However, there are several issues with concluding that this is because of GMF. First, organic crops are often sprayed with Cry1Ab.<ref name=GMOP>[http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2011/04/it-you-record-noise-you-dont-get-music.html Many Women, no Crys] by Marcel Kuntz (29 April 2011) ''OGM: Environnement, Santé et Politique''.</ref> Second, the recorded levels of the protein would require ridiculous consumption of corn (up to 5.8 kg for the maximum recorded blood level, and ''at minimum'' 120 g) ''every single day'', since Cry1Ab does not bioaccumulate.<ref name=GMOP /> Third, the authors recorded values lower than their minimum detection value, and their detection method is flawed.<ref name=GMOP /><ref>[http://www.biofortified.org/2012/10/bt-in-blood/ There's no Bt in your blood] by Anastasia Bodnar (3 Oct 2012) ''Biology Fortified''.</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15740023 Degradation of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize in the bovine gastrointestinal tract] by B. Lutz et al. (2005 Mar 9) ''J. Agric. Food Chem.'' 53(5):1453-6.</ref> And finally, Cry1Ab is not, in fact, harmful.<ref name=GMOP />

===Scientific consensus===
The [[scientific consensus]] says that there are no generic health risks common for all GMFs.<ref>[http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595 An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research] by Alessandro Nicolla et al. (2014) ''Critical Reviews in Biotechnology'' 34(1): 77-88.</ref> Any possible harm can only come from a specific engineered trait. This view is shared by the World Health Organization,<ref>WHO: [https://web.archive.org/web/20031226000231/http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html 20 questions on genetically modified foods]</ref> the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Food Safety Agency, the International Council for Science,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120430153947/http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/new-genetics-food-and-agriculture-scientific-discoveries-societal-dilemas-2003/ ICSU report on GMF]</ref> the U.S. National Academies of Science,<ref>[http://archive.ph/sV69o Technology to Feed the World] National Academy of Sciences (archived from 7 Jul 2013 13:12:56 UTC).</ref> and almost all national scientific bodies. According to one metastudy which included 12 long-term studies and 12 multigenerational studies: "The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed."<ref>Snell, Chelsea; Bernheim, Aude; Berge, Jean-Baptiste; et al [http://www.sciencedirect.com/ ScienceDirect]: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399 Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review]</ref>

Scientists with anti-GMF positions are a tiny minority of researchers, many of them with ideological and/or financial conflicts of interest.<ref group=note>[[Gilles-Eric Séralini]], tied to a [[Big Placebo]] company and funded by anti-GMF organizations, is a notable example.</ref>

So far, all evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of safety of GMFs for human consumption.<ref>[http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GMFs]</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20101112073829/http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/ Studies for GENERA] (as of 5/27/13, there are exactly six hundred studies in this list)</ref> A wide variety of reputable organizations have stated that GMFs are safe to eat, including the US National Academies of Sciences,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070905215227/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094 Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects]</ref> the American Association for the Advancement of Science,<ref>[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf Quote: 'The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.']</ref> the European Commission,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20101224152216/http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf A decade of EU-funded GMO research]</ref> and many more.

After years of cultivation, there seem to be no adverse health impacts associated specifically with them, and in some cases they can confer possible health benefits (e.g. Bt corn contains less carcinogenic fungal toxins than regular corn, Golden Rice has beta carotene which normal rice lacks, etc.). The continued insistence of anti-GMF activists that the science is uncertain is simply [[moving the goalposts]].

Additionally, anti-GMF activists use the [[precautionary principle]] argument which states that as there is [[negative proof]] of the harm of GE foods (i.e. there is no absolute, ultimate proof that GMF is safe), GMFs should be opposed.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140102022117/http://www.biotech-now.org/food-and-agriculture/2013/12/women-considered-easy-targets-for-anti-gmo-agenda Biotech-Now: Moms Urged to Subscribe to the ‘Precautionary Principle’ on GMOs]</ref><ref>[http://www.i-sis.org.uk/prec.php Institute of Science in Society: Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle]—this is a somewhat outdated defense of the use of the precautionary principle being applied to GE technology.</ref> Arguments of this nature are invalid, as any given technology cannot be proven to be safe in every possible imagined circumstance.

Some anti-GMF proponents have taken up the [[creationist]] tactic of listing supporters,<ref>[http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf No scientific consensus on GMO safety] by Angelika Hilbeck et al. (2015). ''Environmental Sciences Europe'' 27:4. DOI:10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150203005046/http://www.ensser.org/media/0115 “No scientific consensus on GMO safety” statement published in peer-reviewed journal], European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility</ref> who often are legal experts rather than scientists.

Below is a partial list of well-respected organizations that have commented on genetically modified crops from GMO Answers’ website.
{{collapse|Partial list of well-respected health organisations’ views on GMOs taken from the [https://gmoanswers.com/scientific-consensus-and-gmos GMO Answers website]}}
* '''American Association for the Advancement of Science:''' “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”
* '''American Medical Association:''' “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. 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.”
* '''The United States National Academy of Sciences:''' “Environmental effects at the farm level have occurred as a result of the adoption of GE crops and the agricultural practices that accompany their cultivation. The introduction of GE crops has reduced pesticide use or the toxicity of pesticides used on fields where soybean, corn, and cotton are grown.”
* '''World Health Organization:''' “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
* '''The United States National Academy of Sciences:''' “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”
* '''American Phytopathological Society:''' “The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.”
* '''American Society for Cell Biology:''' ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.”
* '''American Society for Microbiology:''' “The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.”
* '''American Society of Plant Biologists:''' “The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.”
* '''U.S. [[Food and Drug Administration]]:''' “The FDA is confident that the bioengineered foods on the United States market today are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”
* '''Health Canada:''' ”Health Canada is not aware of any published scientific evidence demonstrating that novel foods are any less safe than traditional foods.”
* '''Society of Toxicology:''' “Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.”
* '''International Seed Federation:''' “The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.”
* '''Council for Agricultural Science and Technology:''' “Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.”
* '''Society for In Vitro Biology:''' “The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.”
* '''American Dietetic Association:''' “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)
* '''Federation of Animal Science Societies:''' “Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.”
* '''Consensus document on GMOs Safety''' (14 Italian scientific societies): “GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” [Google translate]
* '''”Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture”''' – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences: “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.”
* '''French Academy of Science:''' “All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” [Google translate]
* '''International Society of African Scientists:''' “Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.”
* '''Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities:''' “Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.”
* '''International Council for Science:''' “Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.”
{{collapse end}}

==GMO impact on environment==
:''See the more in depth article on this topic at Wikipedia: {{wpl|Genetically modified food controversies#Environment||}}''
Environmental concerns over GMOs also exist. The scientific consensus over GMF crops and the environment is not as clear-cut as the consensus on GMF and health.

===Environmental impact of GM herbicide resistance===
{{Cquote|If GM crops have contributed significantly to the development of herbicide resistant weeds, we would expect the number of unique instances of these superweeds to increase following adoption of GM crops. … In the eleven-year period before GM crops were widely grown, approximately 13 new cases of herbicide resistance were documented annually. After GM crop adoption began in earnest, the number of new herbicide resistant weeds DECREASED to 11.4 cases per year. [...] Almost any way you look at the data, it appears that GM crops are no greater contributor to the evolution of superweeds than other uses of herbicides.|||Andrew Kniss, Associate Professor of Weed Biology and Ecology, University of Wyoming<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160301171349/http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/ Where are the super weeds?]by Andrew Kniss (May 1, 2013)</ref>}}
What is the impact on the environment where GM resistance leads to increased use of herbicides? So far, there is very little data suggesting the increase in the use of GM plants have led to a major increase in herbicide use, and this completely ignores how glyphosate is far less toxic than many alternative herbicides (such as atrazine)—meaning that increases in the mass of herbicide used do not always translate to an increase in environmental impact. Sustained glyphosate use and poor management practices have led to some weeds becoming resistant to the herbicide.<ref>[http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/gwc/gwc-1.pdf Facts about Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds]</ref> Proper weed management practices and careful use of selective herbicides can help mitigate this resistance.

The number of reported new cases of herbicide-resistant weeds has actually slightly decreased after the introduction of GMFs. Out of the 24 known glyphosate-resistant species, 13 were actually first documented in non-GMFs. As such, "superweeds" are a problem related to herbicide use and not directly to GMF use.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130504231646/http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed Where are the super weeds?]</ref>

It's important to keep in mind what a "superweed" is. A "superweed" is a plant that's resistant to the herbicide in use, allowing it to grow in the fields we'd rather use for crops, rather than a green monster that will overwhelm the whole world.  Much like "superbugs" in hospitals, acquiring resistance to an herbicide is generally ''harmful'' to the plant if the herbicide is not present, as it requires the plant to spend additional energy and materials producing the proteins or other chemicals it uses to endure the herbicide, meaning "superweeds" are actually slightly weaker and less invasive than the, umm, garden variety.  Indeed, glyphosate-resistant crops themselves produce somewhat less than non-resistant varieties in ideal conditions,<ref>[https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2134/agronj2001.932408x Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines] by Roger W. Elmore et al. (2001) ''Agron. J.'' 93: 408–412.</ref> but "a field full of weeds" is kind of the opposite of ideal.

Most scientists dislike the use of the word “superweeds” arguing that it polarizes the issue. Superweeds are not ‘super’ in any real sense of the word; they are weeds that have evolved to evade a particular weed management strategy.<ref>[https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/what-are-superweeds/ Superweeds FAQ], GLP</ref> A dandelion that is so short that it has almost no stem could be considered a superweed. Its super power is crouching beneath the blades of lawnmowers.

There’s also the remote possibility, often cited by anti-GMO proponents, that modified crops can pass on their engineered tolerances to closely-related weeds growing nearby.<ref>[https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517 Genetically modified crops pass benefits to weeds] by Jane Qiu (16 August 2013) [[nature]]</ref>  However, there have been no documented cases of this, and is unlikely.<ref>[https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=14792 Can herbicide resistance move from crops to weeds?] by Brad Hanson (July 28, 2014)</ref> The real problem came from the increased reliance on glyphosate by farmers who plant GMO seeds and by those who use it for weed control around their fields. The pairing of glyphosate with GMO crops since 1996 has led to a steady increased in its use.<ref>[https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0 Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally] by Charles M. Benbrook in Environ Sci Eur 28, 3 (2016). doi:10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0.</ref>

Would getting rid of GMO crops halt the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds? The data do not support claims that GMO herbicide resistant crops, as a whole, have made the weed resistance problem worse. The European Academies Science Advisory Council contends: “Cultivating a GM crop variety with increased herbicide resistance … may prove detrimental to the environment if the farmer over-uses that herbicide. But the same would be true of herbicide resistance introduced by conventional breeding.”<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170709131155/http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/Reports/Planting_the_Future/EASAC_Planting_the_Future_LAY_SUMMARY.pdf Planting the Future] Summary</ref> 

Herbicide resistant weed development is not a GMO problem, it is a herbicide problem.<ref>[http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/WSSA-Fact-Sheet-on-Superweeds_16-Sep-2014.pdf WSSA FACT SHEET, Dispelling Common Misconceptions about Superweeds]</ref><ref>[https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/do-gmos-cause-superweeds/ Do GMOs cause “superweeds”?] GLP</ref>

===Cross-pollination and the environment===
{{hatnote|For cross-pollination and its relation to health, see [[#Cross-pollination and health|Cross-pollination and health]].}}
{{hatnote|For cross-pollination and its relation to law, see [[#Cross-pollination and law|Cross-pollination and law]].}}
What might happen if modified genes cross-pollinated (or, worse, transferred laterally) to other organisms? For example, herbicide resistance could transfer to related weedy species, producing herbicide resistant weeds—obviously an undesirable outcome. Occurrence of this gene flow has been confirmed in field studies,<ref>Watrud, L.S. et al., [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/40/14533.short Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker.] ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,'' October 5, 2004, vol. 101, no. 40, pp. 14533-14538.</ref> but so far it's uncertain whether this is a serious concern or not.{{fact}} It should be noted that herbicide resistance is not unique to GMFs (for instance, imidazolinone-resistant canola was obtained using radiation breeding), nor does herbicide resistance in weeds require gene flow to occur.

There are technologies available to prevent the spread of transgenes in the environment by making the second-generation seed of GM plants sterile, but they are not used due to public opposition (see "Terminator seed technology" below).

There is also a misconception about potential "superweeds", where a wild cousin acquires a trait and the whole world is choking on canola/rapeseed. "Superweeds" are ''weaker'' than regular weeds as herbicide resistance is a ''detriment'' to most plants; it causes the plants to use up energy to survive under specific conditions, specifically when herbicide is present. Without the herbicide present, the tolerant plants tend to be pushed out by the intolerant plants.

On the other hand, the newly introduced traits might disrupt the ecosystem surrounding a GMF field, particularly when GMFs interbreed with wild relatives. This is not a problem unique to GMF crops; any crop with a new trait could potentially spread to the wild, whether it arose through random mutation or creation in a lab. There exists technology to prevent interbreeding, but it is not used due to its negative public perception.<ref group=note>Namely, Variety GURT, which renders sterile all seed produced by the plant. Sterile seeds can't crossbreed with anything. Called "terminator seed technology" by its opponents, it attracted so much misguided outrage that it has been abandoned, as described in the Controversy section later in this article.</ref>

===Lack of biodiversity===
When a GMF is first introduced, the seeds are usually derived from a single strain. If this crop becomes immensely popular, you'll end up with multiple farmers planting one and only one strain of the crop, leaving all of these new crops vulnerable to disease. This happened with the Rainbow papaya: the strain chosen to receive the transgene for ringspot-virus resistance turned out to be vulnerable to the blackspot fungus. The problem can be avoided by breeding the GM trait into several varieties using conventional methods.

GMFs are not the only crops lacking biodiversity, nor is lack of biodiversity a new concern. The Great Irish Potato Famine occurred largely because Irish farmers planted only the "lumper" strain of potatoes; when the Potato Blight struck, it struck 'em all. [[McDonald's]] has long been criticized for its reliance on the Russet Burbank strain of potatoes for its French fries, to the exclusion of other strains.

This would likely be less of a problem if more GMF companies were able to enter into the market providing more variety of crops, or if the GMF crops could be allowed to hybridize with other strains. In other words, it's a problem caused by the ''restrictions'' on GMF crops.

==="Terminator seeds" and the environment===
{{hatnote|For "terminator seeds" and their relation to moneymaking, see [[#"Terminator seeds" and profit|"Terminator seeds" and profit]].}}
A common myth is that the crops use "terminator seed" technology (technical name Genetic Use Restriction Technology, GURT) which causes the crops to yield sterile seeds. However, while testing has been conducted on GURT, there is actually a moratorium on its commercial use due to public opposition.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090912152329/http://www.adonline.id.au/terminatorseeds/summary.php GURT overview.]</ref> Monsanto has also pledged not to use the technology.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20101115231002/http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx "Is Monsanto Going to Develop or Sell "Terminator" Seeds?", paragraph 3]</ref>

Despite all the propaganda, GURT has the potential to be a ''good'' thing because it stops planted GMFs from expanding into the wild—one of the few realistic concerns about GMFs. Seeds that cannot be saved for replanting are nothing new. Plants grown from traditional hybrid seed, in wide use since the 1920s, do not produce true copies in the second generation due to the existence of hybrid vigor. Therefore, new seed must be bought every year from a plant breeder to keep its desirable characteristics.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100623024156/http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/archives/parsons/vegetables/seed.html Hybrid varieties and saving seed]</ref>

One of the few dangers of GURT would be in those rare cases if it were to fail. GURT is engineered as a genetic trait, which means it can and will mutate, and a germline mutation that deactivates the GURT geneplex would mean the seeds would be fertile. Were GURT actually implemented in real farms, the farmers would have to maintain the same vigilance they do today against GM seed or pollen escaping into the wild, just in case one of these deactivating mutations were to arise.

[[Vandana Shiva]] has claimed that GURT may somehow spread to wild plants and cause the total destruction of the Earth's biosphere.<ref>[http://books.google.co.in/books?id=yVn_OlBeDqoC&lpg=PA83&ots=mMupgiFh0t&dq=the%20terminator%20may%20spread%20to%20surrounding%20food%20crops%20or%20the%20natural%20environment%20is%20a%20serious%20one.%20The%20gradual%20spread%20of%20sterility%20in%20seeding%20plants%20would%20result%20in%20a%20global%20catastrophe%20that%20could%20eventually%20wipe%20out%20higher%20life%20forms%2C%20including%20humans%2C%20from%20the%20planet%E2%80%9D.&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply By Vandana Shiva]</ref> This is complete lunacy, since by definition sterility is not inheritable.

===Environmental ''benefits'' of GMF===
Crops which are genetically modified to poison pests (such as Bt corn) reduce the need for pesticides to be sprayed on them (up to 37 percent), which benefits the environment.<ref name=klumper/> According to a decade-long study conducted in China on Bt cotton, since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use was reduced by half and the population of natural insect predators doubled (this is because the non-Bt insecticides that would have otherwise been used kill harmful and helpful insects without discretion).<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services] Nature</ref> Another study, published in 2005 found that using GMF that poison pests reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the need for pesticide spraying.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20051223095108/http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm GM Crops: The Global Economic and Environmental Impact - The First Nine Years] AgBioForum</ref> Additionally, GMF which is modified for no-till or reduced-till farming systems (herbicide resistant crops) result in the soil retaining more carbon as well as reducing the energy use in soil cultivation, ''massively'' lowering overall greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA has required some insect resistant crops be regulated like chemical pesticides.<ref name="Transgenic" /> Developing countries see greater benefit to yields, and reductions in pesticide use, from using genetically modified crops, giving complaints about them just a touch of [[classism]].<ref name=klumper/>

Some articles argue that the repression of GMF by the environmental movement is the real problem.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100718232447/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2007/11/therealgmfoodscandal/ Prospect Magazine: The real GMF scandal]</ref> At least one [[Mark Lynas|high-profile environmentalist]] has changed his anti-GMF stance as a result of learning the actual science.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html Leading Environmental Activist’s Blunt Confession: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMOs]</ref> (Did he simply [[shill gambit|sell out]] to [[Monsanto]]? A lot of anti-GMF bloggers and sites at the time thought so,<ref>Like this one: [https://web.archive.org/web/20130217021716/http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-conversion-mark-lynas-climate-change-journalist-cheerleader Uncovering the Real Story Behind the 'Conversion' of Mark Lynas from Climate Change Journalist to Cheerleader for Genetically Modified Foods], on AlterNet</ref> but evidence has not been forthcoming.)

GMF can of course be misused, and for this reason need oversight. However, after years of cultivation, there seem to be no adverse impacts associated specifically with them, and in many cases they confer significant environmental benefits. The continued insistence of anti-GMF activists that the science is uncertain is simply [[moving the goalposts]].

===Influence on bees===
There are also claims that Bt (''Bacillus thuringiensis'') crops are responsible for bee deaths and [[colony collapse disorder]] (CCD). This is false.

Bt toxin is harmful to some Lepidoptera (butterflies / moths) and Coleoptera (beetles) which feed directly on the plant, though several strains are becoming resistant to Bt toxin—and even then, the effects on butterflies is not significant and quite negligible.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010912/full/news010913-12.html Monarchs safe from Bt: GM plant pollen may be off the hook, but regulators are still feeling the heat] by Tom Clarke (12 September 2001) ''Nature''. doi:10.1038/news010913-12 .</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3189815/ Parallel Evolution of ''Bacillus thuringiensis'' Toxin Resistance in Lepidoptera] by Simon W. Baxter et al. (2011) ''Genetics'' 189(2): 675–679. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.130971.</ref> Beetles and certain species of butterflies tend to be pests themselves, after all, and were the target of the Bt toxin in the first place.

Bt toxin is not at all harmful to bees, which are in the order Hymenoptera. A meta-analysis of 25 studies found that there is no detectable harm to bees arising from the use of Bt crops.<ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001415 A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Crops on Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)] by Jian J. Duan & Michelle Marvier (January 9, 2008) ''Plos One''.</ref> In fact, imidacloprid, a pesticide used on corn crops, ''is'' toxic to bees; and the whole point of Bt corn crops is that they need to be sprayed with ''less'' pesticide. And a meta-analysis has confirmed this.<ref>[http://archive.ph/OuS17 Meta-analysis shows GM crops reduce pesticide use by 37 percent] (November 6, 2014) ''American Council on Science and Health (archived from 12 Nov 2014 09:21:09 UTC).</ref>{{better source}}

Note that traditional pesticides also kill butterflies and beetles, and that the Bt toxin is also used as a pesticide on both conventional non-GMF crops and organic crops.
Some evidence however, has shown that Bt maize does cause slight learning disturbances in bees.<ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028174 Testing Pollen of Single and Stacked Insect-Resistant Bt-Maize on In vitro Reared Honey Bee Larvae] by Harmen P. Hendriksma  et al. (December 16, 2011) ''Plos One''.</ref> However, this effect has only been detected with concentrations of Bt toxin at 5000 ppb, and it's unlikely for this effect to show in natural conditions.<ref>Ramirez-Romero et al., [http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antoine_Chaffiol/publication/233720595_Does_CrylAb_protein_affect_learning_performances_of_the_honey_bee_Apis_mellifera_L._(Hymenoptera_Apidae)/links/53f4c3310cf2888a7491178a?origin=publication_detail Does CrylAb protein affect learning performances of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae)?], ''Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety'', January 2008</ref>

===GMF and herbicide use===
A 2012 study by Chuck Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, has concluded that the proliferation of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops led farmers to increase herbicide use to combat weeds resistant to [[Roundup]].<ref>[http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24 Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. &mdash; the first sixteen years] by Charles M Benbrook (2012) ''Environmental Sciences Europe'' DOI:10.1186/2190-4715-24-24.</ref><ref>[http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use How GMOs Unleashed a Pesticide Gusher] by Tom Philpott (Oct. 3, 2012 6:00 AM) ''Mother Jones''.</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/genetically-modified-crops-pesticides_n_1931020.html Genetically Modified Crops Have Led To Pesticide Increase, Study Finds] by Carey Gillam (10/01/2012 09:18 pm ET | Updated Dec 02, 2012) ''Huffington Post''.</ref><ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002 Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study] by Carey Gillam (Oct 1, 2012 | 9:18pm EDT) ''Reuters''.</ref> Furthermore, before the introduction of genetically modified crops, farmers had to carefully use herbicides in order not to kill the plants. People are still concerned with herbicide residue in their food, but both GM and organic farms use herbicides in the United States. However, GM farms have seen a reduction in pesticide use.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150815053942/http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/ GMOs and Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful?] by Jennifer Hsaio (August 10, 2015) ''Science in the News'' (Harvard Graduate School of the Arts and Sciences).</ref> Research done by scientists from the Georg-August-University of Goettingen discovered, "On average, GM technology has increased crop yields by 21%. These yield increases are not due to higher genetic yield potential, but to more effective pest control and thus lower crop damage. At the same time, GM crops have reduced pesticide quantity by 37% and pesticide cost by 39%."<ref name=klumper/>

===Gene drives and GMOs===
GMO gene drives are currently in an experimental stage, with none yet released into the wild. Gene drives rely on insertion of the [[CRISPR]]/Cas9 gene into an organism, which has the potential to insert a gene into an entire breeding population.<ref name=genedrive>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gene-drives-spread-their-wings Gene drives spread their wings: CRISPR brings a powerful genetic tool closer to reality. Are we ready?] By
Tina Hesman Saey (7:00am, December 2, 2015) ''Science News''.</ref> Potential applications of gene drives are:<ref name=genedrive/>
*Immunizing animals that carry human disease (e.g. [[malaria]] mosquitoes)
*Controlling insect-borne diseases
*Spreading pest-specific pesticides and herbicides
*Reducing populations of rodents and other pests
*Controlling invasive species
*Aiding threatened species
But unforseen ecosystem consequences could also arise.<ref name=genedrive/>

==GMFs and politics==
:''See the more in depth article on this topic at Wikipedia: {{wpl| Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Lawsuits||}}''
Even if GMFs are relatively safe to humans and the environment, it's possible that their use might harm someone legally or financially; such risks exist but are routinely overblown.

==="Terminator seeds" and profit===
{{hatnote|For "terminator seeds" and their relation to the environment, see [[#"Terminator seeds" and the environment|"Terminator seeds" and the environment]].}}
[[File:TotalSalesGMO.jpeg|300px|right|thumb| Anti-GMO crusaders think Monsanto is so powerful that it owns everything and everyone. From supreme court justices to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, they see Monsanto everywhere. For the record Clarence Thomas worked there for only a couple of years in the late 1970s, and he hated it so much he went running to the public sector. Clinton’s campaign, as revealed by Wikileaks, actually had close ties to the organic movement. Gary Hirschberg, Stonyfield exec and founder of Just Label It, was quite influential with her attempt to move back in to the White House.]]
Anti-GMF activists often say that GMF seeds are infertile.<ref>Hermosillo, Maribel [https://www.mic.com/articles/33031/monsanto-s-gmo-seeds-are-actively-cultivating-cultural-genocide Monsanto's GMO Seeds Are Actively Cultivating Cultural Genocide] [http://www.mic.com/ Mic]</ref> This refers to Genetic Use Restriction Technology, dubbed "terminator seed", which renders the second generation seed of a plant infertile. (See "Terminator seed technology" above.) This would prevent the farmer from saving seed, which currently is a requirement enforced using legal means.

GURT was never commercialized and work on it was abandoned in 1999,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20101115231002/http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx Myth: Monsanto Sells Terminator Seeds] Monsanto</ref> largely due to public backlash instigated by the anti-GMF campaigners. Ironically, it would solve one of the few real problems with GMFs, namely the transfer of GM traits into wild relatives. It would also enable the safe use of GM plants to produce pharmaceutically active compounds.<ref>[http://fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/our-position-gene-use-restriction-technologies.html Gene Use Restriction Technologies] by C Kameswara Rao. Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education</ref>

===Cross-pollination and law===
{{hatnote|For cross-pollination and its relation to health, see [[#Cross-pollination and health|Cross-pollination and health]].}}
{{hatnote|For cross-pollination and its relation to the environment, see [[#Cross-pollination and the environment|Cross-pollination and the environment]].}}
What are the legal implications of cross-pollination between GMFs and non-GMFs planted on other farms nearby? While activists commonly claim that biotech companies (like [[Monsanto]]) will sue farmers for accidental contamination via cross-pollination, such lawsuits have not happened. In 2012, a group of organic farmers preemptively sued [[Monsanto]] for this very reason, but their case was thrown out when they were unable to present any evidence that supported their claims. It is unlikely that any judge would rule in favor of Monsanto in such a case, because the farmer would not obtain any undue benefit from the patented seeds.

[[Percy Schmeiser]]'s case is often used as an example by activists—but the court found that he intentionally selected for GM traits in [[canola oil|canola]] pollinated from a neighboring field by spraying his own field with glyphosate, which killed off all of his plants but left the pollination-planted ones intact, and then used the seed on his farm, planting a total of approximately 1,030 acres with the seed. Schmeiser attempted to claim that he was innocent and that the glyphosate-resistant crops appeared on his fields via pollination or from a passing truck's spillage, but the judge pointed out that all 1,030 acres were planted with glyphosate-resistant canola at a purity of 95-98%, far beyond the 0.5-2% typically seen from accidental contamination. Furthermore, the fact that Schmeiser intentionally sprayed glyphosate on his crops betrayed his knowledge of the seed, since glyphosate will kill any non-resistant plants. Monsanto won the lawsuit, but Schmeiser mounted a massive misinformation campaign online, which has led to a great many people being unaware of the true facts on this case.<ref>[http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html Federal Court (Canada) decision - Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser]</ref>

GM traits are usually patented. While this draws a lot of criticism, this situation is in fact not any different from conventional breeding, where novel traits are also patentable. "Plant patents" have been protected by U.S. law since 1930. Several patents on first-generation GM traits have run out, or are due to run out in the near future; the patent for first-generation RoundUp Ready soybean seeds, for example, expired in 2015.

===GMF labeling===
Laws exist, and have been proposed, which require foods containing GM ingredients to be labelled in some manner.  The proponents of such labeling laws are mostly anti-GMF activists for whom labeling laws are but a first step.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20131107063334/http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/31/genetic-literacy-project-infographic-is-labeling-really-about-our-right-to-know Genetic Literacy Project Infographic: Is labeling GMOs really about our “Right to Know”?]</ref> The opponents assert that such laws would make "no GMFs!" labels into selling points for a gullible public (much like "all natural!" labels do today), and would give no useful information about ''which'' genetic modifications are and aren't present. The forced labeling in and of itself will also carry a negative stigma associated with GMF; think about the difference in sub-conscious perception it would make if there was a label denoting that the food was packaged by immigrants. An unexpected irony is that, in two studies from Vermont, GMO labeling actually increases consumer trust in GMO food products, perhaps because familiarity breeds fondness.<ref>[https://theconversation.com/study-gm-food-labels-do-not-act-as-a-warning-to-consumers-45283 Study: GM food labels do not act as a warning to consumers] ''The Conversation''</ref>

It would seem that many Americans would support the idea of GM labeling. That said, when asked, 80 percent of Americans said they wanted food to be labeled if it contained DNA.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/27/new-study-confirms-that-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labeling-of-foods-containing-dna/ New study confirms that 80 percent of Americans support labeling of foods containing DNA]. Opinion. ''Washington Post''. May 27, 2016.</ref> As virtually every ingredient other than "salt" originated from something with [[DNA]], this tends to suggest that the pro-label lobby is perhaps not the most scientifically literate.

==== In the U.S. ====
Until July 2016, there were no mandatory labeling requirements for GMFs at the federal level in the United States. There were, however, state laws in [[Vermont]],<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140424192138/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/vermont-lawmakers-pass-gmo-labeling-bill_n_5203569.html Vermont Lawmakers Pass GMO Labeling Bill; Governor Expected To Sign], [[Huffington Post]], 24-April-2014</ref> [[Maine]],<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/10/maine-becomes-second-state-to-require-gmo-labels/ Maine becomes second state to require GMO labels], ''The Washington Post'', 10-Jan-2014]</ref> and [[Connecticut]], which would have imposed labeling requirements on GM foods sold in those states if and when they went into effect.

In response, a bill called the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in July of 2015, which would have prohibited individual states from imposing their own GM food labeling requirements.<ref>[https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599 "H.R.1599 - Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015"], at congress.gov</ref> GM food opponents called this bill "Denying Americans the Right to Know," or the DARK Act.<ref>Spear, Stefanie (July 24, 2015), [https://web.archive.org/web/20150724233813/http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/24/house-passes-dark-act/ "House Passes DARK Act, Banning States From Requiring GMO Labels on Food"], at EcoWatch.com</ref> It passed the House, but was blocked by the Senate.

A later compromise to the above bill, titled only "S. 764", passed the House and Senate and was signed into law on 29 July, 2016. This law, christened "the DARK Act 2.0" by its opponents, mandates GMO labels but allows the information to be contained in QR codes (2-D bar codes that can't be read without the aid of a smartphone or similar device). It may also permit some loopholes for certain classes of GM food,<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-food-gmo-vote-idUSKCN0ZO08N "U.S. GMO food labeling bill passes Senate"], Reuters, 8-July-2016</ref> and voids all state-level GMO labeling laws.

==== In Canada====
There are no requirements for GM foods to be labeled as such in [[Canada]]. Furthermore, non-GM foods can only be labeled as non-GM if GM versions of their ingredients exist on the market, or an accompanying statement is made saying no GM version exists.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120824220328/http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ongc-cgsb/programme-program/normes-standards/internet/032-0315/index-eng.html Voluntary labeling and advertising of foods that are and are not products of genetic engineering], sections 6.1.4 and 6.2.4</ref> (This is similar to how the U.S. [[FDA]] regulates the statement "cholesterol-free.") This law should also apply to "[[The Non-GMO Project]]" certification logo, but is only sporadically enforced.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170106054859/https://dietwaldclaus.com/2017/01/05/how-to-fight-misleading-gmo-labelling-in-canada/ How to Fight Misleading GMO Labelling (in Canada)], dietwald's blog, 15-January-2017</ref>

==== In the European Union ====

European Union has very strict GMF labeling laws, mandating that every ingredient of the product that was produced from genetically modified organisms must be labelled, even if it contains no DNA and is chemically indistinguishable from its non-GMF counterpart (e.g. oils, lecithin, and sugar). Labeling is also mandatory in restaurant menus. Combined with the very high level of anti-GMF activity in Europe and the fact that only two GM traits have been approved for local cultivation (one variant of Bt corn, and [formerly] the Amflora potato), this results in GMF being basically impossible to buy.

Labeling in Europe is not required for the meat, eggs and milk of animals fed with GMFs. Most European poultry and pigs are in fact fed GM cereals imported from the United States, as this is significantly cheaper than feeding them locally grown non-GM grain.

A common claim about European labeling laws is that cultivating GMFs in some area would automatically require honey produced in the same area to be labeled as genetically modified, because honey contains trace amounts of pollen (less than 0.5%). Given the anti-GMF hysteria, the label would make such honey potentially unmarketable in Europe. However, this is no longer true, as the rules were recently clarified; pollen is now considered as a "natural constituent" rather than an "ingredient" of honey, and so it only needs to be labelled if the honey contains more than 0.9% of GM pollen.<ref>[https://www.beuc.eu/news/european-parliament-vote-keep-lid-gm-pollen-honey European Parliament vote to keep lid on GM pollen in honey] (17 April 2014) The European Consumer Organisation</ref> Previous ruling from the European Court of Justice stipulated that pollen is an "ingredient" and therefore needs to be included on the ingredient list, and a label must be included if more than 0.9% of the pollen is genetically modified.

==Deliberate Misinformation==
Misinformation on the subject is harmful. People who would otherwise be fed are starved, being deprived of food being destroyed just because it is GMF.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2371675.stm Famine-hit Zambia rejects GM food aid] (29 October, 2002, 18:25 GMT) ''BBC''.</ref><ref>[http://www.lusakatimes.com/2014/06/07/lunanshya-council-destroys-bokomo-cornflakes-containing-traces-gmo/ Lunanshya council destroys Bokomo Cornflakes containing traces of GMO] ( June 7, 2014) ''Lusaka Times''.</ref><ref>[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] by Mark Lynas (26-Aug-2013) ''Slate''.</ref> Destroying otherwise edible food when there are starving people is morally questionable, at best.

===Farmer suicide in India===
Some anti-GMF activists, like [[Vandana Shiva]], claim that Bt cotton in [[India]] ruins small farmers and drives them to [[suicide]]. Bt cotton in India is not a substantial factor in farmer suicides,<ref>[https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-selling-of-the-suicide-seeds-narrative-37794 The Selling of the Suicide Seeds Narrative], ''Discover'' blogs, 7-Jan-2014</ref> which started rising 5 years before its introduction.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110511180115/http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00808.pdf Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence] by Guillaume P. Gruère  et al. (2008) IFPRI Discussion Paper 00808. ''International Food Policy Research Institute''.</ref> In fact, a long-term study on the economic impacts of Bt cotton in India showed that Bt cotton has ''increased'' yields, profits, and the living standards of smallholder farmers.<ref>[http://www.pnas.org/content/109/29/11652 Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (''Bacillus thuringiensis'') cotton in India] by Jonas Kathage & Matin Qaim (2012) ''PNAS'' 109(29): 11652–11656. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1203647109.</ref><ref>[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmo-and-indian-farmer-suicide/ GMO and Indian Farmer Suicide] by Steven Novella (Mar 14 2014) ''Neurologica Blog''.</ref><ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india Indian farmer suicides not GM related, says study] by  James Randerson (5 November 2008 13.00 EST) ''The Guardian''.</ref>

===Zambia===
The most controversial instance of opposition to GMF is probably the case of Zambia. In 2002, the Zambian government opted to let its people starve in the midst of a region-wide crop failure by turning down a vast quantity of food aid in the form of GM corn, rather than feed them "GM poison".<ref>BBC News: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2233839.stm Zambia refuses GM 'poison']</ref><ref>[http://www.economist.com/node/1337197 Better dead than GM-fed?], ''The Economist'', 19-Sept-2002. Claims that the cross-pollination threat to Zambia's crop exports might have been partly to blame.</ref>

In February 2016, a similar crisis was shaping up to happen in Zimbabwe.<ref>[http://allafrica.com/stories/201602110188.html Zimbabwe: Govt Says No to GMO Imports Despite 3 Million in Need of Food Assistance], allafrica.com, 10-Feb-2016</ref>

==In a nutshell==

{{collapse|''The Unpopular Facts about GMOs'' ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG9DGRmeyQZAlcCD4JGMilQ ''inFact''])}}
<center>
{{#ev:youtube|fIgqXCRkMkA}}
</center>
{{collapse end}}

{{collapse|''GMOs'' ([https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage ''Healthcare Triage''])}}
<center>
{{#ev:youtube|gKO9s0zLthU}}
</center>
{{collapse end}}

{{collapse|''Are GMOs Good or Bad? Genetic Engineering & Our Food'' ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsXVk37bltHxD1rDPwtNM8Q ''Kurzgesagt''])}}
<center>
{{#ev:youtube|7TmcXYp8xu4}}
</center>
{{collapse end}}

==Positions on GMO==

===Pro-GMF===
*[http://pediatrics.iu.edu/chsr/our-team/faculty/bio-carroll/ Aaron E. Carroll] &mdash; Professor of Pediatrics and Associate Dean for Research Mentoring at [[Indiana]] University School of [[Medicine]], and the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research. And more. A damn good doctor, in other words.<ref>[http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/about/about-aaron/ About Aaron E. Carroll] ''The Incidental Economist''.</ref> Dedicates an episode of ''[[Genetically_modified_food#GMOs_.28Healthcare_Triage.29|Healthcare Triage]]'' to debunking GMO fears.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKO9s0zLthU GMOs] by Healthcare Triage (Jun 9, 2014) ''YouTube''.</ref>
*[[Ben Goldacre]] &mdash; Doctor, skeptic and science writer.<ref>[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/ More bad science in the service of anti-GMO activism] by David Gorski (June 17, 2013) ''Science-Based Medicine''.</ref>
*[[Bill Nye]] &mdash; Credits good [[science]] with proving to him that a pro-GMO stance is the rational option.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150301140730/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/02/bill-nye-says-science-changed-his-anti-gmo-views/ Bill Nye says science changed his anti-GMO views] by Dan Arel (February 27, 2015) ''Patheos''.</ref>
*[[Brian Dunning]] &mdash; Skeptic, podcaster and regular debunker of woo as the host of his YouTube sceptic show, ''inFact''.<ref>[http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112 Genetically Modified Organisms: Jeopardy or Jackpot?] by Brian Dunning (Skeptoid Podcast #112, August 5, 2008) ''Skeptoid''.</ref> Dedicates an episode of ''[[Genetically_modified_food#The_Unpopular_Facts_about_GMOs_.28inFact.29|inFact]]'' to debunking GMO fears.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIgqXCRkMkA inFact: The Unpopular Facts about GMOs] inFact with Brian Dunning (Mar 19, 2013) ''YouTube''.</ref>
*[[Brian Cox]] &mdash; British particle physicist and science communicator.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10318862/Science-Britannica-episode-one-BBC-Two-review.html Science Britannica, episode one, BBC Two, review] by Catherine Gee (7:00AM BST 19 Sep 2013) ''The Telegraph''.</ref> 
*[[Kevin Folta]] &mdash; Professor of botany who gives biotech talks to lay audiences.
*{{wpl|Calestous Juma}} &mdash; Internationally recognised authority in the application of science and technology to sustainable development worldwide.<ref>[http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32901834 Is opposition to genetically modified food irrational?] 3 June 2015 ''BBC News''</ref>
*{{wpl|Hank Green}} &mdash; Science popularizer with a B.Sc. in Biochemistry from Eckerd College and a M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of [[Montana]].<ref>[http://www.myspace.com/whgreen Hank's MySpace]</ref> Dedicates an episode of ''[[Genetically_modified_food#Why_are_GMOs_Bad.3F_.28SciShow.29|SciShow]]'' to debunking GMO fears.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU Why are GMOs Bad?] by SciShow (Jul 10, 2015) ''YouTube''.</ref>
*[[Mark Lynas]] &mdash; British environmentalist, journalist, and author. Formerly anti-GMF, he has since switched his position, 'cause science.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html Leading Environmental Activist’s Blunt Confession: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMOs] 3 January 2013 ''Slate''</ref>
*[[Michael Shermer]] &mdash; Author and skeptic extraordinnaire.<ref>[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/ The Liberals' War on Science: How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum] by Michael Shermer (February 1, 2013) ''Scientific American''.</ref>
*[[M.S. Swaminathan]]&mdash; [[Geneticist]] and the father of [[India]]'s Green Revolution. The first person to be awarded the World Food Prize.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPHgwdAF-LY&t=9m35s MS Swaminathan - On future of Indian agriculture]</ref>
*[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]] &mdash; "[Utilizing genetic modification] is what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ecT2CaL7NA Neil deGrasse Tyson on gmo food!] by Neil deGrasse Tyson Videos (Jul 24, 2014) ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>[https://www.facebook.com/neiltyson/posts/10204439688771816] by Neil deGrasse Tyson (August 3, 2014) ''Facebook''.</ref>
*[[Norman Borlaug]] &mdash; Credited as the father of the Green Revolution. Specifically via GMF, he is widely credited with having saved a '''''billion''''' lives.<ref>[http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=116 Norman Borlaug: Father of the Green Revolution &mdash; He Helped Feed the World!] ''Science Heroes''.</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/the-man-who-saved-a-billi_b_4099523.html The Man Who Saved a Billion Lives] by David Macaray ''Huffington Post''.</ref>
*[[PZ Myers]] &mdash; Associate professor of biology, blogger and scientist.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/09/polling-the-anti-gm-vote/ Polling the anti-GM vote]</ref>
*[[Patrick Moore (Greenpeace)|Patrick Moore]] &mdash; not [[Patrick Moore|that one]], the one that co-founded and now criticizes [[Greenpeace]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSten18rI9A Are GMOs good or bad?], video produced by [[Prager U]]</ref>
*[[Penn & Teller]] &mdash; Famous illusionists and avid sceptics. Pro-GMO because saving lives, nevermind by the billions, is ''not'' bullshit.<ref>''[[Penn & Teller: Bullshit!]]''</ref>
*[[Richard Dawkins]] &mdash; Evolutionary biologist.<ref>[http://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Dawkins-letter-Prince-Charles.pdf The Prince And The Great Debate. Don't Turn Your Back on Science] An open letter from biologist Richard Dawkins to Prince Charles (May 21, 2000) ''The Observer''.</ref>
*[[Steven Novella]] &mdash; Senior Fellow and Director of the [[JREF]]’s Science-Based Medicine project.<ref>[http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2225-no-health-concerns-for-gmo.html No Health Concerns for GMO] by Steven Novella. James Randi Educational Foundation (archived from 25 Aug 2014 20:08:25 UTC).</ref>
*{{wpl|The Royal Society}} &mdash; Learned society for science, and is possibly the oldest such society still in existence.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150413142102/https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/4294967719.pdf Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. Chapter three]</ref>
*{{wpl|Yuan Longping}} &mdash; Chinese agronomist and the father of hybrid rice.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1403337/hybrid-rice-pioneer-yuan-longping-backs-genetically-modified-foods|title=Hybrid-rice pioneer Yuan Longping backs genetically modified foods|work=South China Morning Post|access-date=2018-05-02|language=en}}</ref>

====Films====
*Food Evolution — documentary directed by Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by [[Neil deGrasse Tyson]] tackling the schism that has arisen between scientists and consumers over how to feed our expanding population safely and sustainably.
*Science Moms — documentary film about mothers who advocate for science-based decision-making concerning the health and nutrition of children covering vaccines, autism, celebrity-endorsed health fads, cancer, allergies, organic food, GMOs, homeopathy, and the appeal to nature fallacy. Per the Science Moms director, the film "focuses on providing a science and evidence-based counter-narrative to the pseudoscience-based parenting narrative that has cropped up in recent years".

===GMF-ambivalent===
*[[Massimo Pigliucci]] &mdash; Philosopher, author and skeptic.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20020328215719/http://chem.tufts.edu/science/pigliucci/rationally-speaking/RS2001-08.htm "Frankenfoods vs. the neo-Luddites"]</ref>
*{{wpl|World Health Organisation}} - Specialized agency of the [[United Nations]] that is concerned with international public health.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040202014519/http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ WHO &mdash; 20 questions on genetically modified foods.]</ref>
*Oxfam - Believes a 'simple technological fix' is unlikely to solve world hunger. A farmer's lack of access to food or power over food production are seen as more pressing concerns for food security.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160102015919/https://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/oxfam-internationals-position-transgenic-crops Oxfam International's position on transgenic crops] (April 26, 2010) ''Oxfam International'' (archived from January 2, 2016).</ref>

===Anti-GMF===
*[[Alex Jones]] &mdash; ''[[Sarcasm|Not at all]]'' known for predictably siding with the "wrong" camp on any issue, except for that of [[Freeman on the land|Freemen on the land]]. Sells various<ref>[http://archive.ph/ohvVL Genetic Roulette: The Gamble Of Our Lives] ''InfoWars Store'' (archived from 23 Nov 2015 15:50:20 UTC).</ref><ref>[http://archive.ph/NUQk7#selection-1121.0-1121.22 GMO Trilogy DVD/CD Set] ''InfoWars Store'' (archived from 23 Nov 2015 15:50:21 UTC).</ref><ref>[http://archive.ph/YEbwp#selection-1125.0-1125.31 The World According to Monsanto] ''InfoWars Store'' (archived from 23 Nov 2015 15:50:17 UTC).</ref> popular anti-GMO DVD's, all of them of the [[Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]], [[Historical_revisionism|historical revisionist]] and [[Conspiracy_theory|conspiratorial]] flavour.
*[[American Academy of Environmental Medicine]] - Overtly pro-[[pseudoscience]] group of physicians.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20151231030250/https://www.aaemonline.org/gmo.php Genetically Modified Foods] ''The American Academy of Environmental Medicine''.</ref>
* The [http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ Center for Food Safety], which isn't at all interested in actual food safety.
*[[David Icke]] &mdash; Confirming the [[reptilian]] deception fueling the pro-GMO agenda.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120924213521/http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/72771-the-gmo-population-cull-getting-away-with-murder The GMO Population Cull … Getting Away With Murder]</ref>
*[[Deepak Chopra]] &mdash; [[Quantum woo]] [[Crank|specialist]] and notable [[woo]] pusher.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/deepak-chopra-and-vandann_b_1376136.html Deepak Chopra and Vandana Shiva Talk Seeds and GMOs]</ref>
*[[Environmental Working Group]]<ref>''Genetic Literacy Project''. [https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/environmental-working-group/ Environmental Working Group: Known for scare campaigns, EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues] (July 17, 2018). Retrieved August 20, 2018.</ref> - Environmentalist organization known for drawing conclusions about toxic (or allegedly toxic substances in their food from their personal unreasonable contamination standards), especially without any peer-review, much less publishing in any reputable journals. Mainstream media loves to report the findings of this organization.
*[[FoodBabe]] &mdash; Purveyor of various food myths and other [[bullshit]]. Proudly featured on [[InfoWars]],<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170223201659/http://www.infowars.com/food-babe-the-shocking-email-from-monsanto-why-i-am-submitting-a-foia-request/ Food Babe: ‘The Shocking Email From Monsanto: Why I am submitting a FOIA request’. Newly discovered emails reveal "independent" biotech scientist received thousands from Monsanto] by Vani Hari (September 9, 2015) ''InfoWars''.</ref> she has since [[Poe's_Law|officially teamed up with Alex Jones]] on the issue.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150930202148/http://www.themindrestrained.org/columns/conspiracy/alex-jones-and-the-food-babe-team-up-entire-scientific-communities-fall-to-their-knees-groaning/ Alex Jones and the food babe teamed up, entire scientific communities fell to their knees groaning] (July 17, 2015) ''The Mind Restrained''.</ref>
*[[Gilles-Eric Séralini]] - Published a study claiming Roundup Ready corn causes cancer.
*[[Greenpeace]] &mdash; International environmentalist organization which campaigns against GMF.{{nofact}}
*[[Irina Ermakova]] &mdash; Published a flawed study claiming Roundup Ready soy causes reproductive problems.
*[[James Corbett]]
*{{wpl|Jane Goodall}} &mdash; The chimp lady.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150910142333/http://www.janegoodall.org/blogs/boycott-genetically-modified-gm-foods Boycott Genetically Modified (GM) Foods], from janegoodall.org, posted 13-Sept-2014</ref>
*[[Jeffrey Smith]] &mdash; [[Woo]] promoter who runs the Institute for Responsible Technology.
*[[John_Fagan|John Fagan]] &mdash; Head of the multinational for-profit testing company [http://www.global-id-group.com/About-Global-ID Global ID]/Genetic ID.
*[[Judy Carman]] &mdash; Published a flawed study claiming GM maize and soy inflames pig stomachs.
*[[King Charles]] &mdash; Slightly odd heir to the British Throne.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3637664/The-Prince-of-Wales-If-that-is-the-future-count-me-out.html The Prince of Wales: 'If that is the future, count me out']</ref>
*[[Michael Pollan]] &mdash; American journalist and author.
*[[NaturalNews]] &mdash; Nuff said. Seriously.{{nofact}}
*[[Organic Consumers Association]] &mdash; "Animal studies link the consumption of GMOs to an increase in allergies, kidney and liver disease, ADHD, cancer, infertility, chronic immune disorders and more".<ref>[https://www.organicconsumers.org/categories/genetic-engineering Genetic Engineering: What you need to know] ''Organic Consumers Association''.</ref>
* Stephanie Seneff &mdash; Co-authored a study claiming the glyphosate used on RoundUp-Ready crops causes gut problems and worse.<ref>[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/05/04/roundup-and-gut-bacteria/ RoundUp and Gut Bacteria], ''Skeptoid'', 4-May-2013</ref>
*[[The Non-GMO Project]] - a high profile anti-GMO, GMO labeling organization where food marketers line up to pay for that sweet, sweet cartoon butterfly label on organic substances like water and salt.
*[[Union of Concerned Scientists]] &mdash; Ideologically fueled organization that "has no respect for [[scientific]] consensus in areas where real scientists conflict with its [[bias]]es".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130112230845/http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/response-to-ucs-science-dogma-and-mark-lynas/ Mark Lynas: Response to UCS 'Science, Dogma and Mark Lynas']</ref>
*[[Vandana Shiva]] &mdash; [[Crank]] [[environmentalist]] who would infamously "rather have her people in [[India]] starve than eat bioengineered food."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130313140704/http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html The "Golden Rice" Hoax-When Public Relations replaces Science by Dr. Vandana Shiva]</ref>

*<!--please reformulate to make their crankiness more obvious!-->Bioscience Resource Project’s biosafety analysis of genetic engineering techniques<ref>For a review see: Dasgupta I et al. (2003) [https://web.archive.org/web/20140202133055/http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/feb102003/341.pdf Genetic Engineering for Virus Resistance]. Current Science 8(3) 341-354.</ref><ref>For a current list of genetically engineered crops that have been deregulated for commercial use or for links to the applications for deregulation themselves (i.e. the documents that describe the engineering techniques used and the safety tests performed, that are submitted by applicants to regulators when they claim GMO biosafety) see: [https://web.archive.org/web/20100529192923/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS].</ref> challenge two key assumptions that underlie both current [[GMO]] regulation in the U.S.<ref>Crawford (2003) [https://web.archive.org/web/20090709233737/http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm161037.htm Regulation of Foods Derived From Plants], Statement of Lester M. Crawford, Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research House Committee on Agriculture.; Freese W. and Schubert D. (2004) [https://web.archive.org/web/20110722221030/http://www.saveourseeds.org/downloads/schubert_safety_reg_us_11_2004.pdf  Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods]. ''BGER'' 21:299-324.; Pelletier DL (2006) [https://web.archive.org/web/20140331174142/http://www.aseanbiotechnology.info/Abstract/21020405.pdf FDA’s Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods -- Scientific, Legal and Political Dimensions]. ''Food Policy'' 31:570-591.</ref> and the claims of proponents of genetic engineering worldwide:<ref>Some examples are: Feldbaum (1998) [http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/23/opinion/l-can-bioengineers-feed-the-planet-032379.html Can Bioengineers Feed the Planet?]; Jelenić (2005) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15968835/ Food Safety Evaluation of Crops Produced through Genetic Engineering – How to Reduce Unintended Effects?], ''Arh Hig Rada Toksikol'' 56 (p.185, Abstract)</ref> (1) that genetic engineering is a precise and predictable technique and (2) that unintended consequences resulting from the genetic engineering process are highly unlikely.<ref>Kessler, D.A., Taylor, M.R., Maryanski, J.H., Flamm, W.L., and Kahl, L.S. 1992. The Safety of Foods Developed by Biotechnology. ''Science'' 265: 1747-1832.</ref>

====Films====
*''[[The World According to Monsanto]]'', anti-GMF film by French journalist Marie-Monique Robin
*''[[Food, Inc]]'', another anti-GMF film (although also about other stuff) but from a left-wing point of view
*''[[GMO A Go Go]]'', a [[libertarian]] flavored anti-GMF propaganda film
*''[[GMO OMG]]'', a [[hard green]] anti-GMF propaganda film
*''[[Seeds of Death]]'', a [[right-wing]] anti-GMF propaganda film
*''[https://www.foodevolutionmovie.com/ Food Evolution]'', a mostly pro-GMF film

==External links==
*[[FAQ on genetically modified food]] on [[RationalWiki]]
*[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3173/what-s-the-latest-on-genetically-modified-foods What’s the latest on genetically modified foods?] (2014), from Cecil "Straight Dope" Adams
*[https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/05/23/anti-vaccers-climate-change-deniers-and-anti-gmo-activists-are-all-the-same/ Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same]. A blog post discussing in detail about the common failings of those three movements.
*[https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faqs/ Frequent arguments presented by anti-GMO proponents, debunked].

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note|2}}

==References==
{{reflist|3|80%}}

{{foodbox}}

[[Category:Biotechnology]]
[[Category:Food woo]]
[[Category:GMO| ]]
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Science]]

Categories: Biotechnology, Food woo, GMO, Genetics, Science