Crops and foods improved through biotechnology have been subjected to more scrutiny, in advance, in depth and detail than any other foods in human history.|
There is a remarkably strong and widespread scientific consensus that they are safe. Here's a list of more than 270 scientific organizations that have looked at GMOs and found them safe.
Most recently, the US National Academies of Science have produced a comprehensive report:
Full report: http://www.nap.edu/read/10977/chapter/2#15
Brief version: http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/16/report-in-brief/
And the UK Royal Society has similarly found GMOs to be safe:
Even the European Commission of the European Union: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."
European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; Biotechnologies (2010). A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research (2001-2010)
And here is a brief review of "10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters" with a similar, more in depth treatment here.
And here's a video from a respected journalist, Peter Hadfield, that works through some of this material.
Another good example of how GMO methods compare with traditional approaches can be found here from Piffle...
Here is one parent/journalist's take on "Tasting and Testing a Genetically Modified, Non-Browning Apple".
Following are some representative comments from knowledgeable experts:
"...because the technique is so sophisticated, in many ways it is probably safer for you to eat GM products - plants that have been generated through GM - than normal plant foods, if you have any sort of reaction to food, because you can snip out the proteins that cause the negative reaction to certain parts of the population."
-- Sir David King, Chief Science Advisor, UK The Guardian Unlimited, 27 November 2007
"...with regard to the current elements of the debate, the opposition to GMO amounts to ignoring the facts so as to hold on to the most doubtful assumptions."
-- Institut Economique Molinari. Defending GMO against the culture of precaution. Economic Note April 2006
"In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food." (p. x).
-- National Academy of Sciences, 2004. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Research Council, Washington DC. 256pp. ISBN 0-309-53194-2.
- The EU is lagging behind the rest of the world over genetically modified food and imports are being blocked because the authorisation process is so slow, according to the EU''s agriculture chief.
- This is not because evidence of risk has been found. Instead, it is because the political decision is being "knocked around like a ball in a slow-motion tennis match".
Mariann Fischer Boel, EU Commissioner of Agriculture, 16 October 2009. EU chief calls for path of GM imports to be eased. FoodBizDaily.com.
"Month after month, GMOs receive a clean bill of health from EFSA but then get stuck because member states cannot get a qualified majority, in favour or against, when it comes to the proposal on authorisation...ludicrous" Mariann Fischer Boel, EU Commissioner of Agriculture; 20 October, 2009
Boel offered a confident prediction on the outcome... "We have to rely on science and not on emotions...The commission will take a clear decision and that will be a yes." Mariann Fischer Boel, EU Ag Commissioner, 20 October, 2009.
Click for the full-sized image.