This is a controversial subject. The opinions vary a lot. Nothing has been proven scientifically that it is harmful.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population,” and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods “are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”

http://data2.xjlas.ac.cn:81/UploadFiles/sdz/cnki/%E5%A4%96%E6%96%87/ELSEVIER/biological%20engineering/56.pdf

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/Kok-Comparative-Safety-2003.pdf

http://faculty.washington.edu/jhannah/geog270aut07/readings/GreenGeneRevolutions/Clive%20-%20GlobalreviewTransgeneticCrops.pdf

http://dzumenvis.nic.in/GM%20Crops/pdf/Food%20Safety%20Assessment%20of%20Genetically.pdf

This is a controversial subject. The opinions vary a lot. Nothing has been proven scientifically that it is harmful.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population,” and a report issued by the European Commission made the same claim. The World Health Organization has concluded that GM foods “are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”

http://data2.xjlas.ac.cn:81/UploadFiles/sdz/cnki/%E5%A4%96%E6%96%87/ELSEVIER/biological%20engineering/56.pdf

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Food/Kok-Comparative-Safety-2003.pdf

http://faculty.washington.edu/jhannah/geog270aut07/readings/GreenGeneRevolutions/Clive%20-%20GlobalreviewTransgeneticCrops.pdf

http://dzumenvis.nic.in/GM%20Crops/pdf/Food%20Safety%20Assessment%20of%20Genetically.pdf

Recently the Hindu carried an article on the worries that GM food has created in certain scientific circles owing to the negatives perceived in its production. Below given are two links that also air a wide variety of opinions, not necessarily supportive.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

Science is actually no different from literature. They say that no two poets would agree to the beauty of the verse in each others poems. Scientists are much like the same. I say GM best, you say "what a sacrilege against nature?". The truth in any case is a different matter. They say that there are three truths - one, yours; two, mine; and three, the real one.

Have a great day. Wish you good luck in the search for the real truth.

Dear @Sundarapandian, thank you for the qualitative question about Genetically Modified crops' safety  to eat; I am not an expert and here to learn from you and other experts in the field.

First, we all agree that the subject matter is controversial. When we have a controversial scientific matter and at the same time there are huge industries behind GM food, like Monsanto, e.g., then I am negative for GM foods. The same happens with cigarettes. For many years there were controversial opinions about risks when you smoke. Again behind ware big industries. Finally there is a big issue about psychotropic medicine. Again we have big pharmaceutical industries and many psychiaters   payed by them.

All the above I think it is a kind of "proof" that something is wrong with GM food. 

Dear Costas,

interesting aspects and conclusion. The plausibility is not so bad.

My feeling is, GM food won´t harm the eater but could harm the environment by killing necessary fauna and flora directly and indirectly using the specialised pesticides.

Dear Nageswara,

This is not a scientific study but an old propaganda material : James, C. (2001). Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 2000.

Dear All,

I suggest you to have a look at here where this question have been discussed deeply:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_you_aware_of_what_is_going_on_for_GMs_PCBs_and_dioxins_in_agriculture?_tpcectx=profile_highlights

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_responsibility_of_a_brain_worker_and_are_you_satisfied_with_the_role_of_scientists_on_shaping_our_world?_tpcectx=profile_questions

Some well known arguments:

Environmental risks

1 Unintended harm to other organisms mainly natural enemies

2 Reduced effectiveness because resistant populations of pests containing Bt toxin and herbicide resistant genes are being selected.

3 Gene transfer to non-target species e.g. herbicide resistant genes into weeds, Bt toxin genes from grown corn varieties have been transferred into local and ancient Mexican corn varieties and so their genetical diversity is threatened.

4 Using GM crops the diversity of traditionally grown crop varieties continually decrease which make sensitive to the GM crops (their genetic variability is minimal) to possible environmental changes.

5 Production of GM crops prefers monocultures and other industrial agricultural technology which are unsustainable.

Risks for human health

1 Allergenicity

2 Unknown effects on human health

3 In addition, antibiotic resistance genes from GM foods may be taken up by bacteria in the gut during digestion. If bacteria carrying antibiotic resistance genes were ever to cause infection, it would be very difficult to treat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16183518

4 Labelling troubles, many cannot choose and is “forced” to eat GM food because of lack of labelling.

Generally, not specialists do not read scientific studies and the GM industry makes all kinds of marketing tricks in order to convince consumers. GM crops represent a really suitable commercial solution and GM seed producers are operating a gigantic propaganda mechanism in order to maintain their enormous profit.

This subject is as controversial as the global warming but people’s convenient attitudes matter and not real facts and forecast.

There is a book: [Andy_Rees]_Genetically_Modified_Food_A_Short_Guide, 2006,

which gives all the data around this issue.  Let post a paragraph from its Introduction"

"This book, therefore, is written in large part to counter this campaign of misinformation. But it is also much more than that. If Big Business is up to all these dirty tricks in the GM arena, it is almost certainly doing the same thing in all areas of our lives. Therefore, I would like to propose a more radical hypothesis, which is that the world is run by the rich and powerful for the benefi t of the rich and powerful – essentially an amalgam of state and corporate power. The

rest of us are useful only to the extent that we create and consume their products."

From this book it is clear that Monsanto, influences, Governments, media, science, etc. to force us to eat their products! 

If somebody needs the book, please send me a message.

Thanks dear András,

I knew we already had a deep and extended discussion.

A Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is one that has had its genes (DNA) altered to act in a way that does not happen naturally and/or contains genes from another organism. In genetically modified plants, the inserted gene results in a beneficial characteristic in the plant, such as the ability to tolerate environmental pressures from damaging insects or drought. Evaluating the safety of food from a genetically engineered plant is a comprehensive process that includes several steps. FDA’s Biotechnology Evaluation Team then evaluates for safety and compliance with the law. Foods from genetically engineered plants must meet the same requirements, including safety requirements, as foods from traditionally bred plants. In recent years, people have become increasingly interested in where their food comes from and how it is produced. Despite a 20 year record of safety and almost 2,500 independent, global scientific reviews and approvals of GMO crops, there is still conflicting and confusing information about GMOs.

Dear Andras

Thank you for your comment. That paper by Jones was actually published in the following journal. I agree it is giving a positive spin on GM. Good for people to read alternative opinions and base their understandings on actual facts.

Current Science, Vol. 84, No. 3, 10 February 2003, pp 303 – 309, ISSN 0011-3891. It can be downloaded from the following link.

http://faculty.washington.edu/jhannah/geog270aut07/readings/GreenGeneRevolutions/Clive%20-%20GlobalreviewTransgeneticCrops.pdf

Dear All,

I have no illusions. I am very sorry, humans are playing the old game, we have played once with pesticides. The difference is that genetic pollution has no half-life (t1⁄2).

Control question: do you know the DDT level in your body?

Dear Nageswara,

Thank for your answer.

I know all the pamphlets of James and I know for whom he works.

Dear Venkata,

I have modified your phrase: Get busy and the next generation dies.

My Dear friend Kamal,

Your statement: "So far there is no evidence that GM food causes any harm. We need to wait for the results of long term studies" was exactly the same for many decades, about smoking, now GM food, psychotropic medicine, etc. So if we are not sure if GM causes any harm, why they applied e.g. in Africa? 

Let me quote from [Andy_Rees]_Genetically_Modified_Food_A_Short_Guide, 2006,

…a Mississippi state court ruled in September 2001

that Monsanto’s RR soy seeds were responsible for the reduced yields

obtained by Mississippi farmer Newell Simrall. They awarded him

$165,742 in damages.

….Monsanto is suing or threatening 1,500 North American farmers..

n fact, often GM and non- GM farmers alike feel the only way of avoiding Monsanto’s lawsuits is to grow either more GM crops, rather than less, or simply to abandon

non-GM farming altogether

Percy Schmeiser says this about the Monsanto contract:

To me, it is the most vicious, suppressive contract on the face of the Earth. People

don’t realize what is going on in North America … the rights and freedoms of

people [farmers] are being taken away. … The most revolting part of this contract

is that you must allow Monsanto’s police force to come on your land for three

years afterwards, to go into your granaries, with or without your permission to

see if you’re cheating or not. What I have told farmers … is to ‘never sign that

contract, never ever give up the right to use your own seed.’ Because if they do,

they’ll become slaves and serfs of the land."

There is much more about the policies of all these GM industries!

Now we already released many products into the market, we can't go back i mean we can't do anything with the already modified things (Modified gene)in the environment and at the same time we don't know whats going to happen in feature because of those (Modified genes). I feel we need much more hold on this technology to handle the things if it goes wrong.

@ Costas. I completely agree with you. Thank you for your comment.

Dear All,

Costas is simply right. I remark, in many cases researchers cannot agree even in the methodology of many comparing investigations: e.g. impact of GM crops on natural enemies.

Hi all,

Will this work? The most recent initiative from Cornell University. Published on Cornell Chronicle, September 3, 2014.

New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant

By Stacey Shackford

A new international effort led by Cornell will seek to add a stronger voice for science and depolarize the charged debate around agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Cornell Alliance for Science will help inform decision-makers and consumers through an online information portal and training programs to help researchers and stakeholders effectively communicate the potential impacts of agricultural technology and how such technology works.

The project will involve developing multimedia resources, including videos of farmers from around the world documenting their struggles to deal with pests, diseases, crop failure and the limited resources available in the face of poverty and climate change.

“Proponents and opponents alike speculate whether biotech crops are of benefit to farmers, but rarely are those farmers engaged in the biotech discourse or their voices heard,” said Sarah Evanega, senior associate director of International Programs in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), who will lead the project.

“Our goal is to depolarize the GMO debate and engage with potential partners who may share common values around poverty reduction and sustainable agriculture, but may not be well informed about the potential biotechnology has for solving major agricultural challenges,” Evanega said. “For instance, pro-biotech activists share a lot of the same anti-pesticide, low-input, sustainable-agriculture vision as the organic movement.”

Evanega and her team hope to help engage such potential partners and foster more constructive policies about biotechnology as a useful tool to address major agricultural challenges.

The grant will allow the Cornell Alliance for Science to host annual conferences, short courses and semesterlong CALS certificate programs in biotechnology leadership, among other activities.

Evanega said the initial concept was informed by a February 2014 gathering at Cornell of 34 representatives from public sector and not-for-profit organizations in 12 countries that discussed a new vision for biotechnology communications.

“Like elsewhere in the world, African scientists still find it challenging to effectively inform the public about their work and its relevance to society,” said Barbara M. Zawedde, coordinator of the Uganda Biosciences Information Center at the National Agricultural Research Organization. “Our effective communication will enable African farmers and citizens to exercise their sovereign right of informed decisions on whether to adopt certain crops and technologies depending on their needs and priorities.”

In part because of its land-grant heritage, CALS regularly hosts forums and media events about various agricultural technologies and the role they could play in providing sustainable solutions to major global challenges.

“Biotechnology is a potential game-changer for farmers in less developed countries and an important tool in the toolbox for addressing global challenges, such as persistent poverty, a changing and erratic climate, and the challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050,” said Kathryn J. Boor, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of CALS. “Improving agricultural biotechnology communications is a challenge that must be met if innovations developed in public sector institutions like Cornell are ever to reach farmers in their fields.”

Dear friend Kamal,

Let us take as axiom that "So far there is no evidence that GM food causes any harm. We need to wait for the results of long term studies". If this is so why Monsanto makes ~10 billon a year, by selling GM products? What are the implications of all this until they decide finally if they are good or bad?