Let's try to needlessly scare people into not eating food that has not been demonstrated to be, and there is no bases to think that it can be, unsafe.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science:
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested
The US National Academy of Sciences:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/24/science/la-sci-gmo-food-safety-20121025
But among scientists, there is widespread agreement that such crops aren't dangerous. The plants, they say, are as safe as those generated for centuries by conventional breeding and, in the 20th century, by irradiating plant material, exposing it to chemical mutagens or fusing cells together to produce plants with higher grain yields, resistance to frost and other desirable properties. Now they want to insert other genes into plants to make them more nutritious, resistant to drought or able to capture nitrogen from the air so they require less fertilizer, among other useful traits.
"There's no mystery here," said UCLA plant geneticist Bob Goldberg. "When you put a gene into a plant ... it behaves exactly like any other gene."
Genetically engineered crops have been extensively studied. Hundreds of papers in academic journals have scrutinized data on the health and environmental impacts of the plants. So have several in-depth analyses by independent panels convened by the National Academy of Sciences.
The reports have broadly concluded that genetically modified plants are not only safe but in many respects friendlier to the environment than nonengineered crops grown via conventional farming methods.
The American Medical Association
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-medical-association-opposes.html
During a conference in Chicago, AMA's House of Delegates also adopted a report reaffirming there is no evidence that the genetic modification process presents any unique safety issues and recognizing the potential benefits of the technology.
The council's decision to oppose labeling comes amid California's consideration of legislation that would require genetically modified foods sold in grocery stores to be labeled. Beyond its potential to create unnecessary alarm for consumers, a review by the independent state legislative analyst points out the measure would cost the state and its taxpayers millions of dollars to implement and to pay for lawsuits.
The AMA report is consistent with the findings of a majority of respected scientists, medical professionals and health experts. As the AMA has cited previously, a highly regarded 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper states there is no evidence that genetically modified foods pose any health risks. The report also reaffirms the council's policy recommendation in a December 2000 report stating "there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods."
Additionally, there have been more than 300 independent medical studies on the health and safety of genetically modified foods. The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and many others have reached the same determination that foods made using GM ingredients are safe, and in fact are substantially equivalent to conventional alternatives. As a result, the FDA does not require labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients because it acknowledges they may mislead consumers into thinking there could be adverse health effects, which has no basis in scientific evidence.
= new reply since forum marked as read