World wide Endorsement of Genetically Modified Food

<p>The current communiqué presents a construal of scientific confab on this international concern. According to a study carried out in 2003, only 2% of Britons were said to be "happy to eat GM foods", and more than half of Britons were against GM foods being available to the public. However, opposition to GMO in Europe seems to have declined over the decade. Now, approximately half of European consumers have accepted gene technology, particularly when benefits for consumers and for the environment could be linked to GMO products. 80% of respondents seem unafraid of health risks from GMO products and most European consumers did not keep themselves away from GMO products while shopping.</p> <p>US National Academies of Sciences (2004) stated, “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” The Pew survey (2005) also showed that despite continuing concerns about GM foods, American consumers do not support banning new uses of the technology, but rather seek an active role from regulators to ensure that new products are safe.</p> <p>Similarly, The Royal Society of Medicine (2008) noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects. The 2010 "Eurobarometer" survey found that "cisgenics, GM crops produced by adding only genes from the same species or from plants that are crossable by conventional breeding, evoke a different reaction than those with genes from more distant species.</p> <p>In 2012, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) released a scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis in response to a request from the European Commission. It also opined, “While the frequency of unintended changes may differ between breeding techniques and their occurrence cannot be predicted and needs to be assessed case by case, similar hazards can be associated with cisgenic and conventionally bred plants, while novel hazards can be associated with intragenic and transgenic plants.” That means, cisgenic approaches should be considered similar in risk to conventional breeding approaches, each of which is less risky than transgenic approaches. These appraisals and many more indicate a leeway for GMO as future food of human beings.