I have nothing to contribute intellectually since I am not well informed on the subject BUT I don't think GMOs are inherently bad and can sometimes help. There's this video if anyone is still interested and, in my opinion, it helps me to understand the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu41 B
Hello, person with farming experience and degree in horticulture here 
sorry but this got pretty long ^^;
@DokiDokiTsuna I've never thought the issue with GMO's has been considered the DNA you're consuming directly, but rather the substances in the crop that are being produced by the DNA, etc.
Two potential ways that GMO crops could conceivably cause harm are:
some crops are modified to be resistant to herbicides, which allows for greater herbicide use. If the herbicides are considered to be harmful and this leads to greater residue on crops, this could be an issue. But I will mention that regulations exist as to how herbicides are applied, at what concentrations, how many days must pass between application and harvest, etc.
some crops are modified to produce pesticides directly in their tissue so that they don't have to be applied in the field. If these pesticides are considered harmful to humans, this could be an issue. Many pesticides are indeed very harmful to humans, to the extent that regulations require those who apply them to wear protective clothing (ranging anywhere from long sleeves and pants to full-body suits with gas masks). However, I really, really doubt that any of those seriously harmful ones are actually modified into plants. By far the most common modification of this type (that I'm aware of) is the addition of DNA that creates Bt-toxin, a substance that is poisonous to many insects but is considered safe enough to be technically "organic" and is commonly used on organic farms.
Overall, I think it's a mistake to make a blanket statement "all GMOs are safe/unsafe" - that's like saying "all medicine is safe/unsafe". All types of GMOs can be totally different depending on what DNA is actually involved. A bit of DNA could produce a leaf, human hair, or snake venom, depending on what it is - and each GMO's safety can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Regulations exist of course, and companies can't just release any GMO crop they want all willy-nilly without conducting safety trials. But some people don't trust the government or corporations to be fair or thorough enough, and/or don't trust that the studies aren't conducted without "special interests" involved.
It's worth noting that it's fairly easy to determine whether something has acute/short-term effects (just feed it to some rats and see what happens over a few weeks), but much harder to determine what chronic/long-term effect it may have. It's entirely possible that some GMOs do indeed cause subtle harm to the human system over many years, but nobody has established it because it's impractical to run studies that long. Some people say this is the most likely source of the relatively recent rise in allergies, disorders like autism, etc. (either that or vaccines, but that's a whole different debate).
Also, random fact - "organic" foods aren't necessarily non-GMO. It's possible this could have changed since then, but a few years ago I was looking through the paperwork needed to get an "organic" certification (in the U.S., not sure how it all works elsewhere) - and organic farmers are required to use non-GMO seeds unless they aren't available for some reason. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was basically that you have to try to use non-GMO crops, but you don't really have to if you have an excuse.
Ultimately, am I concerned about GMOs? TBH not really, although I'm not entirely dismissive of those who are. Special interests influencing the results of studies (and lobbying to influence the regulations in the first place) is a reasonable concern IMO, even if I'm not sure to what extent it actually happens. And even the "experts" likely don't know a whole lot about what subtle long-term effects some of the products may have. It's easy to just draw a conclusion - "GMOs are bad" or "it's all just hype and fear-mongering", but the reality is that none of us actually know anything for sure.
Personally, I just try to eat healthy in general - no use worrying about GMOs if you already live on sodas and junk food XD. And if at some point I end up dying an early death due to some kind of harmful GMO then I'm cool with it. Gotta die at some point anyway, a little sooner won't hurt ^^
GMOs are fine to eat. We've been eating genetically modified animals for centuries through selective breeding, hell we've had farmers cook and eat freaking tumors from their cows (ugh) and turn out fine. If a GMO is inedible there's a billion other GMOs out there to replace it. The people who pander it think science is scary spooky horror... that's it.
The problem was never GMOs themselves as this thread has spelled out the science is pretty clear they aren't that different. The liberal use of Herb/pesticides are the real main point of contention for me. Genetic modification should be used to enhance yield and reduce the amount of water needed or any number of things that make farming more efficient. We just need to find a less harmful way of protecting these crops from weeds and other pests.
the same reason Colgate in India promotes it being made with charcoal, to make people buy the product more simple as that
they're trying to make the veggies have their own natural pesticides right now(like coffee style), harmless to us of course
viva GMO =D
Thank you! I was debating whether to answer or not and you did it for me. It's very nice to see a balanced message ( and thus, closer to reality).
For the organic certification I don't know about US but no GMO in Europe and Canada.
(I'm a biologist and a farmer - so not far from your experience).
There are different types of GMO. You can't compare variation obtained by reshuffling between close species with adding new genes into a plant.
I'm not saying its the same but the argument for GMOs could be virtually same for selective breeding.
I don't think so. It's simply not comparable.
Take a GMO without novel gene addition (or only plant genes from a very similar species), and compare it to selective breeding:
In both cases, you could possibly have toxicity or environmental problems due to the recombination of genetic material; but yes, these risks are pretty similar in both cases, and generally easily spotted (at least for toxicity) .
But in the case of the GMO, you have an additional problem: the existence of 'tools' used to create the GMO, and that remain into the plant. Much research has been done on that, and some newer techniques are less problematic, but still, it is a difference and remains an issue in some GMOs.
Then take the case of a GMO with novel genes: here, you are introducing genes that have nothing to do inside that plant. Genes are very dependent of their genetic environment. Very often, removing a gene from its usual environment and putting it somewhere else gives very strange and unexpected results: That's actually one of the things that makes research on GMO complicated even at the lab level! You can't just do your little market in the pool of available genes and expect it will work.
That aspect makes GMO with novel genes completely unpredictable in a way traditional breeding just can't be.
This being said I'm not against GMO, I'm just a scientist who actually worked on GMO for research purpose (not agriculture) and I know first hand that it is not a benign technique.
I just wish more time and energy was spent pushing toward more comprehensive and transparent testing rather than on insisting that GMO are safe, or that they are necessarily dangerous... But I'm pretty pessimistic about the transparency.
Agreeing with this ^^^ Of course we should be responsible with what we put in our bodies, but the negative attitude towards GMOs is largely due to marketing and misconceptions.
There's a misconception that organic = healthy (and, therefore, non-organic = evil), but pretty much every poisonous plant and venomous animal to have ever existed is "organic." It's a false dichotomy.
lol thats not at all what I was saying at all. I was saying the people who think gmos are bad but think selective breeding is good makes no sense because they want "natural" from the earth pure stuff despite the fact most food they eat are not the original strain genetic wise, humans have tampered with it. And I said if a gmo is deemed dangerous there could be another gmo out there that isn't. I never said all gmos are perfect. you didn't have to explain that I know what gmos are haha
It's because of popular hype against GMO's and advertisers exploiting that trend.
Of course, we've been genetically modifying our food since the dawn of agriculture, albeit with less direct methods like hand pollination or selectively breeding livestock since the dawn of agriculture.
What people should be concerned about is not that their food has been genetically modified, but how and for what purpose.
The belief that there's any increase in cases of autism is inaccurate. Rather, people with autism are more likely to be diagnosed as such. Up until relatively recently, it was far more likely for someone high functioning on the spectrum to never get diagnosed and simply get by being considered "a little weird," "extremely shy," or "quirky."
Oh, and vaccines have nothing to do with autism.
There are GMOs in Europe and Canada, but they are mostly imported. More info here: https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/where-are-gmos-grown-and-banned/
I follow Arctic Apples and they're located in Canada. They just had non-browning apples approved.
I just want to reiterate that I'm not a scientist or farmer in any way, shape, or form, but I do think there's enough testing of a GMO before approval. It takes ~13 years and a lot of money for the approval of a GMO. Of course, companies are not going to put their livelihood on stake for a product that is harmful in some way. Not to say that the current way is perfect or that there haven't been issues in the past. Actually, it's good that issues have been found because that means the system is working (sorry, I don't have any examples and not really time to find them. Actually, one I do remember off the top of my head is the golden rice fiasco. But that was due to the producer's bad management instead of anything wrong with the rice itself afaik).
As someone else said, much of the testing is more short term and because GMOs have been around for 30? 40? years, the long term effects, if any, may not be known. One argument I have heard is the effects on gut bacteria. I haven't done much looking into it so I don't know anything myself. I think what we need is more education on the subject in general so people understand it. That's why I'm against GMO labeling.
I think the main takeaway is that as we know it, GMOs are really safe, healthy, and environmentally friendly so the benefits cannot be denied. The biggest concern is the fear mongering that is purposefully pushing this war against GMOs and Monsanto because they want people to buy their product. That's all there is to it. It's just a really, really harmful movement. I stay away from buying anything that says "Non-GMO Project" on it. Sucks because it's everywhere nowadays and I have had to switch products a few times to a different brand that supports science.
@vfinnigan For the record I'll just say that I was only stating a common opinion. I personally don't have any particular reason to believe in a link between GMOs and autism, or vaccines and autism. But then, I don't consider myself particularly well-informed about those things either (and like I said the vaccine thing is a whole different topic, I'm gonna stick with one controversial issue at a time XD)
I did do some reading after this though -
I'll disagree here. We don't actually know these things. Nor do we know the opposite.
IDK about the labeling issue, but I hesitate to demonize those who support labels as "fear-mongering" or "against science". You could just as easily say the organic label is "fear-mongering" to get people to buy organic food. I don't see the difference really - they both just provide information so people can make their own choices, which seems like a good thing to me.
About riboflavin in "non-GMO" labeled foods, I'll mention that riboflavin is just a vitamin, not a crop of any kind. I believe it is usually manufactured using GMO bacteria, but it is not a GMO in itself any more than water from a GMO plant is "GMO water". IDK about other ingredients.
Also, just now I found a long-term study (2 years) which establishes toxicity in rats from a certain strain of glyphosate-resistant corn and/or glyphosate itself (one of the most common agricultural herbicides).
Apparently it was originally published a few years ago, then un-published due to criticisms of the study, then re-published again as those criticisms were addressed.
That's definitely something that makes all this stuff difficult to follow - those who disagree with a study can simply say, "it was badly designed and therefore meaningless", and then it becomes a whole challenge to determine if they're right or not.
Anyway, staying informed is exhausting; I'll stick to humble agnosticism ^^;
To clarify, the "Non-GMO Project" labeling is fear-mongering. As for the organic label or mandatory labels for GMOs, those wouldn't be, but I don't support GMO labeling because I believe it would be too confusing to the consumer as they aren't typically versed in what a GMO even is, let alone what it means to buy or eat one.
Thank you for sharing all of the other information and the study! I'm not able to read it myself due to lack of time and not being educated in how to properly read studies (I'm just a graphic designer), but I'll be sure to glance through it a bit to see what I can decipher.
It is... it is. 
As you actually quoted me, I was refering to the organic certification only. I know they are GMO in France and Canada, but they can't be grown locally in organic farming.
