Why are people against GMO food?

Answer 1

The reasons vary, but generally they involve the belief that the safety of GMO foods has not been proven and/or the belief that more harm is being done to the environment and animal and human health.

Answer 2

Answer

There are as many reasons as there are people who take the trouble to research what they eat. Although I'm not one of them, one really good reason for people to take more interest in what they're being sold as food is the high incidence of nut Allergies. It's my personal belief that consuming genetically modified food may have been the reason that this serious condition has become so common. And to my mind, this danger is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to creating future problems, in particular for developing children, both before they're born and in their early years.

Answer

However, the greatest single reason is simply that people have a tendency to spread misinformation without bothering to check the veracity of it. Just as many people succumb to the irrationalities of internet scams and hoaxes, people are willing to believe anything they hear or read about products with which they are unfamiliar. The above answer hints at a connection between GM foods and nut allergies, yet people have suffered from allergies for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. GM foods have only been around for a couple of decades, and approved (in the US) an even shorter time.

The simple answer to the question is just that it's easier to put something down than to learn the facts about it.

Answer

There is a real reason for using more opinion than fact, in an area where you are the expert. I have tried to find some facts. The general description of GM, "Genetically modified foods are made by inserting genes of other species into their DNA."; it's the tip of an iceberg. I did not come up with the 'nut allergy theory' out of thin air; I identified it as my opinion because the factual information available is limited to 90% pro and 10% con. Industry never reveals all of what they know, or worse, what they avoid investigating; and the industries with the vested interests are the source of most of the 'information' (a few examples, Johns Mandville, Phillip Morris, Union Carbide India Ltd.).

The type of engineering of peanut products in the hundred or so years following the research of GW Carver, are not necessarily the type of genetic engineering we're referring to here but the proliferation of uses of peanut products and byproducts in our everyday life, where we'd least expect them, may (or may not) be related to the proliferation of nut allergies over recent decades. There could be totally unrelated reasons for it, the research isn't available. Whether the relationship is relevant or not isn't the point; the point is, without a well rounded perspective, there is more unknown than known, and the known comes from the vested interests.

When I see a story on transplanting genetic material from sea animals into vegetables to make them disease resistant, I can only shudder. The implications of this kind of modification will not be examined until long after I'm gone. If it works, industry will run with it and vegetarians and religious abstainers will be blissfully unaware. But what human genetic modifications will result from consuming more and more quantities of genetically modified food must be taken into consideration. Society would look much different now if early in the industrial revolution the wider implications of refining petroleum and manufacturing petroleum based products had been taken into consideration. It's foolish not to remember this lesson.

There is one 'pro' that's been published that I can point to. That is, one of the main justifications for furthering this research is the promise of producing drought and disease resistant crops that will allow us to feed people in areas with poor soil or drought regions (traditionally poor and underdeveloped places). What this actually does is to make poor and developing economies dependent on industry for their food; industries that those people will not have a stake in or control of.

I have looked for the information, it's limited. None of what I have said comes from a website or blog; it is my evaluation of the information available. The information available comes from sources that can't be relied upon for perspective.

Answer 3

People are not convinced that the safety of GMO foods has been thoroughly studied and thus, they are not convinced that it is safe to eat. Many believe the regulation of GMO foods by the FDA has been influenced by the biotech industry, especially Monsanto. It's not so much that they are worried, it is much more that they want to know that the foods they eat are truly safe, and they believe there is evidence that shows there may be issues surrounding the safety of GMO foods that has not been disclosed to the consumers.

Answer 4

Most often, the issue is about labeling. Consumers want to know when foods contain GMO ingredients, but the companies that produce the genetic modifications and food companies that use them oppose such labeling. People just are not convinced that GMO foods are safe for consumption, believe the regulatory agencies are influenced by companies that create the modified plants, that regulation is lax, that the studies done may be influenced by the biotech companies, etc.

Answer 5

Opponents of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are opposed to meddling with the DNA of organisms. Most of these arguments are on ethical levels, arguing that "all-natural" food is better for you. While many of those claims are unfounded, there are some legitimate concerns about GMOs

One thing biotechnology companies have been doing is adding built-in in pesticides to plants in order to stop spray-on pesticides from washing into rivers and having ecological consequences. Opponents argue that there is a chance that the pesticides could have harmful effects on people or introduce an allergen into the food. So far there have been no cases of this occurring, but it is possible.

Answer 6

Fear is a very strong word. It's not that people fear GMO foods, it that they recognize that there are issues that surround them, and they are not convinced that GMO foods are safe to eat and won't have negative consequences on animals and the environment. Some of their concerns are in the technology itself possibly creating unintentional harmful changes to the DNA, Some are concerned about horizontal breeding (taking a gene from one organism and inserting it into a totally different species). Some are concerned about pesticides, especially now that crop varieties resistant to more harmful pesticides have been developed, and view this as an environmental and health risk. Others believe many questions about the safety of eating GMO foods have not been answered.

Answer 7

Many people in the United States eat GMO foods because foods that contain GMO labels are not labeled or they are not aware of or informed about GMOs. Since 70-80% of processed foods sold in grocery stores in the U.S. contain GMO ingredients, it is difficult for even the most informed to avoid them without avoiding processed foods entirely.

It's probably worth adding that a significant number of people would likely continue to eat them even if they were labeled, since usually the whole point of the genetic modifications is to create items that grow "better", where "better" could take the form of any combination of bigger, faster, under less optimal conditions, more disease resistant, or basically anything else that makes it easier and cheaper to produce. That allows them to sold more cheaply, and when presented with the option to buy something that may be less healthy but is definitely cheaper, quite a few people will take it.