The scientific consensus
is that GM foods currently on the market pose no more risk than their conventional counterparts. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. This conclusion has been reached by multiple independent reliable sources
, including major scientific organizations and most regulatory agencies responsible for food safety.
However, it is not possible to make a blanket statement about future GM foods. As a result, GM foods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and foods currently on the market have gone through regulatory and testing procedures evaluating whether the products are substantially equivalent to non-GM products. The view that these existing products are dangerous to human health is currently a fringe position in the academic community.
The content in this Wikipedia article describing the scientific consensus, and the sourcing for it, was reviewed by the Wikipedia community in an open request for comment on three separate occasions. The first RfC (July–August 2013) evaluated a previous version of the language,[n 1] concluding that that the statement and sourcing complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and could be included in our articles. A second RfC about a similar version (May–July 2015) was inconclusive, primarily for procedural reasons,[n 2] and after considerable discussion ultimately led to a third RfC during June-July 2016. This resulted in the language currently used across Wikipedia articles related to genetically modified food. Because of the extent of the disputes leading up to the 2016 RfC, additional changes to this part of the article must follow one of the specific procedures described here. If you have a new proposal, the first step for each of these mechanisms is generally a detailed discussion with other editors at one or more of the relevant talk pages.
- ^ Specifically, the wording at the time was "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."
- ^ The formal result was "no consensus," a technical term that refers to an RfC outcome and not to the use of the word "consensus" in the articles. This outcome means that previous results remain in effect. Additionally, this comment by the closing administrator clarified that the evaluation of the merits was similar to the first RfC.