Europe has a confusing relationship with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). EU Member States are allowed to restrict or prohibit the sale of GMOs, and some countries have outright banned the production of GMO crops on their territory. However, other countries (notably Spain) have embraced GMOs wholeheartedly.

Eurobarometer opinion poll carried out in 2010 found that 59% of Europeans believe that GM food is not safe for their health and that of their family. An even larger majority (70%) say that genetically modifying foods is “fundamentally unnatural”, and 61% say that GMOs make them “feel uneasy”.

Are they safe? On its website, the World Health Organisation (WHO) identifies three potential public health risks from GM foods:

  1. The potential to provoke allergic reactions (“allergenicity”)
  2. The possibility that genes could be transferred from food into cells in the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (“gene transfer”). In other words, whilst eating a chicken won’t turn you into a chicken, might there be a risk that individual genes will be incorporated?
  3. The unintended release and mixing (“outcrossing”) of genes from GM plants into non-GM crops or wild plants.

The WHO points out that GM foods are all tested for allergenicity (whilst most foods developed through traditional methods are not), and that “no allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market“. In terms of gene transfer, the WHO doesn’t dismiss the possibility completely, but advises that the probability of transfer is low. The WHO concludes that:

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.

What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in by Michael arguing that GMOs should be banned across Europe because they are dangerous to consumers. Is he right? Or is he just making claims which aren’t supported by scientific evidence?

Should GMOs be banned across Europe? We asked Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from all sides of the political spectrum to stake out their positions on this question, and it’s up to YOU to vote for the policies you favour. See what the different MEPs have to say, then vote at the bottom of this debate for the one you most agree with! Take part in the vote below and tell us who you support in the European Parliament!

Radical Left
Kateřina Konečná (GUE-NGL), Member of the European Parliament:

Definitely, yes. Basically, I think introducing foreign genetic materials has unpredictable consequences, and once the mutant genes are out of the bag, there’s no going back. It’s a huge threat to bio-diversity, and we know that GMO contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. GMOs actually do not increase the crop yield, and GMO producers are hiding GMOs in animal feed, despite animal feeding tests have shown that GMO foods have a toxic affect.

The health consequences of eating Genetically Modified Organisms on the human body are largely unknown. And GMOs require massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Actually, GMO crops increase pesticide use, and these substances are highly poisonous, carconogenic, and genotoxic, and should not be eaten or allowed near the water supply, which is now a danger because of the flow of water from agriculture into the ground water. I think it’s very, very dangerous and it’s a bad game for our population.

Margrete Auken (Group of the Greens), Member of the European Parliament:

Liberal Democrats
Nils Torvalds (ALDE), Vice-Chair of the ALDE Group, Member of the European Parliament:

Centre Right
Adina-Ioana Vălean (EPP), Member of the European Parliament:

Jørn Dohrmann (ECR), Member of the European Parliament:

Stuart Agnew (EFDD), Member of the European Parliament:

No, of course not.

Curious to know more about GMOs? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).
IMAGE CREDITS: (c) / BigStockPhoto – Expensive – PORTRAITS: Konečná CC / WikiMedia – Miloš Skácel, Agnew CC / Flickr – Euro Realist Newsletter
With the support of:


Who do YOU agree with on this issue?


Results for this issue

See the overall results

126 comments Post a commentcomment

  1. avatar

    Pretty much everything is GMO these days. Depends on how you define the term.

  2. avatar

    If you really want to starve the children in the EU sure.

  3. avatar

    Yes, the production and human consumption should be banned.
    Animal fodder can be imported: GMO crops are cheaper priced, after all.

    The GMO issue is fundamentally a consumer and economic issue and the consumers are the voters.

    • avatar

      The EU imports the equivalent of a third of its farmland in food from the rest of the world every year, will you ban it because its not GMO ?

    • avatar

      The russian crops arent gmo… We should buy to them

    • avatar

      And doing that we are increase the eco and bio plantation… Not cancer plantation with gliphosate

    • avatar

      Rui, read up on glyphosate. It is not reported properly and important information deliberately left out when it was,on the table in parliament.

    • avatar

      Rui, Is that a yes or no to banning 33.3% of all the food EU citizens currently eat ?

    • avatar

      Yes of course

    • avatar

      We don’t need to import anything from anywhere…

    • avatar

      Only corruption made To import something… See the Germans and if they import China garbage or make everything in German..

    • avatar

      Rui, Then who do the Germans export their products to and why stop at National borders, why would people in Berlin by food grown in Baden ? Your policy would starve people even quicker than banning food from Nations who use GMO’s.

  4. avatar

    Eco and bio crops instead gmo with câncer maker poison crops..

  5. avatar

    If you want to become a food importer and tiny producer and you don’t mind starving populations. Go ahead. People are basically ignorant as to what gmo means.

  6. avatar

    A 20 years lasting independent scientific study started in 1996 just concluded that GMO isn’t that harmful as presented to us… Far worse is having to use chemicals to protect crops.

    • avatar

      …but isn’t that the point…GMOs are bred to withstand the huge amount of chemicals they are sprayed with, therefore GMOs are feeding those chemicals to the population…?

    • avatar

      Judie, through GMOs we can obtain plants that naturally resist to some insects or diseases. That means that there will be less need to use sprays to defend them.

    • avatar
      Charles Gancarz

      Exactly! It’s so sad to see that the opinions on GMOs in Europe are guided by prejudice and the appeal to nature rather than science, which has proven that GMOs have no harmful effects for human consumption and don’t cause allergic reactions. It’s the one thing that the US is doing better than the EU.

    • avatar

      Scientist have discover they can grow more foods by removing all 68 trace mineral and replace only three NPK So out foods has no nutritional value the cell is not intact . It’s GMO (GOD MOVE OVER ) not the good Hod created but what crazy man created Gen 1:29-30 I give you seed bearing plants and seed bearing fruits and green leaves and it is good for you . Where are the seeds in our fruits today , thanks to monster foods !

  7. avatar

    Of course! Why else shall we need EU and National states for, if they can’t guarantee that the food we purchase is safe, monitored and healthy? EU must not allow something with unclear and potentially hazardous health effects simply because the USA allows it on its territory and wants to trade with it.

    • avatar

      the usa allows many dangerous elements on its territory and her people still consume it like pigs

  8. avatar

    These are sad times if this is actually being discussed.. soon we will debate whether we should revert to not using electricity and use horses instead of cars I imagine.

  9. avatar

    We have no need for GMO products. And I gi even further it’s time to ban the hse all these chemicals that end up in our food as well.

  10. avatar

    Definately be banned. I know Monsanto won’t be happy but we don’t want their GMO’s or poison pesticides. It is time humanity realised it is a natural human species who is intelligent enough to find natural ways to grow things for their natural bodies. Look at wheat that has been GMO’d for increased profits then look at the increase of wheat intolerance. Look at science experiments high fructose corn syrup then look at the increase of diabetes. It is time for responsibility, caring and common sense with regards to our food source.

  11. avatar
    Yordan Vasilev

    I think, that GMOs should be banned across Europe, because they are dangerous for the human beings and for the wild nature. The biggest companies want agricultural policy of Europe to depend on them.

  12. avatar

    There is an error in the infographic. GMO’s do not only include other plant genes, they can also include genes from animals, viruses (for example Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that paralyses the digestive tract and forms a pore in the gut of its host, thereby killing it – there is debate whether the human gut suffers the same consequence if they eat GMO maize that has the Bt gene in it, such as MON 810, which is grown on about 107,000 hectares in Spain). One wonders what happened to the precautionary principle when scientific views are so polarised. Just search “Séralini affair” on Wiki to get an idea of polarising views by the people we are supposed to trust for our safety.
    EFSA relies too much on industry funded science to make these all important decisions. Imagine, your company creates a GMO product. Your scientists create a scientific paper “proving” its safety. The paper is submitted to a prestigious journal. The paper is reviewed by 3 anonymous journal reviewers (that do not have to declare conflicts of interest) and, that are chosen by the journal. The paper is then published as accepted and approved scientifically correct by the journal, which is then read and accepted by policy makers around the world. This way of doing things is 200 to 300 years old. Imagine a book review on Amazon is done only by the first 3 reviewers, who choose to remain anonymous and not declare conflicts of interest … it just would not be accepted by the public, yet this is the way GMO safety is generally approved.
    Some types of GMO crops (like maize, soya) encourage monocropping. While monocropping is industrially and mechanically advantageous for the big farmers, it discourages biodiversity (which in terms of risk management, biodiversity is natures way of not putting all your eggs into one basket). Manufacturer claims of using less pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc are simply not true – historical figures from the USA (where a lot of GMO crops are grown) clearly show this.
    Contamination of other crops is a very big threat. Wind has been shown to carry pollen over 800 km. To name just a few potential issues, over time GMO pollen will contaminate and eliminate similar wild species, climatic adapted species in other countries and all similar heritage varieties. This highlights another error in the infographic, “GMO’s can only enter the EU market once they have been approved by the EU”. If there is pollen in the wind (even water, clothing, migrating birds), it is already in all EU, whether you approve of it or not. (Recently in the USA, GMO controlled open crop trials in one state where found several years later in another state, thousands of kilometres away).
    It is important to note that not all GMO is so risk pervasive. Imagine our world today without cheese. Rennet is used to make hard cheese. Around 80/90% of the world’s commercial cheeses are made from rennet which is made from GMO’s.
    Also, let’s not forget that GMO’s are also used to make some vaccines.
    “Should GMO’s be banned across Europe?” In some instances, particularly crop production, it’s already too late – you cannot undo GMO contamination. A world without hard cheese sounds very sad for many. We need GMO’s for some vaccines and probably for growing crops on spaceships when we do long trips deep into our galaxy. GMO’s should not be proprietary – EU citizens pay enough taxes for non-proprietary research and ownership.
    When it comes to GMO’s, what should be banned are (1) all conflict of interest with involved party’s (2) archaic peer review processes (3) freedom for corrupt scientists, reviewers and journals (4) privately owned patents / proprietary ownership (4) industry funded science in public interest/safety decisions (5) secret decision making processes without the involvement of the public and independent NGO’s

    • avatar

      Marcel you are on the button! I watched a documentary on MONSANTO, I saw the horrors of GMO, those who don’t know should educate themselves .i do my best to avoid Foods from Spain I check labels, I don’t buy Olive oil from Spain, or if it says several countries because you don’t know if it’s mixed canola oil. The EU knew what they were getting into they did their they fired scientist who published reports Against Monsanto , David Cameron did the same , when he ask a Research scientist from Scotland to investigate between natural and GMO.
      Our blood cells are fighting for survival, life is in the blood , why so many diseases , I refused to support any charity that is doing research on disease , disease is BIG BUSINESS, they landed a man on the moon, and they can’t find a cured for cancer? rubbish ! Cancer can be cured! watch the documentary online or YouTube, my husband stopped his chemo to go au natural as much as possible, he is a lot better without chemo. Alzheimer’s , take the humble coconut oil ,one table soon am and pm , personal experience! Sharp memory after and I changed my diet , they debunk coconut oil saying it causes cholesterol We need good cholesterol for out brain doom low fat it’s bad for you, investigate! investigate You don’t need a doctor to tell you how to live , they don’t , yes some medication helps but to much caused toxin in your body , God gave us smart blood cells. They know what is good plant foods. Gen1:29-30 . And God said, I gave you seed bearing plants and seed bearing fruits and green leaves, Thats herbs , where are the seeds in our fruits today? we have hybrid fruits , rubbish Foods! Watch the video on Monsanto India cotton the poor are committing suicide Mexico corn is so messed up they are looking fir Uncontaminated land to grow corn. God gave us quality foods man tried to sit higher that God, that What Satan said , I will ascend I will ascend , he got kicked out from heaven on he is on earth playing God with our foods.
      Man says, I can provide for the world . The very foods we are suppose to keep us alive is now a threat to life . This was suppose to save Africa. Now Africa is being killed. Is all in the money.and globalist. In revelation when Jesus returns he will destroy 1/3 of the trees Monsanto trees , 1/3 of the fish in the sea that’s this farm fish , one third Of the earth, 1/3 of the ships in the sea those
      Polluting the sea and one third
      Of mankind . Maybe all my those GMO people who can’t accept Gods creation.

  13. avatar

    Normaly YES they should be banned completely. We dont need them. Beyond landfield polution and public health, please think smart. What would be the price of natural tasteful products in the global market VS gmo dummyes? Europe through south partners could be the global leader of a new kind of gold.

  14. avatar

    Definitely they should be banned. Why don’t we talk about new permaculture techniques in order to have a good quality harvest with completely zero herbicides and pesticides? Beside, the spread of GMOs would benefit only some known multinationals, damaging smallholder farmers. Finally, we have enough scientific proofs of the effects of GMOs large scale agriculture on biodiversity and ecosystems: they are totally unsustainable in the long run, their benefits do not compensate for the irreversible damage they create. If our common vision is to create a sustainable Europe, then we should stand tall and ban them, but without forgetting that our actual agricultural practices must change towards agro-ecology very soon. In that sense, we need a new CAP reform.

    • avatar

      Ciao Alessandro, grazie per il video, è molto interessante. Anche la questione del biologico funziona esattamente nello stesso modo, si tratta di termini giuridici e di mercato. Ma credo di non aver capito perché tu mi abbia mandato questo video! Ti riferivi a qualcosa che avevo scritto o era solo perché è un video interessante?

    • avatar

      Non avevo molta voglia di stare appresso ad un testo in inglese e non mi sono messo a leggerlo tutto il tuo commento, fermatomi quindi troppo presto ho pensato intendessi che andavano bannati gli OGM.
      Quindi ho pensato di aiutare a divulgare un po’ di conoscenza, da condividere con tutti gli italiani che possano inciampare qui!
      Scusa per l’atteggiamento ipocrita e anche da analfabeta funzionale, di quando in quando mi capita eheh 😅

  15. avatar

    In a few years, European people will be banned across Europe.

  16. avatar
    Paul X

    Got to love the way people throw their arms up in horror at the mere mention of GMO’s claiming it’s all about greedy farmers wanting to increase their yields…….I suggest having the technology to reduce crop failures and increase the nutrients they contain is a life saver for many third world countries

    …and as for the possibility of allergic reactions, you don’t see the same people crying out for a ban on nuts do you?

  17. avatar

    Farmers have been modifying genetic make up of crops for thousands of years why is there this phobia once science is involved ..maybe people would rather continues use of chemicals and pesticides in an effort to feed 7.5 billion and growing !

    • avatar

      In Italy Biologic agricolture is making the difference!

    • avatar

      Fabio, when my parents were born (in the 1920s)..there were 2 billion people on earth….there’s now 3.5 times more mouths to feed with no increase in agricultural land (in fact a little less) and many more demanding meat (which is more resource intensive).

      The only way we’ve been able to meet the demand has been to increase crop yields dramatically…we’re reaching the limits of what’s achievable without embracing GM.

      28/05/2018 Marta Messa, EU Liaison Officer for Slow Food, has responded to this comment.

      28/05/2018 Rodrigo De Lapuerta, Director of the Liaison Office with the EU and Belgium at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, has responded to this comment.

  18. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    “Advancing (dancing) together”………until death do us part!

    Such and similar “heart warming” slogans are well known within our EU “togetherness”. THEY want more EU- to warm their frozen hearts (bank accounts)!

    A 2010 Euro-barometer opinion poll said it all- “61% say that GMOs make them feel uneasy”. Why not repeat this poll in 2018 to gauge today’s uneasiness?

    Marcel made quite an effort to highlight the many problematic issues. Let me add one more- the Mega Corporation’s effort to grow by mega means in a competitive global economic environment.

    Actually, Europe with an apparent shrinking population does not need to experiment to improve crop yields this way! Europe could afford to wait and see!

    Captured scientists and Lobbyists in Brussels are probably working overtime for Germany’s “Bayer” to get the deal with Monsanto accepted. The political convincing and softening up of voux populi is now underway!

  19. avatar

    i don’t think they should. they may bring risks of diseases, but it also means that genetically modified vegetables for instance can have extra goodness added.And it makes it more consistent for manafacturers, as if they are genetically modified they are generally similar in size etc.

  20. avatar

    Italian agricolture, does not need cancer GMO what will your next target Plutonium inside tomatoes?
    Really…. i hope Eu will not become US.

    • avatar

      Why in a GMO tomato there should be plutonium?

    • avatar

      Stefano, sarcasm

  21. avatar

    no, except for dogs, all dog breeds that are not wolf-like must be burned

    • avatar

      But burning them genetically selects the remaining ones :p

    • avatar

      Yeah!! Towards something a little less obnoxious

  22. avatar

    It should definitely be bannen. Stop messing around with food.

    • avatar

      You do know ‘all’ the food you eat now including so called organic foods are in some way genetically modified don’t you ?

    • avatar

      Yes they have already messed too much.

    • avatar

      Baars, most genetically modified foods where created during the 17th Century & have nothing to do with ‘Monsanto’ or big farmer so will you stop eating anything that is not totally Natural ?

      The imaged attached is of unmodified (natural) vegetables, They are not very nutritious, do not taste very nice, are riddled with disease and you couldn’t grow them on a scale large enough to feed the current global population. Are you promoting genocide to bring the global population down ?

  23. avatar

    Ban them, they rely on poisonous pesticides to function. The pesticides kill bees and poison the ground and the water.

  24. avatar

    Yes. But that should also go for cram farms AND for veganism. They’re both terrible in their own unique way.

  25. avatar

    We should have to discover the agriculture and genuine crops. We have to give much more attention to our farmers than we can do.

  26. avatar

    Too much people who dont know how the technology benefits us are too loud in social circles..

  27. avatar

    Yes. Ban it. But EU (More like QuasiEuro-Amerikkan Union) who call themselves Europe, cant seem to seperate. So the pressure will keep coming. Rockefeller, Monsanto interests will keep knocking and pushing.

    Apparently Germany bought part of Monsanto (unsure though).
    Maybe some German can tell what Bayer is up to.

    Again Russia is leading the way by banning it.
    (Cultivation banned. Imports banned.)

    EU is all over the place, but mostly cultivation banned but imports allowed.
    GMOs are not needed, unless of course someone is planning to destroy the system / war. and wants them as back up. (Humans wouldnt last long with it either).

    • avatar

      Clearly, you are here to promote Russia…

  28. avatar

    Biotech has a great future but not as way of developing commercial products that enable conventional agroindustry. Also, there are sensitive issues of transparency and copyright that haven’t been properly addressed before these products were approved. For these reasons I support an extended moratorium and that each product is evaluated individually.

  29. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    This future EU scheme needs to be exposed & stopped- like the attempt to resurrect TTIP for the mega corporate clique’s benefit.

    “Monsanto is the world’s most evil company” (earned such dubious designation in a 2013 poll from Natural Newsreport)

    Monsanto is a $51.7 billion Mega Corporation. If accepted- soon owned by BAYER/Germany- falling under EU legislation. It is reported to polluting the world’s air and water with glyphosate- a suspected carcinogen that’s the main ingredient in “Roundup”.

    Traces of glyphosate have been detected in all four corners of the globe — even in German beer, which, by law for the last 500 years, is only supposed to contain barley, hops, and water. (check it)

    Evidence is linking Roundup to the following diseases: Bone cancer, Colon cancer, Kidney cancer, Liver cancer, Leukemia, Melanoma, Pancreatic cancer, Thyroid cancer & Parkinson’s disease! Scary enough? Keep on gambling?

    IAASTD= International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development are cautious:

    EASAC= European Academies of Science changed is tune & supports GMO (why? Bayer-EU?):

    They now say: “There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.” Shameful liars! Does Europe need this? It is mostly beneficial to its shareholders- nothing else!

    It appears that a future technology called “Gene editing” works on people as well as plants and may overtake GMO’s by making the Monsanto “glyphosate regime’ obsolete.

    Who will be smarter & bolder by correctly investing & betting in the best “harmless” future technology?

  30. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    For the records.

    “BAYER has today received the green light from the EU to buy MONSANTO, after promising to sell off substantial parts of the business. BAYER promised to sell some of its herbicide and seeds businesses to BASF.” Nearly there!

    Surprise- surprise? All “evil” now “Made in Germany”.

  31. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    Just to expose the EU farce, the “generous” DE allowing “democratic” discussions retrospectively & Monsanto’s “tailored” technical report- we all have to swallow now- like it or not:

    On 12 December 2017: the Commission has adopted the act to renew the approval of glyphosate for 5 years in the EU! Disallowing a EU voters petition.

    Thank you EU for furthering human genocide and protecting the profits of BASF!

  32. avatar

    Most food sold in stores across the EU are GMO’s so if you really want to empty the shelves and starve the population sure, go for it.

  33. avatar

    Certainly. You keep asking, we keep telling. Introducing GMOs to the market is not in the interest of either the European consumers nor the farmers.
    The consumers and the farmers are the voters.

    • avatar

      Speak for yourself.

    • avatar

      I do. :)

      Please tell me, are you ready to pay more for “normal” food after the introduction of GMO foodstuff to the market, since it will render normal food as something of higher perceived value?

      Are you ready to lose agricultural export markets that will not buy the GMO foodstuff and consequently lose jobs?

      Are you ready to combat more soil depletion?

      Can you think for yourself?

    • avatar

      The EU is the most bigotted concerning GMOs. Which other parts of the planet would not import gmo food in your opinion? And yes, you might need to pay MORE for non-gmo fods, but not because the would cost more then today but because gmo food will cost LESS. Now, start to think,as you advised…

    • avatar

      @Bòdis how are you so ignorant?

    • avatar

      GMO foodstuff costs less in the introductory phase. Then the market settles and the people spend the same portion of their income on foodstuff that’s of lower perceived quality. All you achieve is giving a certain share of agricultural revenues to the global patent owners.

      Kostow, get an education!

      There are people who will not eat GMO foodstuff for religious reasons and others don’t just because they don’t want to.

      The EU has the most expensive high-yielding agricultural land on the planet, many areas produce yields in the range of GMO-yields in the US. The non-GMO foodstuff can be sold for more money, than the GMO. European farmers would be idiots to lose their export markets and revenues.

      There’s nothing to warrant GMOs for the EU and there are multiple very good reasons against it.

    • avatar

      We already have genetically modified variants in Spain. Don’t ‘regulate’ for us, thanks. Farmers and genetic experts should be setting the terms of this debate, not idle superstitions, religious extremists and nature cultists.

    • avatar

      Go ahead, please eliminate some of your farming revenues.

    • avatar

      I wonder which farmer wants to work twice as hard to produce the same product.

    • avatar

      Bódis Kata Yes, farmers only adopt gmo-s if they are forced by the big corpotations …. which universe do you live in?

    • avatar

      It’s hilarious to see how many people agree with GMO produce… You might as well dig your grave

    • avatar

      The Dunning-Kruger effect is very strong in this thread.

    • avatar

      No you silly, farmers get GMOs for the higher yields. Which brings higher soil depletion. It also brings more produce that can be sold for less.

      Why don’t you research why farmers *stop* using GMOs?

    • avatar

      Well, we, thé farmers, would like to make that choice ourselves!

    • avatar

      It’s so nice of you that you want to make the bigger global agribusinesses richer. :)

  34. avatar

    Do you mean like orange carrots, green peas and edible potatoes ?

    People seem to think that the fruit, vegetables and meat they pick up at the supermarket are in their natural form, they are not & have been massively genetically modified over thousands of years by man.

    • avatar

      You mistake selective breeding for GMO.

    • avatar

      Acsai selective breeding is GMO, you are altering the genetic make up of the original organism to make something not found in nature.

    • avatar

      They are different means to the same end.

    • avatar

      Ivan Again, you mistake apples for oranges. Selective breeding is but a precursor of genetic modification in its modern sense. But you can prove otherwise. Could you please tell me how you can produce transgenic organisms using selective breeding? Thanks. :)

    • avatar

      Acsai Again you are ignoring basic facts of biology. Cross breeding introduces genetic material into an organism that does not accrue naturally so that organism’s dna has been genetically modified.

      The only difference is one is done over generations of the selected organism and the other is done in the lab at the genetic level but the result is the same, a none naturally occurring organism.

  35. avatar

    it should, as well as carcinogenic roundup!! It’s poison!

    • avatar

      Everything is poison, this is basic chemistry. “The dosage make the poison” is an old adage.

  36. avatar

    No they should not be banned. They haven’t caused a single issue thus far. Besides through cross breeding, we’ve being doing GMO on food for centuries now, albeit a lot more crudely

    • avatar

      GMOs have allowed human insulin to be produced at the mass scale. This whole issue of demonising GMOs is the privilege of spoiled millennials. When I was doing my first degree in biology, genetic engineering was seen as a scientific miracle.

  37. avatar

    No because the entire witch hunt against GMOs is ridiculous.

  38. avatar

    The next would be banning computers? Let’s use typewriters again! Living in the past is so much fun!

    • avatar

      agreed. Even more: we should abolish houses and live in tents.

  39. avatar

    I don’t see why a GMO research industry – coupled with sensible, no-nonsense antitrust control to make sure the products remain available to smaller farmers – should not be allowed to flourish.

  40. avatar

    This is the level of debate you expect from politicians. There are different methods for genetically modifying crops, most being safe, others no so. To say that GM food is either safe or unsafe is ridiculous either way. We are ruled by sound bite.

  41. avatar

    All food and plants are affected with various toxins. Therefore additional genetic modifications should be banned. We actually do not know what impact the may have in the life chain. Let’s get rid of the toxins, hormones, antibiotics, etc first …then afterwards we’ll see if GMO plants are required.

  42. avatar
    Dimitrios Zaponis

    I am against violating nature, the fact that some scientists today are i n favor of them, doesnt reassure me. So I vote against! No GMO’ s in Europe!

  43. avatar

    Of course NOT. Save EU from the anti-science activists!

  44. avatar
    Robert Lapin

    The science is clear, what non-scientific thinks doesn’t matter :
    -GMOs on the market are safe
    -It helps farmers reduce pesticide usage (Bt) and work (roundup ready)
    -They don’t reduce biodiversity but can increase it, why ? Because for Bt gmo
    less pesticide is applied so less non target insects are killed, also adding new
    genes to another species only creates diversity, a new type of plant.
    -Gmos are based on horizontal transfer of genes which is something completely
    natural, for example Humans have virus genes which are in part responsible for
    the placenta
    -We already are eating Gmos and our livestock too for decades, they have
    nothing inherently different from any other plant, that’s why we can’t prove they
    are dangerous.

  45. avatar

    I think it should be banned because GMO causes cancer and it cause e coli

  46. avatar

    As long as they don’t touch mangos its all good :)

  47. avatar
    catherine benning

    Should GMOs be banned across Europe?

    Yes, of course.

    GMO’s are causing devastation to our organic planet. The tampering with our food by both GMO products and the administration of various hormones and chemicals in our food is passing the gross liver and organ malfunction we see in animals treated with them This is then passed to us as we digest their meats and grain. The massive GMO introduction is doing well and do not want to lose their gross income by creating ill health in our populations. All you have to do is look at the population who eat these products to instinctively know what is taking place.

    Do you think the British Queen and her ‘royal’ family eat any of it? Do you think they drink the treated water that comes through our taps? If you do, think again. Yet, when you see President Trump it appearsr he eats little else.

    And how the products contaminated with these additives are now being shipped across the world.

    Obesity is costing a fortune in health care. Guess what. The health care organisations love that, it raises their income dramatically. The fatter we are the more they make.

  48. avatar
    catherine benning

    Should GMOs be banned across Europe?

    It is the responsibility of all nations leaders to stop this destruction of our planet. To incarcerate the perpetrators of this horror for 175 years. After all that is what faces Julian Assange for exposing truth of killing fields. Surely killing in the form we see here is a far worse crime. It is premeditated and killing your children today and tomorrow.

  49. avatar
    Mari e Giu

    WE think that GMO is a little part of a big problem; our planet. If we start to risolve it, maybe we can, in the future, thinking about biggest things.
    Maybe it can be a good think for the science, but not for us, for our food

  50. avatar

    I’m Emilie, a French student. I would like to ask about a subject that I am studying at the moment: the trade in GMO food proteins (soy, corn, cotton) between Mercosur and Europe.
    Why choose to import GMOs from America to Europe, when these same GMOs are prohibited for cultivation in Europe (except MON810 corn)? I understand that the EU has commercial advantages through this free trade agreement, but what sense is there in prohibiting cultivation while authorizing the import of a GMO on European soil?
    What would be the consequences for Europe of the ban on the import of GMOs?
    Thank you for your answers,

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More debate series – ME&EU View all

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.