^Ronald, Pamela. Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security. Genetics. May 1, 2011, 188 (1): 11–20. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
關於生物多樣性和轉基因食品/飼料消費的文獻常引起激烈爭論，這涉及到了實驗設計的適用性、統計方法的選擇以及數據的公眾可獲取性。然而，在這場爭論中即便是科學界內常態的、自然的同行評審也常常被媒體歪曲並常用於政治化和扭曲轉基因相關技術。（We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.
The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.）
^A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010)(PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010 [2014-05-21]. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. doi:10.2777/97784. （原始內容存檔(PDF)於2019-08-17）. 「過去超過25年間的研究，有着超過130個研究項目，多餘500個獨立研究小組參與，都得出結論，生物技術，特別是轉基因食品，並不比傳統育種的食物有更大的風險。」("The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.")(p. 16)
^American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods，archived from Wayback Machine： 「轉基因食物已經被食用了近二十年，在此期間，沒有一個經過同行評審的科學報告表明它對人類健康有不良效應。」("Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.")(page 1)
^United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）. National Academies Press. pp R9-10: 「相比傳統食物生產造成的健康危害，類似的嚴重健康影響還沒能被證明同樣會由轉基因技術產生。這可能是因為轉基因生物的研發者進行了大量分析，驗證每個生物表現型都是令人滿意的，並確保食物關鍵成分中不會產生不在計劃中的變化。」 （"In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."）
^Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM. Genetically modified plants and human health. J R Soc Med. June 2008, 101 (6): 290–8. PMC 2408621. PMID 18515776. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. +pp 292-293. 超過15年間，轉基因作物及其副產品被全世界千百萬人消費，沒有造成疾病效應。（Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health).）
^Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee. Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society. Pew Research Center. January 29, 2015 [August 30, 2019]. （原始內容存檔於2019-01-09）. 在美國，公眾與美國科學促進會科學家之間對轉基因食品安全性的認知存在顯著差異。接近90%（88%）的科學家認為轉基因食品是大概安全的，但只有37%的大眾持這一觀點，雙方差值達到51%。（The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.）
^Konnikova M. The Psychology of Distrusting G.M.O.s. New Yorker. August 8, 2013 [2020-05-06]. （原始內容存檔於2014-04-25）. G.M.O.s, in contrast, suffer from a reverse halo effect, whereby one negative-seeming attribute (unnaturalness, in this case) skews over-all perception. In a 2005 study conducted at Maastricht University, in the Netherlands, researchers found that the more unnatural a genetically modified product seemed, the less likely it would be to gain acceptance. A hundred and forty-four University of Maastricht undergraduates were asked to visualize seven products, including butter, tomatoes, and fish fingers, and rate them on naturalness, health, and necessity.
Coextra Research project on coexistence and traceability of GM and non-GM supply chains. Archived from the original on February 28, 2007.
Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） A website posted by P. Bryne of the Colorado State University Extension, provides a concise list of pros and cons of labeling food derived from genetically modified organisms
Intelligence Squared. Debate on Should We Genetically Modify Foods? （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） "Arguing for the motion is Monsanto's Executive VP and Chief Technology Officer, Robert Fraley, and genomics and biotechnology researcher at UC Davis, Alison Van Eenennaam. Arguing against the motion is research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Charles Benbrook, and science policy consultant and former senior scientist of Union of Concerned Scientists, Margaret Mellon." April 2015
. PMID 21546547. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. 
