People who buy food, farmers, companies that use genetic engineering, government officials, groups that work outside the government, and scientists have had disagreements about foods and other products made from genetically modified crops instead of regular crops, and other ways genetic engineering is used in food production. The main topics of these disagreements include whether GM food should have labels showing it is genetically modified, how government officials should manage GM food, whether scientific research is fair and unbiased, how GM crops affect people’s health and the environment, how they influence the ability of pests to resist pesticides, how they help or hurt farmers, and whether they can help feed the world. Also, products made from genetically modified organisms are used to create ethanol fuel and medicines.

Some specific worries include mixing genetically modified and non-modified foods in the supply chain, how GM crops affect the environment, how carefully government rules are followed, and how much control over food is held by companies that create and sell GM products. Groups like the Center for Food Safety, Organic Consumers Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace argue that risks from GM food have not been fully studied or managed, and they question if government officials are fair in their decisions.

Regulatory agencies check if genetically engineered food is similar enough to non-engineered food that is already known to be safe for people to eat. No harmful effects from GM food have been found in people. Scientists agree that currently available GM food is not more dangerous to health than regular food, but each type of GM food must be tested individually before being sold. However, many people believe GM food is less safe than scientists think. Rules about GM food differ around the world, with some countries banning or limiting it, while others allow it with different levels of oversight.

Public perception

Consumer worries about food quality began long before genetically modified (GM) foods were introduced in the 1990s. In 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in the United States after Upton Sinclair’s book The Jungle exposed problems in the food industry. This law started a long-term focus on food safety, which later expanded to include concerns about ingredients like preservatives, flavors, and sweeteners, pesticide residues, the rise of organic food, and finally, worries about GM food. Many people, especially in the U.S., view GM food as "unnatural" and associate it with fears or negative feelings.

Some people believe genetic engineering interferes with natural biological processes and worry that scientists do not fully understand possible risks. Others argue that genetic engineering is similar to traditional breeding methods and that current evidence shows GM foods are nutritionally the same as non-GM foods. Surveys show many consumers think eating GM food is harmful, feel biotechnology is risky, and want more information and control over their choices. People also feel unsure about how fast technology is changing and how little they can influence these changes. Media figures like Jeffrey M. Smith, Dr. Oz, Oprah, and Bill Maher, along with groups like the Organic Consumers Association and Greenpeace, have influenced public opinion about GM food.

In the U.S., opinions about GM food are not clearly divided between political groups, but younger people are more likely to have negative views than older people. Religious groups have raised questions about whether GM food remains kosher or halal. In 2001, no religious leaders had declared GM food unacceptable.

Food writer Michael Pollan does not oppose eating GM food but supports labeling requirements. He has criticized farming practices linked to some GM crops, such as glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans, and worries about companies controlling food-related intellectual property and the growth of corporate agriculture. He has suggested open-sourcing GM foods, an idea adopted by some companies and promoted by organizations like the New America Foundation.

A 2003 study found that Europeans had many questions about GM foods, such as why they are needed, who benefits, and whether risks are properly assessed. The study also noted that scientific knowledge does not fully explain public concerns, as people want realistic risk assessments rather than guarantees of zero risk.

Surveys from 2001 to 2006 showed many Americans had limited knowledge about GM foods and animals. A 2007 survey in Australia found 27% of people checked labels for GM ingredients. A 2009 review showed European opposition to GM foods was decreasing, with 80% of people not avoiding GM products. A 2010 survey found Europeans were less concerned about cisgenics (a type of GM using genes from closely related plants) than transgenics (using genes from unrelated species). By 2019, only 27% of Europeans listed GM food as a concern, and concern about genome editing dropped to 4%.

A 2010 survey found 34% of U.S. consumers were very or extremely worried about GM food, a slight decrease from 2008. Women were more likely than men to be extremely concerned, and more men than women were unconcerned. A 2013 survey showed 93% of Americans wanted GM food labeling.

In 2013, Washington State voters rejected a GM food labeling referendum, which happened after Monsanto and Syngenta employees won the World Food Prize, drawing criticism. A 2013 survey found 88% of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science believed GM foods were safe, compared to 37% of the general public.

In 2012, a group called "Take the Flour Back" protested a GM wheat trial in the UK, fearing the crop might spread into nature. Researchers asked the group to stop the protest. In 2013, the "March Against Monsanto" began as a global protest against the company, which produces GM crops and the herbicide Roundup. The movement was started by Tami Canal.

Lawsuits

In 1983, environmental groups and protesters used legal challenges to delay field tests of a genetically modified ice-minus strain of P. syringae.

In that case, the plaintiff argued that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should have labels because consumers wanted to know about them, and that GMO foods should be tested like food additives because they are "materially changed" and might have unknown health risks. The plaintiff also claimed the FDA did not follow rules about how government agencies make decisions when creating its policy on GMOs. A federal district court disagreed with all these arguments and ruled that the FDA’s decision that GMOs are generally safe was not unreasonable. The court supported the FDA’s process, making it harder for future plaintiffs to challenge the FDA’s policy on GMOs.

In the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case, the question was whether GMOs can be patented. On June 16, 1980, the Supreme Court decided 5–4 that a live, human-made microorganism is considered patentable under U.S. patent law.

Scientific publishing

Scientific research about the safety and effects of genetically modified (GM) foods has caused debate among scientists.

In 1999, the journal Nature published a study about possible harmful effects of Bt maize pollen on butterflies. This study caused public concern and protests. However, by 2001, several follow-up studies found that common types of Bt maize pollen are not harmful to monarch butterfly larvae in the amounts they would normally encounter in fields. These studies helped settle that specific question.

Scientists who are worried about the accuracy of research have worked to challenge studies they believe are incorrect. They do this to avoid unnecessary public fear or government actions. A 2013 article in Scientific American noted that only a small number of biologists have raised concerns about GM foods. It also said that scientists who support GM foods sometimes ignore these concerns.

Before 2010, scientists could not legally study commercial GM plants or seeds because of agreements that limited access. Elson Shields of Cornell University spoke for a group of scientists who opposed these restrictions. In 2009, they sent a statement to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), saying that these restrictions prevented independent research on important questions about GM technology.

A 2009 Scientific American editorial mentioned that some studies approved by seed companies were not published when they found negative results. The editors supported protecting intellectual property rights but urged the EPA to allow independent researchers to study GM products without restrictions.

In December 2009, the American Seed Trade Association agreed to let public researchers study GM food crops more freely. This change made some scientists hopeful, while others remained worried about whether it would fix problems in research access. Previously, Monsanto had agreements with about 100 universities that allowed researchers to study their GM products without oversight.

A 2011 study by Diels et al. reviewed 94 peer-reviewed studies about GMO safety. It found that financial conflicts of interest were not linked to study outcomes, but studies linked to industry (professional conflicts) were more likely to show favorable results. Half of the studies did not report their funding sources. Ten percent of the studies were unclear about professional conflicts. Of the 43 studies with conflicts, 28 were compositional studies. Marc Brazeau explained that companies often commission follow-up studies only when their own research shows positive results, and rarely follow up on negative findings.

A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on GM crops and food from 2002 to 2012 found no evidence that GM crops used at the time were harmful to humans.

In 2014, Zdziarski et al. studied 21 papers on the health of rats fed GM crops. They found flaws in how these studies were conducted, such as unclear descriptions of results and missing details about methods. They recommended better guidelines for studying the long-term safety of GM foods.

A 2016 study by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that GM foods are safe for human consumption and found no clear evidence of harm to the environment or wildlife. They reviewed over 1,000 studies, 700 presentations, and heard from 80 witnesses. The study noted that GM crops helped farmers economically but did not increase crop yields. It also warned that weed resistance to GM crops could create problems, but better farming practices could address this.

In 2015, a University of Naples investigation found that images in eight animal-related papers were possibly altered or misused. The lead researcher, Federico Infascelli, denied these claims. One paper was retracted in 2015 for "self-plagiarism," though the results were still considered valid. A second paper was retracted in 2016 after the university found evidence of digital manipulation, which raised doubts about the reliability of the findings.

Health

Scientists agree that foods made from genetically modified (GM) crops currently sold are not more dangerous to human health than regular foods. However, each GM food must be tested individually before being sold. Many people believe GM foods are unsafe, even though scientists say they are safe. Rules about GM foods differ in different countries. Some countries do not allow GM foods, while others allow them with different levels of rules.

GM foods sold around the world have passed safety tests and are not likely to harm people. No health problems have been found in people who eat these foods in countries where they are approved.

The World Health Organization (WHO) says regular foods are considered safe because people have eaten them for a long time. Foods made using traditional breeding methods are often sold without safety tests, even if they change some traits. In contrast, GM foods usually need special safety tests before being sold, including checks for effects on health and the environment.

The ENTRANSFOOD project, funded by the European Commission, was created to study public concerns about GM foods. It found that existing tests can effectively check the safety of GM crops. In 2010, the European Commission reported that over 130 research projects, covering 25 years and involving 500 research groups, showed that biotechnology, including GMOs, is not more risky than traditional plant breeding methods.

Scientists and regulators say better testing methods are needed. Transgenic and cisgenic organisms are treated the same when tested. However, in 2012, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said "novel hazards" might exist in transgenic strains. In 2016, Domingo found that GM soybeans, rice, corn, and wheat do not differ from regular crops in short-term health effects but suggested more research on long-term effects.

Most regular agricultural products are made using traditional methods like cross-breeding. Governments decide whether GM foods can be sold based on each case. Rules vary between countries. The United States and Europe have different approaches. Foods not meant for eating are not tested for food safety. GM foods are not tested on humans before being sold because they are not single chemicals and are not taken in specific doses, which makes human testing difficult. Regulators check the genetic changes, proteins, and how those proteins affect the food.

Regulators ensure GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to regular foods to find any harmful differences. If new proteins or issues are found during these checks, more tests are needed.

Organizations like the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences say eating GM foods is no riskier than eating foods made using traditional methods.

In 1999, Andrew Chesson warned that tests for substantial equivalence might not always work and could allow harmful substances into food. The same year, others said the standard was influenced by politics and not science. They argued GM foods need more tests and that the substantial equivalence idea should be replaced. These claims were criticized for being inaccurate. Kuiper said the standard is useful for finding differences but not perfect. He noted that traditional foods also contain harmful substances, making it hard to compare GM foods fairly. For example, Bt corn has lower levels of harmful toxins than regular corn damaged by insects.

Studies comparing GM and regular crops showed GM crops cause fewer changes in genes, proteins, and chemicals than traditional breeding methods. In 2013, Herman and Price said genetic engineering causes fewer changes than traditional breeding and that tests for GM foods may no longer be needed because they are similar to regular foods. This was supported by over 80 studies.

A known risk of genetic modification is introducing an allergen.

Environment

Genetically modified crops are planted in fields just like regular crops. In these fields, they interact directly with organisms that eat the crops and indirectly with other organisms in the food chain. The pollen from these plants spreads in the environment, just like pollen from any other crop. This spreading has raised concerns about how GM crops might affect the environment. Possible effects include gene flow (also called genetic pollution), pesticide resistance, and greenhouse gas emissions.

A major use of GM crops is to control insects by using genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) called cry and Vip genes. These genes produce toxins that can harm certain insects, including pests like the European corn borer. Bt toxins have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and in the United States since 1958, with no reported harmful effects. Cry proteins specifically target Lepidopterans (moths and butterflies). These proteins work by attaching to special receptors on the cells in the stomachs of insects, causing the cells to break apart. Insects that do not have these receptors are not affected by the cry protein or Bt. Before approving GM crops for sale, regulatory agencies check whether they might harm non-target organisms.

In 1999, a study said that Bt maize pollen dusted on milkweed plants in a lab could harm monarch butterflies. Scientists in the United States and Canada studied the effects of Bt pollen in both labs and fields over two years. Their findings showed that the risk to monarch butterfly populations was very small. A 2002 review of scientific studies concluded that large-scale planting of Bt maize did not significantly harm monarch butterflies. However, the herbicide glyphosate, used with GMO crops, kills milkweed, the only food source for monarch butterflies. By 2015, about 90% of the U.S. monarch butterfly population had declined.

Lövei et al. studied laboratory conditions and found that Bt toxins could affect non-target organisms, usually those closely related to the pests they are meant to target. Exposure often happens when these organisms eat plant parts like pollen or plant debris, or when predators eat insects that have consumed Bt toxins. Some scientists criticized this study, saying it used improper methods, ignored ecological context, and promoted misleading ways to interpret lab results.

The development of highly successful GM crops might reduce genetic diversity by pushing out other crop varieties. This could indirectly affect other organisms. If agrochemicals harm biodiversity, changes that increase their use—either because GM crops need them or because pests become resistant—might worsen these effects.

Studies comparing cotton diversity found that in the United States, diversity either increased or stayed the same, while in India it decreased. This difference was linked to the greater number of modified cotton varieties in the U.S. compared to India. A review of Bt crops' effects on soil ecosystems found that they generally do not have long-term, significant effects on soil microbes or their activities.

In farm trials in the United Kingdom and Denmark, the number and variety of weeds decreased when herbicide-resistant crops were compared to regular crops. The UK trial suggested that fewer weeds might reduce the number of birds that rely on weed seeds for food. Farm data showed more seed-eating birds on conventional maize after herbicide use, but no significant differences in other crops or before herbicides were applied. A 2012 study found a link between the decline of milkweed in farms using glyphosate-resistant crops and the drop in adult monarch butterfly numbers in Mexico. The New York Times reported that this study "raises the somewhat radical notion that perhaps weeds on farms should be protected."

A 2005 study simulated the effects of spraying four agrochemicals (carbaryl, malathion, 2,4-D, and glyphosate) at maximum recommended levels on artificial ecosystems in tanks. It found that species diversity dropped by 15% with carbaryl, 30% with malathion, and 22% with glyphosate, but 2,4-D had no effect. Environmental groups have used this study to argue that agrochemicals harm biodiversity and the environment.

Several studies found increases in secondary pests, like mirids in China, within a few years of using Bt cotton. In some areas, these pests "completely eroded all benefits from Bt cotton cultivation." A 2009 study in China found that secondary pest increases depended on local weather conditions and occurred in half the villages studied. The use of insecticides to control these pests was much smaller than the overall reduction in insecticide use from Bt cotton. A 2011 study in China found that pesticide use in Bt cotton was lower than reported elsewhere, suggesting more pesticide applications might be needed over time to control pests like aphids, spider mites, and lygus bugs. Similar issues have been reported in India with mealybugs and aphids.

Genes from GMOs can move to other organisms, just like genes from non-modified plants. This process, called outcrossing, can happen in any open-pollinated crop. In the 1990s, this was thought to be rare and easy to stop. It was believed that this would not add new environmental risks beyond those already caused by pesticides. Genes can move in three ways: from GM crops to non-GM crops, from GM crops to weeds, or from GM crops to wild plants. Concerns include the possibility that genes from GMOs might create herbicide-resistant weeds that could harm nearby non-GM crops or disrupt ecosystems. This is a major worry if the modified organism can survive well and spread in natural populations. This process is different from "superweeds" or "superbugs," which develop resistance to pesticides through natural selection.

In most countries, environmental studies…

Economy

Genetically modified (GM) crops provide economic benefits to farmers, including those in developing countries. A 2010 study showed that Bt corn helped farmers in five Midwestern states save $6.9 billion over 14 years. Most of this money ($4.3 billion) went to farmers who grew non-Bt corn. This happened because European corn borer insects were fewer near Bt corn fields, reducing damage to nearby conventional corn. Experts calculated that global food supplies increased by $240.3 million in 1996. The largest share (59%) of this increase went to U.S. farmers. Seed company Monsanto received 21%, U.S. consumers 9%, the rest of the world 6%, and Delta and Pine Land Company, a germplasm supplier, 5%. A 2012 study by PG Economics found that GM crops raised farm incomes worldwide by $14 billion in 2010, with more than half of this amount going to farmers in developing countries.

The most common Bt crop grown by small farmers in developing countries is cotton. A 2006 review of Bt cotton studies showed that economic results varied depending on location, farm type, and year. However, environmental activist Mark Lynas argued that rejecting genetic engineering could harm poor people and the environment.

In 2013, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) advised the European Union to allow GM technology to help use fewer land, water, and nutrients for farming. EASAC also criticized the EU’s slow and costly approval process, saying the EU had fallen behind in adopting GM crops.

Disagreements exist about how to increase food supplies for developing nations. Some scientists suggest a second Green Revolution, including GM crops, is needed. The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development acknowledged the potential of GM crops but found no clear solutions by 2008.

Critics like John Avise say food shortages are caused by distribution problems and politics, not production. Others argue that the second Green Revolution led to unsustainable farming practices, increasing the number of people the planet must feed. Pfeiffer claimed that even if technology could feed the current population, reliance on fossil fuels (which he incorrectly predicted would peak in 2010) would raise energy and food prices.

Barriers to using GM crops in developing countries include limited access, high equipment costs, and intellectual property rights that disadvantage poorer nations. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was praised by the World Bank for its work but advised to focus on genetics and productivity. Challenges include patent access and difficulty obtaining genetic resources. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture aimed to address these issues, but results have been uneven. As a result, "orphan crops" like teff, millets, cowpeas, and indigenous plants, which are vital in some regions, receive little investment.

In 2000, Norman Borlaug warned that antiscience attitudes threatened progress in ending hunger. His views were still relevant in 2010. U.S. maize yields rose slowly until the 1930s, when hybrid seeds boosted production. Later, improved genetics, fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery increased yields further. After GM maize was introduced, yields grew slightly more. In 2014, U.S. maize yields averaged 174.2 bushels per acre.

GM crops reduce losses from insects and weeds. A 2014 review found that GM crops improved farming outcomes. Farmers using GM crops earned 69% higher profits than those who did not. Yields increased by 9% for herbicide-tolerant crops and 25% for insect-resistant crops. In developing countries, GM crops raised yields by 14%. The study considered many peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies, adjusting for biases and controlling for factors like fertilizer use. It found that funding sources did not affect results.

A 2010 study supported by CropLife International found that farmers in developed countries increased yields by 6%, while those in developing countries saw 29% higher yields. Herbicide-resistant soybeans reduced tillage by 25–58%, allowing closer planting. Bt crops cut insecticide use by 14–76%. About 72% of farmers worldwide reported economic benefits from GM crops.

In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that other farming methods, not GM technology, contributed more to U.S. crop yield increases. A study on maize with four traits (insect resistance, herbicide tolerance) showed yield improvements of 0.8–4.2 bushels per acre. Traits like European corn borer resistance increased yields by 6.4 bushels per acre, while corn rootworm resistance reduced yields by 12.22 bushels per acre. Combining traits sometimes produced different results than expected.

The seed industry is controlled by a few large companies. In 2011, 10 companies managed 73% of the global seed market. The USDA noted that industry consolidation helped reduce costs but warned that some companies selling off seed divisions might weaken long-term business stability. Economists said seed companies’ market power could benefit society despite their pricing strategies.

Regulation

In 2014, 64 countries required labels on all genetically modified (GMO) foods. These countries include the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, China, and India. By March 2015, Israel was working on rules to label foods with ingredients from GMOs.

Alaska required labels on GMO fish and shellfish in 2005, even though no GMO fish had been approved by the FDA at that time. In 2014, Vermont passed a law requiring GMO labels, which took effect on July 1, 2016. Some food companies, such as General Mills, Mars, Kellogg's, Campbell Soup Company, PepsiCo, ConAgra, Frito-Lay, and Bimbo Bakeries USA, began using labels like "Partially produced with Genetic Engineering" on their products. Other companies removed about 3,000 products that did not meet Vermont's labeling rules. Later that month, the U.S. federal government passed a law that canceled all state laws, including Vermont's. This law required labeling rules to be created by July 2018 and allowed labels to be shown through phone numbers, barcodes, or websites. It is unclear if the rules will require labels on oils and sugars from GMO crops, even if the final product does not contain genetic material.

Before the new federal rules, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not require GMO labels as long as the food was safe and did not differ in health, environmental safety, or consumer expectations based on packaging. The federal rules followed debates in many states, where GMO labeling laws were rejected in votes in Oregon (2002 and 2014), Colorado (2014), California (2012), and Washington (2012). Connecticut and Maine passed laws in 2013 and 2014, but these laws only required labels if other states in the Northeast with large populations also passed similar laws.

Some places allow voluntary labeling, while others plan to require it. Major GMO crop exporters like the United States (until 2018), Argentina, and Canada use voluntary labeling. China and Brazil require labels on GMO crops, which are mostly not used for food.

The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have opposed mandatory labeling unless there is scientific proof of harm. The AMA said voluntary labels can be misleading without proper education. The AAAS said mandatory labels could scare consumers without reason.

The American Public Health Association, the British Medical Association, and the Public Health Association of Australia support mandatory labeling. The European Commission said labeling and tracking are needed to help people make informed choices, avoid misleading information, and remove unsafe products if needed. A 2007 study found that after labeling laws started, few products still contained GMO ingredients.

Groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Center for Food Safety have criticized the FDA for not requiring more testing for GMOs, not requiring labels, and assuming GMOs are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) without proof. They also questioned if the FDA is too close to companies that want approval for their products.

Critics in the U.S. opposed the hiring of lobbyists for senior positions in the FDA. Michael R. Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist, worked for the FDA in 1991, later became a Monsanto executive, and returned to the FDA in 2009.

In 2001, the public learned about the Starlink corn recall, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was criticized for responding slowly. Joseph Mendelson III of the Center for Food Safety also criticized the EPA and Aventis CropScience for not expecting the recall.

In 2003, Canada's Biotechnology Advisory Committee faced criticism for not representing public interests and being too close to industry groups. In China, the National Biosafety Committee has been criticized for having too many members from the biotechnology field, which may limit public input.

Four lawsuits were filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for regulating GMO plants. These cases involved field trials of herbicide-tolerant turfgrass in Oregon, pharmaceutical-producing corn and sugar in Hawaii, and the deregulation of GMO alfalfa and sugar beets. The USDA lost all four cases in court, but the Supreme Court later overturned a ban on GMO alfalfa, and an appeals court allowed partial deregulation of GMO sugar beets. After the USDA created environmental impact statements, both alfalfa and sugar beets were approved.

In 2014, Maui County, Hawaii approved a law to pause GMO production and research. The law included fines and jail time for violations and applied to all areas, not just farming. The law passed with a 50.2% to 47.9% vote.

On December 15, 2015, the New York Times published an article titled "Are You Eating Frankenfish?" discussing whether Congress would debate labeling genetically engineered salmon.

Before the 1990s, Europe had less strict GMO rules than the U.S. In 1998, the European Union approved MON810, a type of corn that resists pests. However, public trust in food safety declined after several food-related crises, including a bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) outbreak. This led to an unofficial pause on approving new GMOs in the EU until new rules were created.

In the mid-1990s, U.S. approval of GMO crops caused concern in Europe and reduced American corn exports. For example, in 1997, the U.S. sold about 1.75 million tons of corn to Spain and Portugal annually, but by 1998–1999, Spain bought less than 10% of that amount, and Portugal bought none.

In May 2003, the U.S. and 12 other countries complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO) about the EU's ban on GMO imports, saying it violated trade agreements. The U.S. and others argued the EU's rules were too slow and not based on scientific evidence. Monsanto, Aventis, and U.S. farming groups supported the complaint. In response, the European Parliament approved a U.N. biosafety protocol to regulate GMO trade and agreed to new labeling and tracking rules, including an option for countries to opt out.

Legislation

Refer to the Farmer Assurance Provision. (This law is often called the "Monsanto Protection Act" by people who oppose it.)

African controversies

In 2002, during a famine, Zambia refused emergency food aid that included genetically modified crops. This decision was based on a cautious approach to avoid possible risks.

At a meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Kingsley Amoako, head of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, urged African countries to accept genetically modified food. He noted that many people had negative views about biotechnology.

Research in Uganda showed that genetically modified bananas could help reduce poverty in rural areas. However, people in cities, who usually have more money, might not want to buy them.

Some people said that the United States sent food to southern Africa not to help with hunger, but to promote the use of genetically modified crops. During the early 2000s, the US provided meals and support to African countries facing a food crisis. However, when some African nations found out the food included genetically modified maize, they refused the aid and stopped distributing it. Critics accused the US of using the famine as a way to improve its public image. The US responded by saying European countries were causing suffering in Africa due to fears about possible, but unproven, risks. Before genetically modified crops were used, the US had a policy of sending its own crops as food aid, rather than buying local crops. This policy was said to be more expensive than Europe's approach.

Since 2013, there have been many debates in Ghana about genetically modified food.

Indian controversies

India is a country where many people rely on farming for their livelihoods. About 60% of its population depends directly or indirectly on agriculture. Between 1995 and 2013, 296,438 farmers in India died by suicide, which averages to about 16,469 suicides each year. During the same time, about 9.5 million people died annually in India from other causes, such as malnutrition, diseases, and non-farming-related suicides. This totals approximately 171 million deaths from 1995 to 2013. Experts and activists have given different reasons for farmer suicides, including poor monsoon rains, high debt, genetically modified crops, government policies, mental health issues, and personal or family problems. Some people also claim that some states may not report accurate data about farmer suicides.

In the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu, genetically modified (GM) cotton led to a 42% increase in crop yields in 2002, the first year of commercial planting. However, a severe drought in Andhra Pradesh that year prevented any yield increase because the GM cotton was not drought-resistant. Later, drought-tolerant GM cotton varieties were developed. Due to reduced damage from insect pests, by 2011, 88% of India’s cotton crops were genetically modified. Studies from 2002 to 2008 showed that Bt cotton, a type of GM cotton, improved yields, profits, and living standards for small farmers. However, recently, pests have developed resistance to Bt cotton. As a result, in 2012, Maharashtra banned Bt cotton and ordered an independent study of its effects. In 2009, Indian regulators approved Bt brinjal, a genetically modified eggplant, for commercial use. However, after opposition from scientists, farmers, and environmental groups, a ban on its release was imposed in 2010 "until public trust and confidence are restored."

As of January 1, 2013, all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) must be labeled. The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, require that the letters "GM" appear on the top of the main display panel of packages containing genetically modified food. These rules apply to 19 products, including biscuits, breads, cereals, and pulses, among others. The law faced criticism from consumer rights groups and the packaged-food industry, as both sides expressed concerns about the lack of a clear plan to implement and enforce the labeling requirements. On March 21, 2014, the Indian government approved 10 genetically modified food crops and allowed field trials of other GM food crops, including wheat, rice, and maize.