转基因食品争议

转基因食品争议（英語：Genetically modified food controversies）是指关于食用转基因作物及其副产品、在食品生产中利用基因工程技术而非植物配種等方面的争议。这场争议与消费者、生物技术公司、政府管理者、非政府组织和科学家都密切相关。关于基因改造食品的争论核心包括：转基因食品的上市标注、政府管理者的责任、相关科学研究的目的、转基因作物对环境和健康的影响、对害虫之的影响、对农业生产者的影响和转基因作物对满足全球粮食需求的作用。

公众对转基因食品的具体担忧包括对于转基因食品与非转基因食品在供应上的影响，转基因食品对环境造成的影响，监督者是否会渎职。、、及绿色和平等相关利益團體认为转基因相关的风险并没有被正确认识和应对，同时质疑监管机构的客观性。

目前的科学共识是此类转基因作物及其副产品的健康安全风险并不高于传统食品，但公众还是担心转基因食品有害健康。这进一步导致了人们对食品纯度、食品“天然度”的长期关注，这种关注随后演变到了对防腐剂、香料、甜味剂、农药残留物的担忧，有機食品的崛起以及最终对转基因食品的担忧。许多消费者认为转基因食品是“非天然的”并对转基因食品充满负面联想和恐惧（这被认为是一种逆向的晕轮效应）。

公众的看法包括但不限于将基因工程视为干预自然进化的生物过程，以及认为科学在潜在危害的评估时有局限。不过，一种反对的看法认为基因工程就是传统选择性育种的演变，且现有证据证明转基因食品在营养价值和健康方面与传统食品相同（即实质性等同）。

一系列的研究指出，人们担忧进食转基因食品对身体有害；担忧生物技术的风险十分高；担忧自己了解的信息不足，不敢冒着风险进食。

参考文献
外部連結
一般看法

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080719170701/http://www.gmo-compass.org/. GMO Compass] Information on the use of genetic engineering in the agri-food industry. Authorization database with all GM plants in the EU.
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20140627113821/http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database&mode=Synopsis Center for Environmental Risk Assessment] Database detailing all currently accepted GM crops.
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20070228010322/http://www.coextra.eu/ Coextra] Research project on coexistence and traceability of GM and non-GM supply chains. Archived from [http://www.coextra.eu/ the original] on February 28, 2007.
• [http://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/nutrition-food-safety-health/labeling-of-genetically-modified-foods-9-371/ Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods] 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
• [http://hdl.handle.net/10822/552560 Genetic Imperialism?: the First and Third World's face-off on the frontiers of science] from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives

*[http://www.wnyc.org/story/should-we-genetically-modify-foods/ Intelligence Squared. Debate on Should We Genetically Modify Foods?] "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

反對看法

• [http://92.52.112.178/web/sa/saweb.nsf/GetInvolved/geneng.html Soil Association]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20100429103528/http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm Center for Food Safety]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20151031041446/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/genetic-engineering/ge-reports Greenpeace]
• [http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/ Sierra Club]
• [http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education Institute for Responsible Technology]

擁護者

• [http://www.whybiotech.com/ Council for Biotechnology Information]
• [http://www.agbioworld.org/ AgBioWorld]
• [http://biotech-now.org/ BioTech Now]
• Bill Gates
• Bill Nye

政府觀點

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20061213064401/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/ German Federal Ministry of Education and Research]
• [http://www.food.gov.uk/gmfoods/ UK Food Standards Agency]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20100601131958/http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178621456978.htm European Food Safety Authority]
• [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/search.html?DC_CODED=5768&type=advanced&qid=1399026184544 EU legislation documents on genetically modified organisms]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20111005122704/http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/BioPortalHome.asp?x=1 Government of Canada BioPortal]

醫療及科學做法

• [https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002432.htm NIH National Library of Medicine]
• Royal Society, [https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2002/9960.pdf Genetically modified plants for food use and human health—an update] . 2002