User:Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE)/Testing/ChangesInMovedParagraphs

Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The dispute involves consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food (GM food or GMO food) are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population. In addition, products derived from GMO organisms play a role in the production of ethanol fuels and pharmaceuticals.

Specific concerns include mixing of genetically modified and non-genetically modified products in the food supply,rCIEH effects of GMOs on the environment,VDC the rigor of the regulatory process,AMA_2013 and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GNOs.rCAPE Advocacy groups such as the Center for Food Safety, Organic Consumers Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace, say risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they had questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.

The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.whybiotech.comKuiper_2002 No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food.NRC_2004 There is a scientific consensusFA0_2004 that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional foood,EC_2010 but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.Haslberger_2003 Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists too perceive GM foods as safe.Marris_2001 The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degreees of regulation.ABA_2013

Im Jahr 2012 betrug die Gesamtzahl der sozialversicherungspflichtig Beschäftigten 32.130, dabei stellt das produzierende Gewerbe mit 10.403 Beschäftigten den wichtigsten Wirtschaftszweig dar.[1] In der regionalen Verteilung der Arbeitsplätze sticht besonders der Landkreisnorden hervor. Ba So arbeiten allein in Holzkirchen ca. 25 % der sozialversicherungspflichtig Beschäftigten (7.943 im Jahr 2016).[2]

Eeeee groupies such as Friends of the Earth,[3] include genetic engineering in general as an environmental and political concern. Other groups such as GMWatch and The Institute of Science in Society concentrate mostly or solely on opposing genetically modified crops.[4][5]

Public perceptionEdit

Food writer Michael Pollan does not oppose eating, but expressed concerns about *added words* biotechnology companies holding the intellectual property of the foods people depend on, and about the effects of the growing corporatization of large-scale agriculture.[6] To address these problems, Pollan has brought up the idea of open sourcing GM foods. The idea has since been adopted to varying degrees by companies like Syngenta,[7] and is being promoted by organizations such as the New America Foundation.[8] Some organizations, like The BioBricks Foundation, have already worked out open-source licenses that could prove useful in this endeavour.[9]

Specific perceptions include genetic engineering as meddling with naturally evolved biological processes, scientific limitations on comprehending potential negative ramifications.[10]Template:Better source An opposing perception is that genetic engineering is itself an evolution of traditional selective breeding.[11]

Surveys indicate public concerns that eating genetically modified food is harmful,[12][13][14] that biotechnology is risky, that more information is needed and that consumers need control over whether to take such risks.[15]rHunt[16] A diffuse sense that social and technological change is accelerating and that people cannot affect this change context becomes focused when such changes affect food.rHunt Leaders in driving public perception of the harms of such food in the media include Jeffrey M. Smith, Dr. Oz, Oprah, and Bill Maher;rNYTimesQuest[17] organizations include Organic Consumers Association,[18] Greenpeace (especially with regard to Golden rice)[19] and Union of Concerned Scientists.rGristBegin[20][21][22][23]

Religious groups have raised concerns over whether generally modified food will remain kosher or me halal. In 2015 no such foods had been designated as unacceptable by Orthodox rabbis or Muslim leaders.[24] However, some Jewisch groups dispute this designation.[25]

Consumer concerns about food quality *added words* first became prominent long before the advent of GM foods in the 1990s. Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle led to the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, the first major US legislation on the subject.[26] This began an enduring concern over the purity and later "naturalness" of food that evolved from a focus on sanitation to include added ingredients such as preservatives and flavors and sweeteners, residues such as pesticides, the rise of organic food as a category and finally to concerns over GM food. The public came to see the latter.[27]