The
 skepticisms on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food have been 
overwhelming, voiced by a majority of scientists and humanity throughout
 the world. Nevertheless, a handful of governments led by the United 
States have allowed biotech corporations to push GM food onto the 
world's food market. As recent as June 24, 2005, EU Environment 
Ministers, against the wishes of the European Commission, voted to 
uphold the safety ban on genetically modified organism (GMO) maize after
 scrutinizing a report by the biotech giant, Monsanto, that demonstrated
 rats fed on GMO corn developed abnormalities - damage to the kidneys 
and changes to their blood. Undoubtedly, animal testing on the safety of
 GM food is inadequate due to the short period of monitoring and 
observation and flawed by applying the traditional testing methods to a 
novel science, which opens up a whole new field of unknowns. The 
compelling evidence of GM food being unsafe comes from the animals 
themselves - preferring natural food to GM food and suffering internal 
injuries or succumbing to death after eating GM food. 
Ironically, 
peer-reviewed papers on animal testing on the safety of GM food are far 
and few between, considering the aggressive campaigning for GM foods and
 products by the biotech companies in the last ten years. Both the U. S.
 government's agency and U. K. government's advisory committee on novel 
foods and products based their decisions on safety mainly on animal data
 results provided by biotechnology companies. Obviously, biotech 
corporations with self-serving interests provided their versions of the 
animal test results. It appears that most research papers by biotech 
corporations couldn't meet the scientific standards - to have the 
experiments replicated and published in peer-reviewed journals. 
Animals have a 
natural instinct to know what's good for them. Throughout the United 
States, farmers have been reporting animals rejecting GMO crops: cattle 
and hogs that wouldn't eat when the GMO crops were mixed in with the 
ration; cattle would rather trot a longer distance to munch on the 
non-GMO corn than consume the nearby Round-up Ready (herbicide 
resistant) corn; a herd of deer mowed down natural tofu beans, ignoring 
the Round-up Ready variety across the road; and the raccoons raided an 
organic corn field, leaving Bt (induced insecticide) corn untouched down
 the road. If wild and domestic animals would only eat natural food and 
avoid various GM foods, they're certainly sensitive enough to know the 
distinction between natural and unnatural - as some scientists had 
claimed that GM food is no different from natural food. 
In the "Report for the Chardon LL Hearing: Non-suitability of genetically engineered feed for animals" >published by The Scientists for Global Responsibility
 in May 2002, Eva Novotny contradicted the official conclusions on the 
chicken and rat experiments. She pointed out three abnormalities as a 
result from testing Chardon LL: 1) some animals consumed GM feed did not
 gain weight rapidly enough; 2) some animals given GM feed displayed 
erratic feeding habits; and 3) mortality rate of chickens fed on GM 
maize doubled of those fed on non-GM maize.
A few more papers 
on animal feeding studies on GM food were published, but most of them 
are experiments not designed to identify health effects conducted by 
biotech industry scientists.
In animal 
experiments to ensure thorough safety of GM food, four main areas of 
concern should be addressed for evaluation - toxic effects, allergic 
reactions, nutritional impacts, and antibiotic-resistant genes that play
 a role in the GM process. Besides the unknown long-term effects of GM 
food on health and environment, the restructured genetically modified 
DNA itself becomes unstable which enhances horizontal gene transfer and 
recombination - the very process for spawning new diseases and spreading
 antibiotic resistance that can cross species barriers.
As the only human 
experiment on GM food, a study at Newcastle University in 2002 sponsored
 by Food Standard Agency, had volunteers consume a single meal of GM 
soya. The genetically modified DNA was not dissolved, as scientists had 
claimed it would be, instead it was transferred into the intestinal 
bacteria, confirming the process of horizontal gene transfer. 
Coincidentally, since 1994 when GM food was first introduced, food borne
 illnesses have been dramatically on the rise in the United States, 
according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Although the causes 
of those diseases remain largely unknown, the possibility that they may 
be linked to GM food cannot be dismissed.
The world's unease
 about GM food for human consumption exists for a very good reason - GM 
food hasn't been proven safe. As a novel science, GM food technology is 
unlike other modern technologies - it directly affects the environment, 
human health, and the future of our humanity. Any mishap could decimate 
the human race with an unknown deadly virus created from GM food. 
Perhaps, our sense of GM food - being unnatural and unsafe - comes from 
our animal instinct after all.
(First published on UniOrb.com, July 4, 2005)