GMO crops

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-27/monsantos-roundup-weed-killer-found-top-beer-and-wind-brands

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-14/new-study-finds-41-increase-cancer-risk-roundups-glyphosate

FDA has accepted industry assurances that genetic modifications are no different than selective breeding which has been going on for millennia. This is not correct or they wouldn't bother. They are introducing much more widely separated genes from different creatures that wouldn't normally interbreed. The outcomes of this are unpredictable and inherently because genomics is so complicated. N. Taleb  argues this point and that a precautionary stance should be adopted.

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

Dangerous means risky, and with new technology if it's not shown safe it's risky.

 In the case of GMO's, with all sorts of potential biological activity, and with vast numbers of people and animals people eat consuming them, if something goes wrong it could have very extensive effects.

The linked article relies on the national Academies report. It presents also the other side that says the process is so corrupted by financial interests that you cannot trust the report. Evidence for the corruption has become clear in court cases such as this one: https://steemit.com/news/@corbettreport/court-documents-reveal-the-inner-workings-of-a-monsanto-smear-campaign

 in which court documents make clear that Monsanto heavily influenced the research and in particular caused the recall of the paper of Seralini at Al. This paper which on its face seems perfectly reasonable, found that glyphosate caused many tumors in rats exposed to it. After the paper was published, it was subsequently retracted over the complaints of the authors by the editor, without good cause being given In my opinion. It turns out that this decision was pressured by Monsanto. So there is no good reason to believe that there is anything wrong with the Seralini paper. Yet the national academies report https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects?utm_source=NAP_embed_book_widget&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=Widget_v4&utm_content=23395 

 doesn't discuss Seralini at all.  So how can  it possibly conclude they are safe? 

Consumption of GMO crops poses health risks more so than traditional crops.  

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/05/17/gmos-safe-academies-of-science-report-genetically-modified-food/84458872/