Do you support the use of genetically engineered crops and foods?

Yes, but there must be clear containment programmes in place to ensure there is not unintended hybridisation with neighbouring crops and foods that are not genetically engineered.

Yes, to some extent but it should be restricted to ethical reasons such as eliminating disease etc. and not patented.

Provided there is regulatory control and monitoring. labelling is important - consumers should know what they are buying

Yes, but their production should be supervised at every step by health inspectors, and the seeds should not be able to be patented.

There can be benefits - but it needs to be heavily regulated.

Yes, to improve availability of high quality food, but producers should not prioritising profits

No. Let's encourage food to be grown or made naturally, not in a lab or any artificial way. And let's have the government encourage people to do so and note the benefits of it.

Yes, but we must ensure these do not undercut our farmers.

Yes, but we should have a varying genome of seeds that are genetically engineered. To prevent fields of crops being wiped out from a single disease

Yes but only after much consultation and research in conjunction with international charities - both large and micro level, who have the expertise of knowing how genetically engineered crops and food might impact both locally and internationally

Yes but require labelling foods that are genetically modified, explain to the public what it is, prodcuers shouldnt be allowed to patent seeds.

Yes if it bring the prices down for low income households. No as it can cause serious health issues

Yes, but only as a corrective measure to return to natural crops and foods which conform to the gender role reversal

The dangers of genetically engineered foods should be addressed and it could negatively impact the environment

Yes, but there should be a period before they are released to the public. Biologists have explained the risks of genetically engineered crops (such as outcropping and disease related complications), so they'd be best suited to underground, isolated locations.

Yes, but generically modified crops should have stricter labelling of what they were treated with, they should also only be able to sell crops that re-seed.

Yes, but only if the modification is to find cleaner/greener ways of growing crops that help sustain the environment.

Yes, to an extent. I don't think you should be able to patent seeds, but using GMOs does impact the food chain, which could have long reaching and unforeseeable consequences.

No, it needs to be more tested for health effects plus we would also need to consider the chain reaction it would have with farmers etc

Yes in very strictly regulated circumstances. Producers should not be able to patent seeds or profiteer. Everything should be clearly labelled. There is potential for good but with big business involved there is also huge scope for it to go wrong.

Yes, but producers should not be able to patent seeds, foods should be labelled and it should be heavily regulated.

God made food not man

Yes but producers should not be able to patent seeds and also require the labelling of foods that are genetically modified

Neutral, reduce if possible but I understand the benefits of GMO and it should be used in the cases of reducing environmental impact of certain crops.

Yes, but it needs to be balanced with natural foods and labelled accordingly. There also needs to be strong regulation and GM crops or seeds should not be patented or copywritten or trade marked.

Here’s an idea, stop destroying the planet, maybe then we could actually grow something. No no, instead let’s use more energy and money to engineer food, always the hard way with you people.

Any gm food needs to be labeled, and any and all impact of these on the environment and the food chain on native flora and fauna needs to tightly monitored.

Yes and producers should not be able to patent seeds and foods should be labelled that are genetically modified.

Yes, but proof of no damage to the environment and no long term health issues must be ensured and strict regulations applied.

Genetically modified crops should be carefully considered. There are some good reasons such as being able to add vitamins to rice crops in parts of the world where achieving a nutritionaly balanced diet is extremely difficult to achieve. Monsanto and other such industrial giants should not be able to profiteer excessively from it at the expense of third world farmers and growers.

Only in cases where food safety can be guaranteed, and food security would be significantly enhanced in our changing climate

Yes, but such are proven beyond doubt that they are not damaging to life or the environment; producers should not be able to patent seeds; it should be required that there is labelling of foods that are genetically modified.

Sometimes. Most genetic modification in nutritional products are done with the profit incentive in mind and the impacts on human, animal and soil health not well researched.

It depends on the nature of the modification and requires many rules and regulations. But if it is a modification designed to harm wildlife then no

Yes but only if producers are banned from patenting seeds and required by law to clearly label the GM foods, and after more independent research into the long term effects on biodiversity and food security as well as public health.

It should be done to increase nutrition as along as it doesn’t get to the point of it becoming a requirement to drive out non-genetically modified crops and foods.

Yes, but with regulations on attributes selected for and measures to reduce the impact of unintended seed dispersal

Yes, as long as it is made extremely clear to the buyers that they are genetically modified, and a lot of research is made into figuring out if they are safe to consume/imbibe.

These are only required due to animal agriculture. A switch to more vegan diets removes the need for GMO.

Yes. Producers should not be able to patent the seeds and be required to label their products as genetically modified.

Eventually, but only after far more research. Too little research has been done on the off-target effects of gene editing.

Yes, but genetically modified food should only be used to feed the poor and homeless and made to be as cheap as possible whilst still meeting national health standards

It depends on what the genetic modification was and whether research has been done to investigate the specific consequences. (I think there should be more openness about the potential advantages and disadvantages - e.g. a disease resistant variant may avoid environmental harm due to the need for none or less pesticide/fertiliser/irrigation)

In principle yes, but if profit is main driver being this, it is a huge risk for all sorts of reasons. Again, regulation is needed first.

Yes, but ban the patenting of seeds & genetic material and require labelling of all genetically modified food.

No, there's too many chemicals used that are always hidden due to loopholes. People will pay the price in 30-40 years otherwise.

YES!! But the main applications of this research should be for foreign aid and countries (or areas of the UK in the future) experiencing drought/flooding and other detrimental climate conditions.

Yes, but it shouldn't be the only or main option as the need for biodiversity in our food supply is crucial to preventing famine through disease which can spread through all GM crops like wildfire

Yes, but they should not be the only mass option used as narrowing the biodiversity of seeds can be devastating if a blight hits those GM seeds and they are our primary option.

Label the foods, and GM crop producing farms must be have stricter regulations and oversight, and processed differently to regular crops.

Yes as long as rigourus testing is done, companies can't patent seeds and genetically modified foods are labelled

Yes, but they should be labelled and unable to be patented.

Yes, labelled, not patented and obviously they never have to be dangerous to consume

100% no. I've yet to see any science that can out maneuver nature. The earth has been here for billions of years. Nature and life will always find a way. Trust it.

No, we should stick to traditional practices

Depends entirely on safety

I agree with GMO crops, however GMO foods should be more carefully considered if it will cause harm to said animal

Only if an ethical and environmental impact assessment has been made and only with the strict requirement that producers are not able to patent seeds or sue for cross-fertilisation contamination.

Only if the modification is to find cleaner/greener ways of growing crops that help sustain the environment

This needs so much more context. It is uk/locally produced, what processes are involved, is it supporting our farmers?

Long term we will have to consider genetic engineering but food standards must be applied to the highest standards.

in certain situations where the genetic modification was performed to make the crop more healthy and robust

No, the UK is a prosperous island with no need of this, we should return to traditional farming methods and crops instead.

No, the UK does not need this; return to traditional farming methods instead, and stop purchasing and producing GMO crops and goods.

Gene editing should be allowed under strict controls and clear labelling, but genetic modification including material from other species should not be allowed outside licensed laboratories.

Full labelling should be mandatory. Traceability procedures should be robust. Patenting of seeds should be illegal.

I think more extensive research should be conducted first to ensure safety and evaluate long-term risks to health

Too complex for such a survey.

Yes, but only if the crop is harmed in a way that doesn’t harm biodiversity and is organic

Yes, as long as it's 100% safe.

Yes, but requite the labelling of foods that are genetically modified. In addition to this, producers should not be able to patent seeds.

If proven to be safe yes

Yes. However, much greater regulation is required to minimise effects on the environment and ecosystem.

If the food is safe, it can be really beneficial to developing countries that may not be able to grow certain crops and foods because of the conditions of where they live.

Yes but not crossing genes from different species

Yes, but with minimal meddling.

Only crops, not animal products

No. More extensive research needs to be done.

Yes, so long as they cause no harm to anything

Depends what you mean by GE.

Yes, all food is genetically modified due to artificial selection.

No, but potentially in the future based on the direction of the research and groups in control of the crops.

Genetic modifications need to show that there is no interface with human genetics

Yes, but efforts should be made to ensure there is not complete uniformity of genetics for certain crops. This prevents one disease wiping them all out.

Yes however producers should not be able to patent seeds and genetically modified foods should be labelled

People don’t understand what GMO is. The majority of food we eat have been GM.

Yes, but production of non-genetically engineered crops and foods should be tax incentivised

Yes, but producers should not be able to patent seeds & the foods should meet a high food quality tolerance.

Yes, but producers should not be able to patent seeds, and genetically modified foods should be labelled as such.

all our crops have been genetically engineered by evolving or selective breeding.

The modifications should be to reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides and to make the plant grow using less water. Never for increasing chemicals or water.

As long as the food is edible and safe

Yes but only if they are subject to extensive, case-by-case, science-based food evaluation.

Yes but only if there is more testing. and they are labelled.

Yes but producers should not be able to patent seeds and require labelling of foods that are genetically modified

Providing they are proven safe and have no long term effects on our health

No personally, but require the labelling of foods that are genetically modified.

No, this term is too broad. There are more effective methods that are good for yields, soil use, nature and price.

Yes, as long as the produce shows that there aren't any side effects that could hurt the environment as well as the ones eating the produce.