For instance, one particular team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed over 1,700 cases about the safety of consuming GM foods (Wendel). The researchers, without a doubt, couldn't find a single plausible reason that established GM foods as unsafe to eat. Moreover, Patrick Bateson, the vice-president and biological secretary of the Royal Society, also conducted a review of the health impact of GM foods. He stated how his group's "conducted review of the evidence about GM plants and human health" showed no credible evidence "that GM foods are more harmful to people than non-GM foods" ("Genetically Modified Foods Do Not Cause Food-Borne Illnesses"). In fact, according to the Royal Society, much of the claims that GM foods cause catastrophic health risks are uncorroborated and exaggerated. Evidently, people that desperately seek a connection between GM foods and adverse human health have only come up with partial or limited support. With thorough analyzes and tests from multiple parties, it is conclusive to say that GM foods do not present any credible argument at odds with adverse human health.
Even though GM foods continue to be scrutinized throughout the globe, they hold verified opportunities to benefit both the environment and manufacturers. According to a study conducted by the University of California, Santa Cruz, genetic modification provides attainable benefits that surpass that of organic foods. GM foods can solve the current crisis regarding soil salinity, provide solutions for less land space, and yield crops with a higher nutritional value ("Benefits of GM Food"). Pertaining to the first benefit, as soil salinity is becoming a major problem in many areas of the United States, genetic modification presents scientists with the possibility of transferring the genes of salt tolerant plant species to certain crops. This remediation would increase the productivity of land and increase the earth's crop density.