Since life emerged from the primordial soup of the early earth I would think.
We'd not be here otherwise i.e. single cell life forms to multi cellular lifeforms.
There is ongoing meta-analysis being conducted in this area. So far nothing untoward has happened. There are types of Genetic modification, the one you fear is transgenic.
I've spent the time looking at the science and I'm satisfied that there is nothing to fear. GM is proving very useful in the production of antibodies for vaccines i.e. Tobacco has been used to grow antibodies for ebola vaccines How to grow an Ebola vaccine with a tobacco plant
What we've not had in this country up until this point is a proper debate over GM that's based on hard science and not Greenpeace running around like headless chickens out of a fear that plants will mutate and kill us all.
Luddite alert 
I'm going to make a minor assumption you are not a retired Geneticist?
Correct me if I'm wrong but evolution and inserting the genes of a living creature into a plant are two very different things.
Greenpeace are the worlds conscience.
Simply because nothing as yet has been discovered (which from one or two things I have read is not strictly true) regarding environmental damage does not mean it won't surface at some point in the future.
History is littered with examples of things that at the time people thought were perfectly safe only to discover in the fullness of time the opposite was true.It was once believed that smoking was actually good for you.I think even Ash executives make balk at making such claims now.
I have covered this in post 96.Not sure why you claim I am a Luddite when I have simply pointed out a truism?
History is also littered with people that won't accept the world has moved on, I think you might be one of them 
On the original point, all the countries (US/NZ/AUS/BR) that have been mooted as being eager for a post-Brexit trade deal are major agricultural exporters. A trade deal must under WTO rules encompass "substantially all trade". What makes you think there will be a choice?
For the EU it is rather simple. The schedule of tariffs is in place. It is just the division of tariff-free quotas between the UK and EU27 that has to be agreed. If there is no trade deal with the EU, that same tariff will apply to EU imports from the UK. A FTA is the only way lower tariffs can apply.
For the UK, the situation is more complicated. It has to negotiate a completely new schedule with the WTO members, many again being agricultural exporters. There isn't much time.
And those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. 
A recent feature on Countryfile in NZ highlighted that after the UK joined the common market NZ natural market was closed off to them and their agriculture went through some really hard times.
However, over decades they have learned how to farm without almost any government subsidies. The UK farming industry are not in a position to compete with these countries.They won't be allowed to have big subsidies from the government in order to sell into other world markets, that's not how trade deals work.It has be a level playing field.
UK farmers have enjoyed huge subsidies every since WW2 whereas other industries have had to prosper or wither by their own hand.I am all for providing subsidies to aid animal welfare and conservation.How farmers are going to survive in a brave post-Brexit world remains to be seen.
Agreed, I'djust edited my previous post to reflect that but have put it back as it was 
At some point in the distant past evolution branched off into plant and animal life. Genetic Modification merely speeds up the process of evolution and it's not always the case of a gene from an animal being inserted into a plant. Plant to Plant Gene swapping goes on. Depends on what you are attempting to do. Surprised you've not freaked out over scientists creating synthetic bacteria in the lab http://gizmodo.com/mad-scientists-created-synthetic-bacteria-with-only-473-1766686722
Greenpeace is not what it once was. If Nuclear Fusion is ever cracked, you can bet Greenpeace will attempt to stop it from being used merely because it's Nuclear energy.
That's a fairly obvious statement to make. Just about everything we eat today has been selectively bred with traits to either increase crop yields, disease resistance or to change the taste to make it more palatable. You will have eaten GM food without knowing it, but that's down to the food supply chain.
Everything on this planet is either toxic or radioactive. You have to balance the benefits and the risks to make a sound judgement. What you don't seem to get that is with our current population and expected increases globally, we simply do not have the means to produce enough food to keep everyone adequately fed going forwards. Let alone meeting energy needs.
Genetic Modification does have risks, but they have been overblown. Leading to unfounded fears being used to halt scientific progress. Which ironically is the only way to know what the risks actually are. As for history repeating itself ? If we don't use all of our technological developments to adapt and mitigate the consequences of climate change ? As has happened in the past, the demand for resources will outstrip the supply and civilisation collapses.