Ensuring food security in the 21st century is facing increasing challenges. Agricultural biotechnology and transgenic plants have been proposed as effective solutions to increase production. Given that the majority of transgenic grains, such as corn and soybeans, are consumed in livestock and poultry feed, examining the jurisprudential ruling and safety of these products is of additional importance. This study aims to explain the jurisprudential-argumentative ruling on the use of transgenic feed and analyze its relationship with scientific data. The present study, with a qualitative approach and descriptive-analytical design, has conducted a comparative study of jurisprudential, scientific, and legal sources. The findings show that evidence based on permissibility (such as "authenticity of permissibility") has argumentative superiority over evidence based on "probability of harm"). The majority of jurists' fatwas are based on "conditional permissibility" that confirms the legitimacy of the technology and makes consumption conditional on the absence of "significant harm" by experts. From a scientific perspective, a systematic review of studies indicates a “lack of evidence of risk” in animals fed GM feed, and the evidence supports the complete breakdown of DNA and recombinant proteins in the animal’s digestive tract. As a result, the initial and current ruling on the use of approved GM feed is “permissible.” This ruling is not absolute, but “conditional and dynamic,” and depends on the existence of rigorous scientific monitoring and the absence of future evidence of harm. This approach, while utilizing technology, emphasizes the precautionary principle and ongoing monitoring.