This is not a possibility for multiple reasons:
a) Wheat has different genes to humans. Even in genes where we have homologs (i.e cytochrome oxidase C) are sufficiently different enough that silencing would not work.
b) Silencing is done via RNA/DNA which will be destroyed in the digestion process so won't get into the body
c) Even if the DNA/RNA is in the body (if you hypothetically injected the naked sequence into the blood stream for instance) it wouldn't be able to silence genes as it needs to be taken up by cells and incorporated into the nucleus, this just doesn't happen with naked DNA/RNA. A lot of studies have been done trying to do this (gene therapy for diseases such as cystic fibrosis) and naked DNA just doesn't work. At the very minimum you need to package them in lipid vectors and realistically the only valid way of incorporating the new genetic information is via virotherapy.

So no, this is not a possibility, there is nothing to be worried about.

so whats up with these two

University of Canterbury Professor, Jack Heinemann, and Flinders University Professor, Judy Carman

why are they saying it could silence human genes

I decided to look up the research paper by Jack Heinemann: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412013000494

You may not be able to access the link so I'll sum up the major flaws with the work:

In it he shows that dsRNA expressed in plants has been found in worms that have eaten that plant. However the digestive system of the worm is very different to humans so his claim that this supports the idea humans could absorb the dsRNA is ludicrous.

There is no proposed system of uptake of the dsRNA by the cell and no evidence to support the fact this does take place.

Although there are similarities between the dsRNAs used and sequences in the human genome these aren't specific enough to have a silencing effect despite what they say. It is amazing how specific these need to be to properly silence.

Just because something comes from a scientist does not mean it is necessarily right. If you look at the vast majority of the literature there is no suggestion of any problem. Some scientists concoct theories that are just plain wrong, usually either through poor experiments or drawing questionably conclusions. Unfortunately these are often reported in the media as the "findings" are sensational and often suggest a hazard to health. Look at Andrew Wakefield and the MMR-Autism link scandal or the large quantity of stories in the Daily Mail about "X" causing cancer or "Y" preventing it.

so you are saying worms were uptaking the genes but we are not worms therefore there is no risk to us? wtf? shouldnt we only accept it when it is proven safe rather than the other way around?

was gmo gene spamming the forum again? Is that why he was silenced?

I am saying there is no way DNA and RNA can pass through the human digestive system. You countered by saying they had evidence that it could, so I merely pointed out that their only evidence is that it passes into worms which isn't really valid. To put it another way, when you eat a steak you are eating the bovine DNA yet you obviously would never start producing cow proteins. It is essentially the same idea.

you also said if the genes were injected into our blood directly that would not be an issue, are you now conceding that was baseless?

Why would he concede that? Your cells don't just randomly allow whatever is flowing around them into their nuclei - if they did, you would be dead. Those genes would need to be forced there invasively, which on a large scale could most likely be done through a modified virus that would have the GMO wheat sequences incorporated into it. Or some sort of virus-like bionanorobots, if you want to give the idea of someone genetically altering the human population in silence a more high-tech twist.

It's not baseless. I could send you a series of papers on gene therapy which show that cells just don't take up naked DNA. The molecule is too polar and too large to cross the cell membrane. Even after that it would have to be taken to the nucleus.

Ulytau is right. The best way to genetically modify humans is probably via either an adeno or lentivirus. I quite like the idea of a double layered lipid vector with access proteins for each membrane, so it can endocytose through each one, as you could engineer it to be antigenically neutral but sadly that is probably the stuff of dreams and not really practical.

he would concede it because he read up on the research and apparently it shows worms took up those genes. so to distinguish woms and humans he said it couldn't happen to us because we have better digestion... worms still have blood though.

The paper doesn't claim the worms took up the dsRNA. It showed the presence of the dsRNA in their body, no actual uptake to their cells occured.

The fact is that even in these worms that he has fed solely on GM crops he hasn't managed to produce any gene silencing.

if people get sick from viruses, then your theory of it being impossible seems at odds with reality.

@Philcore,
"was gmo gene spamming the forum again? Is that why he was silenced?"

You've got the wrong thread. You're looking for "JMO Gene Silencing". I hear JMO silenced Gene for a long time.