My $0.02
The fact that a number of GMO's, as I have already written, produce toxins that are supposed to counter herbicides such as round-up, ONE example among many, ... allowing farmers to use those herbicides in their fields ... double/trebble contamination of the crops (original toxins+herbicide+produce of (toxin+herbicide)).
Does NOT take a rocket scientist to understand that is NOT a good idea, NK603, for example, should be banned world-wide.
GMO's are sterile, quite silly as farmers have to buy new crops every year. They have to be, because
it is not wise to import "foreign" plants because they can spread like mad if no living thing can attack them. The other problem is cross-field contamination, where seeds a blown by all winds to neighboring fields, contaminating those cultures.
As for yields, you get far better yields when you study the ecosystem in the soil and adapt your strategy, which, apparently, only a select few do. Fertilizers actually KILL the ecosystem in the soil, forcing you to use ever more of them, and harm the the plants, which forces you to use pesticides.
The worst thing is, nature adapts to GMO's, so they keep having to come up with new GMO's ... The fact that GMO's are sterile means that the plant cannot "adapt" and have to be "adapted" manually.
It is, once again, not change that frightens me, change is required, but GMO is NOT it - and all the BS about it saving humanity from starvation is pure ideological non-sense.
It is the agricultural-variant of the subscription license model.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
