that's why they do testing... lol
Well, duh...
It's not the questioning of safety I take issue with, it's the way most anti-GMO go about their campaigning.
Absolutely any new food, medicine, chemical etc. intended to be put into or upon our bodies should be thoroughly tested. And that's the problem, many GMOs have been and all testing so far shows no greater risk in consuming GMOs than "regular" food.
It's the outright lies, misinformation and ideological posturing that gets under my skin. It's the same ideology behind "organic" foods (again, virtually zero scientific evidence that organic foods are better than or healthier than "regular") food and being so anti-big agriculture. I get it, there's issues there. I personally despise big agriculture when it comes to the raising of livestock, so I choose not to consume beef or pork and I'm careful about the sourcing of poultry. But I'm not so naive that I don't realize that I have the option to do so
because of big Ag. Without many of the technologies devised for use in big Ag, even more of the worlds population would be suffering and dying of starvation and malnutrition. As pointed out in the article Malf linked, there is a place for all of these things, and the answer doesn't lie solely in any single one alone.
I realize how fortunate I am to be part of that teeny, tiny percentage of the population that actually has the luxury of choosing whether I want to eat organic, non-GMO or free range. It's incredibly arrogant, self-serving and downright cruel for those of us in the so-called first world to demand others starve over our ideological positions. Who cares if most of the world goes to bed hungry as long as we can feel warm and smugly preventing that EVIL Monsanto and EVIL Big Ag from "poisoning" us all (which there is zero proof of).
On the one hand, yes, be cautious, don't just blindly trust. On the other, we cannot let our ideologies and fear stand in the way of technologies that can literally change the reality of so many for the better. /rant