GMOs are terrible which is why they're banned in most European countries.
> bad wrap they've gotten from science ignorants
Science is not about blind trust. How many times have scientists discovered wondrous new things like asbestos, Thalidomide, leaded gasoline, teflon, only to take decades to realize the consequences?
Even if we blindly trust science, there are various other issues like: patenting life, monopolization, reducing genetic diversity, GMO cross-pollination, &c.
> various other issues like: patenting life, monopolization, reducing genetic diversity, GMO cross-pollination
Agree these are all terrible, but nothing there is GMO-specific. That's all either bad agricultural practices like mono-cropping that can be done with any crop, or societal problems related to intellectual property or markets.
Because they're the exact equivalent of closed source in software.
There would be means to research, produce and use GMOs in good ways, but the way our economics work, they can't be used without either harming natural ones and/or involving NDAs, lawyers and all sort of things that in some contexts make closed source a nightmare for pretty much everyone except those selling it.
Asbestos is, sadly, completely natural and mined directly from the ground. The other things in your list are obviously not.
GMOs are a very complicated topic, and I can see both sides of the argument having some merit. Proving that new things don't actively do harm (both short- _and_ long-term) should be required before they go to market (or they should have to have very strong warning labels about being untested).
> bad wrap they've gotten from science ignorants
Science is not about blind trust. How many times have scientists discovered wondrous new things like asbestos, Thalidomide, leaded gasoline, teflon, only to take decades to realize the consequences?
Even if we blindly trust science, there are various other issues like: patenting life, monopolization, reducing genetic diversity, GMO cross-pollination, &c.