98 % of the negative noise about GMOs can be chalked up to raging superstition (and the post-Communist Far Left lurching around in search of credible targets).
About those remaining 2%, though.
On this early stage, the GMOs are designed to be broad commercial blockbusters, naturally. The problem is not that they are somehow "bad" - the problem is that they may be a little too good: For example, a crop engineered to be resistant to some widespread disease, or to be able to thrive on soils with elevated salt levels has every chance of monopolizing the fields, far and wide. And in the short term, it would mean increased farm production and improved nutrition. But in the long term, it could expose the same farms to the most trivial hazard in biology: All adaptation is relative. The superhero plant of today may become a sickly weakling tomorrow, when some new fungus or virus arrives to make our lives less boring.
The "organic movement", while rooted in ignorance and quasi-ideological righteousness, may end up doing us all a service - by preserving, inadvertently, the diversity of unmodified, untested, unstudied - and probably often quite "harmful", in one way or another - "natural" strains and breeds.
(Of course, this problem is indeed a problem of the early stage in development: what now can be done only by Monsanto or Syngenta will be within the reach of any "biohacker" with a backyard greenhouse and basic scientific literacy in ten or thirty years. The diversity will explode, exponentially).
