GM is all well and good, but the risks aren't all about the science.
For a start, they are patented technology. You buy from Monsanto, you can never grow your own. Monsanto control your business. (Or Bayer Agri, Syngenta, whomever. But Monsanto are the big player here). Now what happens if, say, Monsanto gets bought a foreign power? Suddenly your entire country's food supply is controlled by a foreign power. (There's a bid by a Chinese company to buy Monsanto, incidentally).
Plus, of course, there's the problems of monocultures - if everywhere in the world uses the same pesticide it just takes one species of pest to become resistant to that pesticide and suddenly every farmer who plants that GM crop has the same problem at the same time. If that's a staple foodstuff, that becomes everybody's problem.
As for scientific consensus, don't make me laugh. We all know these surveys are paid for by the very companies whose products they so enthusiastically endorse as "good for you and good for the environment". I'll remind you that there were similar studies in the 1950s that showed the positive health benefits of smoking.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
