I don't think the more serious controversies have really anything to do with the foods themselves. While the status of GMO food and its legitimacy or value is indeed a lively debate in its own right, I think it's drawing attention away from the real issue here, which is one of trust. Very few people promote the view that genetically modified food is inherently wrong and dangerous, and - conversely -very few people believe that all efforts to promote it are honest or lacking in suspect agendas. The issue here is the motivation of the individuals and organizations involved. Can we trust that those creating and promoting modified foods are truly concerned with aiding people or ensuring the products are safe? Do they carefully consider all the long term consequences or do they just push for their products to be accepted and their policies adopted because they seek money and power at the expense of other concerns? Are corners cut? Are the little people forced to fall into line regardless of their own beliefs and wishes? Are people and organizations involved in GMO crops promoting them around the world because it helps struggling nations, or because it makes them rich and powerful, or do they wish a near-monopoly on food supplies as a means of control? Indeed, are any of these necessarily mutually exclusive? Even if a particular consequence is not the purpose, motive or desire, is it too much of a risk? Alternatively, will we be letting people die needlessly if we delay introducing these foods?
GMO foods aren't the problem. The problem is the web of political, financial, ideological and personal agendas that come into play, the difficulty in trusting the players (or some of them), the concerns both valid and paranoid about the power these people/organizations have and the ease with which great damage could be done by the careless, neglectful or malicious.
The science and technology is neutral, as it always is.