The GM issue does seem a contentious one. To look at it one way, scientists are still in the infancy in terms of decoding how life works, while some is known there's simply not enough known to act in such a reckless disregard without knowing the full consequences. This sounds fair enough, if not for the fact that the new technology is largely a refinement of old practices - removing the chance element from the process. The issues with the technology are the largely the same issues with food in general - crop viability, environmental degradation, nutrition, health concerns, etc. All these are things that should be addressed which is something that scientists are working on.
Yet this discussion is derailed in the same way that climate change is by denialists - people who don't want a discussion on food prosperity and security, but see a grave danger in humans playing God. The essentialist fear of frankenfoods is nothing more than an absurd distraction from real issues with food security. The debate is shut down because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology, and of what life is - and worst of all, an unwillingness to change that. After all, why would we want to listen to corporations who are trying to control our food supply?