You know the expression »never touch a running system«. With the plants available there is long term data, and you know what you get. With big changes there are all kinds of risks involved that can not be foreseen. Including the possibility for side effects. Can you assure a small hack is really just small?
Nope, but the risk of unexpected side effects may be smaller than many ordinary risks we take with what we eat. I wouldn't be surprised if some rare exotic plants like Rooibos had been studied less than GM rice or wheat.
I have an aversion towards "but we can never be sure" or "but there's always a risk" arguments ... Those can be used on nearly any topic and are useless until you try to figure out how much risk, which requires actual effort.
I was raised to believe that genetically-modified foods are unhealthy to eat and bad for the environment, and given a variety of reasons for this, some of which I now recognize as blatantly false (e.g., human genetic code is isomorphic to fundamental physical law), and a few of which still seem sort of plausible.
Because of this history, I need to anchor my credence heavily downward from my sense of plausibility.
The major reasons I see to believe that GMOs are safe are:
The major reason I see to believe that GMOs are dangerous is:
So: green goo, yes or no?