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.
Yes of course. I do not like that line either.
There are other cases where food rapidly got widely used without enough examination of the long term effects. Look up the introduction of industrial sugar. That seems to be a real problem.
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?