I can see why road maintenance hassle doesn't outweigh potential benefits, but what about a gene for producing a pesticide. Resistance to herbicide doesn't present an obvious fitness benefit to a wild hybrid, but not being eaten by bugs certainly does. How would said pesticide affect bee populations if all the wild relatives of a given GMO crop now produced its own pesticide?
Plants generally already do this. There are tradeoffs between productions of natural pesticides, rate of growth, tolerance to environmental extremes, and so on in plants, and our crops generally produce less pest-combating compounds than natural strains, in favor of greater growth rates, and we use artificial pesticides to make up for their weak natural resistance.
Our genetic modification technology is still quite a ways short of being able to design genes for the production of pesticides more potent than plants already produce, which will not divert significant resources from growth.
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?