I'm not sure why this is being down-voted. It's disturbing to see given the site we're on.
As a simple example of an argument which the poster omitted, I know multiple scientists - people who use genetic modification techniques for their work – who are in favor of GMOs conceptually but opposed to Monsanto’s sweeping ownership views (hybridization of GMOs with other crops), broader ecological impacts from increased pesticide usage, or want stricter regulation before things are released into the wild. None of those positions are honestly characterized as anti-science.
GMO's should be regulated to outlaw things like "plant DRM", but part of that governmental regulation should be active financial encouragement of more GMO research to develop and propagate hardier, more drought and heat tolerant crops so that we still have food as the world faces global warming.
This is why it is a moral issue: the longer we delay and argue about widespread GMO research and propagation the more likely we end up in a world where global warming causes dramatically reduced food availability and variety. The rich will be able to eat food that was grown in climate controlled environments, the poor will either outright starve or adopt a massively simplified and less nutritious diet.
I draw the parallels between anti GMO and anti-vaxxers because in both cases there is a hyper-focus on a few potentially bad outcomes while ignoring the massive upside. Just like anti-vaxxers worry about their kid getting autism or getting a microchip injected into them or getting injected with something harmful, I find a lot of GMO discussions devolve into excessive worry about a few edge cases that either have not happened, rarely happen, or can and should be outlawed.
I agree that we need GMO in our toolbox, as do almost all of the people I know who are hesitant about that, but that's only going to happen through building trust and, importantly, recognizing legitimate arguments and talking about how to address them rather than trying to claim they're not valid.
But I agree with you, my original comment was not helpful because it got muddied by the broader topic of anti intellectualism, which I have been thinking about a lot recently.
I do think there is a serious societal problem, leading to an almost religious fervor against some modern applications of science. I think that GMO's are one target of it, right alongside vaccines and masks, to the detriment of society. That might be an industry PR talking point, but I don't think that makes it any less true.
I think another aspect of my original comment that upset people is that I expressed anti-religious sentiment in it. I know there are plenty of religious folks in tech, and no doubt many were offended by that. Personally I feel that there are two forces at work here: one is religious leaders de-educating people and the other is higher education failing to educate people well enough because colleges and universities are trying to milk money from folks.
The end result is a society where anti-intellectualism is on the rise: people don't have access to the education to understand masks, vaccines, or GMO's but they do have access to plenty of religious indoctrination that tells them that they'll be alright as long as they do things "the old fashioned / traditional way".
This manifests in so many ways, from benign things like the "Paleolithic diet" based on the idea that it is healthy to eat a diet like that of ancient humans, to harmful stuff like anti-vaxxers. I think it is all stemming from a fear of the future, which makes people want to go back to how things were done in the past.
But it is too late to go back to how things were done in the past. I see us on a tipping point that could go either way: a backslide into conservatism and decline, or a leap forward into higher tech that can help us survive looming climate change. Personally I hope it's the latter.
I sometimes have a difficult time separating legit benefits of GMO with shilling or astroturfing, which is unfortunate when trying to have a reasoned discussion.