I guess the major 'problem' is that (at least the media representation) most of the effort in GMO is not going into products being more healthy, but towards inc

I guess the major 'problem' is that (at least the media representation) most of the effort in GMO is not going into products being more healthy, but towards increasing yield. Put in that light it's immediately obvious the first argument will be 'big industry.' People don't trust big industry, so therefore if they are the largest supporters/drivers of GE it will wholly be placed in the 'bad' basket. 'Big Industry' players time and time again do act poorly, fund outcomes, corrupt policies etc so you concerns can't be dismissed easily and will be conflated either way. So the question out of this is: how do we increase the integrity of actors involved: science, media, government, business? What would it take to be able to identify and understand which GE is 'honest' vs not? Until that can be done in any meaningful way, it will continually just be an argument between those saying all GMO/GE can't be trusted and those saying it can. Not to mention the different points being that the distrust is in those engineering/producing GMO vs the actual products/processes themselves...