1. That is a non issue when most GMO food specifically allow us to do the opposite, use less pesticide. We can't vilify over something which is a more serious problem to non-GMO foods.

2. The alternative to GMO is mutagenesis which has been used for decades and means massive random mutations through radiation. This is how a lot of non-GMO food is developed. It can even be labeled organic. Obviously this is far more dangerous than doing a controlled changed of specific genes.

This fact alone demonstrates how the anti-GMO crowd is scientific illiterate people engaging in scaremongering. There is no scientific basis for the anti-GMO position.

(1) No it isn't reasonable as it allows uncontrolled mutations to be utilized rather than safe and controlled genetic changes.

The concern and safety steps taking towards GMO is hysterical. Every day plants like potatoes would be illegal to eat today if they were required the same testing regime as GMO food.

The real valid concern I think is the commercial aspect. Especially in the US with its insane patent laws one allows companies to take control over too much of what is important for society and life.