A generic defense of GM products is like a generic defense of bacteria.
Most bacteria do not kill you. You are doing the equivalent of defending
all bacteria.
Just because you can find example of no damage detected does not mean
that all GM products are safe. Even more, some have already been proved
dangerous and have been removed from the market before they could kill
millions.

Not so fast. There have been NO transgenic crops that have reached the
market place, been found harmful, and had to be removed. Even the
ill-fated Starlink corn has never been found to pose any health risks.

Rather, the approval process is designed to intercept potential problems
long before marketing. So, for any crop approved for marketing, the
statement can be made that it is at least as safe as the non-engineered
version.

Bottom line is that no one makes generic defenses of transgenic crops.
Rather, each gene in each crop in each environment is evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. Only an evaluation specific to each case can answer
the question of "should we do it". In fact, this evaluation is so
extensive that it runs into the tens of millions.

By the way, the issue of allergenic peanut genes in foods was addressed
in FDA guidelines as far back as 1992. One can do it-- but labeling to
the effect is required.



Even traditional plant breeding can have unintended consequences
There are plenty of examples of mistakes being made, including for example
a mistake that could have produce a world wide famine with the failure of
genes used worldwide for hybrid corn production. Traditional plant breeding at
least has the safeguard, in most crop cases, of 10 to 15 years between the
original cross and the final contact with a large number of consumers.

Today one can GM incorporate, for example, allergenic peanut proteins into
potatoes. Would that be safe?
Today one can incorporate genes coding for alkaloids or many other
drugs into bananas or cassava. Should we do it?
Should we deny percentages of pollination by wind and insects even in
cases where the crop species is not open pollinated?
Should we deny crosspolinization between many crops and many of their
wild weedy relatives?
Should we deny the impossibility of gene recall?
And what about the tools of Genetic modification?
Who is going to guarantee their safe use?

You argue that we have not seen the deleterious effects of GM crops.
That is difficult to prove and getting more difficult to prove by the
day.
One can visually detect the first drop of milk in a cup of tea, but
once the cup of tea has that first few drops of milk, one can not easily
detect any additional milk. The background 'noise' does not let us
see any obvious changes. Allergies are in the increase and we do not
why. Asthma is in the increase too. Is it an increase in cat population
or is it the sneak GM of the omnipresent soybean. or is it because
traditional breeding has modified wheat proteins so much that they
do not resemble the old cereal?
Is a world with no safguards, privatized, with laws written by monsanto
and Kraft foods, and with engineers and wallstreet salesmen that often
fool even people that once in a while read a science article or two and
that have totally lobotomized a US population that has less scientific
understanding than the europeans during the middle ages.