Do we need to change our food?

Throughout the history there always were cases of fearful reception of the revolutionary inventions of all kinds. The railway was once seen as 'a devil serpent'. The microchips are still considered a secret project against humanity by numerous people and, for example, sects claiming that the people are being microchipped and tracked for evil purposes. To say more, even the vaccines were nearly abandoned in days of their invention, and the anti-vaccine societies still exist; the Edward Jenner's invention was said to have a wide range of various, sometimes just opposite hazardous effects, being even claimed to produce deformities on human beings. Doesn't this recall anything from the modern day? Ah, the GMOs.

A famous sarcastic drawing depicting the fear of vaccination, 1802

/One of the non-sarcastic agitational drawings against the GMOs, 20XX/
There are already a lot of entries on this blog (but not in the rest of Internet) supporting this invention, so I'm going to concentrate on the opponents of genetical modification. Let's examine the GMO counterarguments and learn something about the counterarguments supporters.

Scientific studies

One of the popular trends is to publish a research proving that GMO has negative effects on the nature. The most famous one was done by Á. Pusztai and then G. E. Séralini, accusing GM maize and potatoes of producing problems with healts or even causing cancer on rats. Both works were examined and there were serious errors found in the scientific study procedure.
Despite all of this, the most famous 'scientific' GMO-protester in Russia is D.Sc Irina Ermakova can be seen nearly on all TV channels supporting the anti-GM movements proving the harm of the new invention by the studies mentioned above lots of similar ones including her own. In this study I. Ermakova says that GM soya has proven to have all the kinds of bad effects on mice, including reproduction system diseases and 52% death rate. Surely this job was carefully examined by the scientific society and some obvious mistakes were found. And surely Irina Ermakova keeps up neglecting all these counterarguments, just as Pusztai, Séralini and all the 'anti-GM scientifics' do. Nevertheless, the European Commission after a 10-year research has stated that

The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.

This statement clearly has no effect on Irina Ermakova (and russian TV companies) who is continuing appearing on TV screens protesting against GM alongside with supporting her theory of men being ancestors of hermaphodite amazonites