I think this is also a scientific attitude. The popularity of any science, technology and theory means that they have solved some problems.
Scientific progress is the process of constantly asking questions and solving them. We might as well ask the question of "the safety of genetically modified crops" now, instead of assuming that it is harmful or harmless first, and then let the other party prove it. If there is a problem, it must be solved. To do biological experiments, biological experiments do not mean that anyone who has eaten genetically modified diarrhea can jump to conclusions. Biological experiments need parallelism, controllability and strict experimental design.
Up to now, no research team has proved that genetically modified crops are harmful to animals through a number of parallel experiments with blank controls. Of course, no one dares to say that genetically modified products must be harmless to animals, and there is no evidence, so this problem remains to be solved. I hope that the opposing fighters can come up with some real experimental data, instead of guessing that Lao Wang's prostatitis next door is due to eating genetically modified bananas.
Personally, I know nothing about biology. However, from a chemical point of view, neither DNA nor protein can be directly absorbed by the human body through the digestive tract because macromolecules cannot be transported across the membrane. Therefore, as long as there are only four base pairs of ATCG in deoxynucleotides and the encoded amino acids are common amino acids, when they enter the digestive tract, both DNA and protein will be hydrolyzed into small molecular building blocks by corresponding enzymes, and then transported across the membrane and absorbed by the human body. So in this case, what does it matter whether you eat genetically modified organisms or not?