Does “organic” necessarily mean non-GMO? Personally I think GMO is great but dislike massive use of fertilizer and pesticides. And really, that’s mostly for downstream effects. I want to encourage sustainable land use and reduced environmental harm. Fine with me if we need to hack some plants to enable that.

I recognize that genetic modification is sometimes used to enable greater use of these chemicals (eg roundup ready grains).

Well in such cases, I apply the precautionary principle and do the thing that is the least risk. In this case, it's minimizing unknown chemicals in my body.

I tend to go by: 1) which side has more money to spend? 2) which side is introducing more foods/chemicals/conditions which are more different from what my ancestors evolved for?

Which is totally not a guarantee, I freely admit.

Curiously, our ancestors evolved to eat cooked, genetically modified food. Modified by selection yes, but genetically different from anything that came before.

The odd 'paleo' diet is nothing we're equipped to handle anymore. Nobody has eaten like that for 100,000 years, and we've moved on biologically?

How about taking the competing arguments at face value and evaluating them against each other? If qui bono is the only question you ask, you shut down a lot of your brain.