I think you're over-estimating how many species suddenly gain new genes from other genuses. But that is sort of beside my point: you say carefully crafted and I agree. But carefully crafted to be healthy and ecologically sound or to be profitable? We don't need more profitable unhealthy food.

So what am I meant to do, personally review every piece of GMO at a genetic level for changes that I do not want? or just decline the lot?

And who should have the right to tell me I don't get to know what I am eating?

I am sure there are at least some luddites who just fear the new. But that does not address the actual points raised here and you can't dismiss the real questions because the people asking them are standing next to hippies...

Not a single thing ever been done to make backyard crossbreeding be 'ecologically sound' or healthy.

You don't know what you are eating now. It's not substantially different. That's my point, and one that folks are resistant to accepting. No surprise: they're resistant to any change in their notions.

You're getting tied up in contradictions again.

If the old food was no different to the new food then why change it? If it is different then I want to know and I want the right to opt out.

Similarly, we are changing the nutritional content because that is the point. But I don't need to worry because it will be the same nutritionally as the old food. So what is the point.

This is where we are losing each other. If there is no difference why bother? If there is, I want to know all the details and have the opportunity to opt out. That is not unreasonable right?