The alternative is to grow your own food. Life in the modern world entails a certain amount of trust. I'm not talking about blind faith - that can be dangerous.
I'm not saying it's impossible that GMO's could in some way be harmful, but the best we can do is let real world results and scientific research dictate our behavior and our policies. And let's not make the mistake of labeling coincidental events, cause and effect. People like to offer personal health anecdotes, and arrive at conclusions that confirm their suspicions. What leads to health or illness in humans can rely on a number of factors, and what you eat is only part of it.
The problem with labeling is that none of us know what to do with that information. Purchasing decisions will be made based on prejudices, not knowledge. I'd rather know where something was grown, the soil conditions, air pollution levels in the area, levels of bad stuff in the water used to irrigate, etc. Whether or not soy is genetically modified is of no use scientifically to a consumer, although it might be of some use politically and emotionally. Sorry, but this is where I have to invoke, a little knowledge/information is worse than none.
What bothers me about the GS analysis, is that they're treating the biodiesel and the tax credit, almost as if this revenue and profit don't count. I don't see it that way. The money is real, and no the tax credit won't last forever, but it reflects current market conditions. Darling also faces headwinds (the company mentions this in their earnings release) that reflect current market conditions, that also won't last forever. I'm just striving for a little balance in the long term analysis.