It's not a good look. The fact is, the issue that is at the heart of this is commercial confidentiality about many of the processes that are employed in the creation of GMO products. Because it is confidential, the only studies that get released by the GMO creators are ones they they view as successful.
The only way to resolve this is to require all studies to be independently conducted and all research to be publicly available, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Therefore the only solution to adequately determine the safety of these products is expensive. Which is why no one does it. Until this requirement is legislated we will continue rolling dice.
Yes. There is a good saying "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.".
The continued success of GM research and their commercial interests depend heavily on positive opinions and outcomes. It should be simple to see that this can lead to suppression of negative issues.
You can also realize from this that something else can happen; over-promotion of positive outcomes and projections.
Once you start to analyze the GM landscape with these ideas in mind, you start to understand and see that the discourse is currently heavily biased towards promoting only one side of the coin.
The only way to resolve this is to require all studies to be independently conducted and all research to be publicly available, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Therefore the only solution to adequately determine the safety of these products is expensive. Which is why no one does it. Until this requirement is legislated we will continue rolling dice.