Are gmos good or bad?

1)This documentary was produced by the Kurzgesact channel. He begins directly by telling us that ogms are very controversial in the world of science. The debate over GMOs is intensifying when it comes to food and agriculture. We are then asked the question of What is really natural? Humans have modified plants even animals for thousands of years. Today almost all animals and plants are different from their original state. Ogms can cause vegetables to become larger than their starting point and can even prevent insects from destroying these crops so why do men worry. There is an anti-gmo argument which is a seed called Terminator. Its goal is to produce sterile plants which push farmers to buy new seeds every year. Following protests, the technology was stopped. Then we are asked the question of what food with GMO and without is the same? They tell us that plants with GMOs are no more risk than plants sprayed with equivalent products. Despite that some investigation proves the contrary. We also learn that certain ogms allow plants to produce their own pesticide which kills the insects which consume it or which is in contact with it. This is worrying because food with pesticides can be cleaned but with this kind of GMO the product is inside the plant. According to this document, it is harmless to humans. They take the example of chocolate which is bad for dogs but good for men or even coffee bad for insects but good for men. In the video we are then given examples of what good GMOs can do for example: in Bangladesh, they use GMOs to kill the insects that eat the eggplant but there is no harm to humans or farmers and there is a better income and less pesticides. In Hawaii, papaya had a virus, so with the introduction of GMOs, the virus was defeated. The "future" scientist worked on GMOs to get better food. They create rice with more vitamins, tomatoes that fight disease or plants that resist rain, water, sun.
Now plants can absorb nitrogen or carbon to slow global warming. For the last question, we learn that 99% of GMO plants can produce pesticides and are resistant to them. Scientists want to create GMOs that can improve our diet and that can withstand different climates. GMOs can help us protect our environment.
2) I am more particularly against GMOs despite the necessity of the advantages. Indeed at first these ogms contributed to the destruction of the planet which does not need that with all the others come out of the pollution generated by humans. Men would not starve a few years ago and yet he did not use this kind of product. I think that instead of using this kind of product, we have to spread agriculture better, instead of producing a lot of a single food that ended up not even being consumed. In addition to having risks on the ecology, there are risks for our health. These are the two reasons why I am against GMOs.
3) I do not agree with Julie because to say that it is the men who created the ogms is not an argument to say that they are good. Admittedly at the outset, they were created to make our lives easier, but in the end they pose risks to our health. In addition, replacing pesticides with a product that may not be better for the environment and perhaps worse for health is not a good solution.

Good work. Can you post this on the main thread, so that you see all the comments written by the others, and they can react to your work? Thank you.
It's interesting because you also comment on Julie's opinion.

! Don't talk about "ogms", in English it's GMOs.