obviously the GMO papaya has less of the ringspot virus--that's why it was created in the first place. The issues are when man plays with science in ways that we just don't know about. Maybe it's fine to eat a salmon that is crossed with something else, but then again, maybe it's a huge health risk. Many diseases are now out of control, and many people have food allergies now...not saying it's because of GMOs, but I am leery.
For me, it also involves a general lack of trust toward corporations to do the right thing (not just the cheapest thing). For example, Roundup ready seeds were not created to better the quality of corn....just the laziest way possible--by dumping WAY more roundup on the fields. So, they in essence, are spending billions on products that will cause people to use more pesticides/herbicides in a much more reckless manner. It's also a trade-off because then the farmer must buy RR seeds EVERY YEAR because they aren't allowed to collect them (nor ar they viable). So a corporation took a seed that would reproduce each year and turned it into a cash cow for them (on the front end with seeds each year and on the back end with tons more roundup sold), but it isn't healthier for consumers...just more profitable. Add to it, the fact that, as a corporation, their job is to use whatever chemicals are safe until they are proven unsafe and toxic (ie. DDT which was great until it was found not to be great at all). Who's to say glycophosphate (sp?) isn't really bad for our health, and we'll find out after the fact.
Now, maybe all this is completely overblown....but then again, maybe it's a good idea
On top of that, as was mentioned previously, you can't keep it contained to just one farmer's land--thus tarnishing the OP seeds that people have collected for thousands of years. I'm not cool with all these concerns just so I can have a papaya that doesn't get ringspot virus (plus in a few years it will be susceptible to whatever comes next (like diabetes medicine that may solve the insulin issues, but make a heart attack more likely--just saying problems are usually multi-faceted and need more than a singular solution to a specific problem (ie. ringspot virus).
Now, having said all that, I don't feel like ranting against GMOs all the time, BUT...
I think it is criminal that one can sell a scientist experiment to consumers without their knowledge. America is the home of toxic chemicals, but the very LEAST we could do is be honest and stop trying actively (through PR, junk science, political contributions, lobbying, etc) keep consumers in the dark.
I think it all depends on whom one trusts: science-generated (mutated) living things that are created to boost profits or seeds that are collected and bred naturally, over the course of time by caretakers of the Earth. Depending on how one views this choice, that is likely to influence their decision on whether GMOs are harmless or the next scourge.