I think a lot of the problem is that people are very disconnected from agriculture, and tend towards having little knowledge of basic botany. Agriculture has become so successful over the past century (in developed countries anyway) that we've gone from having half the population engaged in farming to less than 2%.
And to the extent they know anything about agriculture, it's entirely anecdote-driven and usually disconnected from the broader reality. I'm a big supporter of local organic family farms (seriously - there's a farmer's market across the street once a week), but I'm also self-aware enough to realize that my upper-middle-class buying habits are not representative of how most of the world is (or will be) fed. (And, just to be clear, I'm also totally comfortable eating GMO food, and would even preferentially buy GMO products to support them - which reminds me, I need to find some of that new fake cheese.)
I have no problem if people want to label things as non-GMO voluntarily, and they are free to do that just like they are free to label things as kosher, halaal, vegan, ect. But I do not agree with forcing it.
I agree that the labeling drive is misleading and unfair, but I'd rather err on the side of more information and more democracy than less, and I'm never comfortable seeing companies buy the laws they want. This is one case where Monsanto actually deserves the slime being flung at them. I also think that not nearly enough information about legally-mandated testing (not just GMOs, but especially pharmaceuticals) is made public, and this is sometimes to the detriment of the public. (This is as much a scientific gripe as a public-interest one: the fact that so much primary data of all types is disorganized or simply unavailable, plus the added insult of the scientific literature being mostly paywalled, is a constant frustration.)
I think this is ultimately a battle that can only be won in the long term, and only by patience and accepting the rules of the game. I'm confident that in the long term (especially as science advances), the environmental and commercial benefits of GMOs will prove so overwhelming - and the supposed health risks non-existent - that the dreaded label will be no more frightening than "may contain traces of wheat products". We're doing far more damage to ourselves and the environment by our continued over-consumption of meat products, which just keeps getting worse as more countries rise out of poverty and chase the dream of bacon cheeseburgers for everyone. Sooner or later we're going to need to find a middle ground: look ahead fifty years, and imagine that you can pay $30 [adjusted for inflation] per pound for lean ground beef, or $3/pound for something that looks and tastes exactly like lean ground beef, but with less cholesterol, made out of GMO'd yeast protein. Which do you think most people are going to buy?