Probably. I'm not one to stand behind artificial food products or the shenanigans of big business, but in this case I think there may be no or little risk.
Most of the stuff we eat even outside of GMO has been genetically manipulated (some people say "modified", but I think using that term is s stretch) by selective breeding of plants, domestication of animals, hormone and antibiotic injections, etc. Wheat is nothing like the original plant. Corn is nothing like the original plant. Bananas, oranges, seedless watermelons, etc. etc. are very different from what they originated from.
Adding artificial ingredients to a food, I can see as harmful, but splicing genes in from another creature? I don't think whatever chemicals are produced in the plant by doing this are going to be comparable to lab-made chemicals like Aspartame or partially hydrogenated oils. It's not like you can just create genes to create whatever chemical you want, I think because the thing is biological what it creates is still going to be germane to biological materials, which are mainly harmless (short of poison or something).
Although I will say that just because we *can* do this and there's little tangible risk, doesn't necessarily mean we *should*. Erik Medhus has some interesting things to say about it, here's a couple of excerpts:
"I know one thing. They believe that GMO food is better than organic, because they�re able to make a plant that shuns the insect away so you don�t have to use pesticides. They want the plant to have more vitamins. But what they�re not taking into consideration is that the natural evolution of this plant is paralleling the natural evolution of the human�s needs."
"So, what we�re doing is shaping how the plants are growing and what the trees are doing�shaping and growing, what the Earth needs, the Earth is giving to us. We�re all giving energetically to each other, though. We�re not so conscious of the effort that�s happening. So what�s ruining us is that our minds are telling us, �Well, we can go ahead and take you and make you better.�"
[In response to "Well what�s wrong with genetically modifying them so that they resist insects? (Pause) Then you don�t have to use pesticides! What�s wrong with that?"]: "Well the reason we have to use pesticides is because we started investing in farmers who have thousands of fucking acres, so they don�t have the people that can actually grow it organically. What happened to 5-acre farms all over the fucking place where people could manage it, turn a dime over"
So the best alternative to pesticides is not GMO, it's paying a few extra bucks for food that's actually tended to in a careful way--that is, organic--rather than trying to get the cheapest deal on mass-manufactured daily sustenance..
Erik also says that we can't digest the chemicals that GMO foods produce properly. That wouldn't surprise me, if there is an issue with our assimilating the product that's not as serious or poisonous as the artificial stuff they put in our foods but still poses a problem.
I guess another possible problem with GMO foods is that the crops that are resistant to insects could take over the earth and then those insects and their part of the food chain will die..