And it's not corporations I place trust in. It's science and data.
Amd the data strongly suggests things are working out fine.
Why trust the corporate scientists who say it is perfectly safe, nothing to worry about here, rather than the other scientists who note we are taking potentially significant risks in an area we lack knowledge.
Is it scientific to be overconfident that nothing much can go wrong when we lack sufficient information to make a call?
The 'data' is not sufficient to make any call on the degree of risk presented.
1. Do we know how these GM mosquitos will adapt and evolve in the wild? No
2. Can we rule out heritable changes that make the problem worse? No
3. Do we fully understand the role of mosquitos in the ecosystem and the effect of culling large numbers of specific species? No
4. Do we know that changes in ecosystems can have significant, unintended effects? Yes
And here's and interesting thing to note. This method introducing a predator or other new species to a local environment. But lots of people are drawing that comparison.
These were examples of what may happen when people try to introduce significant changes to the food chain.
The worst example wasn't about predators, but Mao's attempt to kill all the sparrows as they were "pests" which resulted in unintended disruption to the food chain.