Vrindavan,
I do feel uncomfortable about "laboratory" produced foods, but there's one thing that I can't get clear in my mind in this "Genetic Engineering" debate, and that is how you would define "genetic engineering" in a legally sustainable way.
In the broadest sense, genetic engineering has been going on for millennia: it isn't something new. Farmers have always taken the strongest / meatiest / <whatever desirable property> animals and used them to breed for the next generation, thereby, they hope, meaning that the next generation has more of the desirable property. They have also used cross-breeding - mules are the best pack animals and they are "mutants" (cross-breeds created by getting two different animals to mate, thereby injecting the genes of a donkey into the genes of a horse).
Similarly with plants, people created bigger, redder tomatoes by grafting plants together in the greenhouse long before people got upset about it.
Almost all of the meat and most of the vegetables we eat today have been subject to this type of genetic engineering.
So where do you draw the line? That is my question.