Well, most of the criticism don't apply to, e.g. golden rice, which could improve the food security and nutrition for a billion people, including preventing severe deficiencies that cause blindness.
> associated with strain patenting
strain patenting isn't really a GM-vs-non-GM issue. As to golden rice-- sure, it's patented, but it's also licensed in a way that most of the people cultivating it wouldn't pay any license fees.
> seedless plants
Golden rice isn't seedless.
> because they contaminate neighbouring organic plots with non-organic DNA
Because of how rice is cultivated and the fact that it self-pollinates, the potential for this is extremely limited.
> because they are often sold in conjunction with herbicides
Not the case here.
> frankly, because I hate the way their lobbyists act on our legislators.
Here, there's not much desire to cultivate it "here", though obviously governments abroad do need to approve it. The amount of pro-gm lobbying here is limited, though, because there's really just not much direct fiscal interest in approval (licensing it gratis and letting farmers retain seed neuters that).
Of course, there's some, in part from the desire for an opportunity to show GM as wholesome.