Some recent findings make me think the answer might be "yes." First, farmers in India have had amazing success increasing crop yields using a method called System of Root Intensification (SRI), showing that we don't need GMOs to "get on with feeding the world" (to use Mark Lynas's phrase). Second, it seems as though most GMO crops really don't have higher yields after all, and pesticide and herbicide use continues to increase, not decrease, with GMOs. In other words, GMOs aren't living up to their promises.
On the political front, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration extended the comment period another 60 days for AquaBounty's proposed genetically engineered salmon, apparently in response to overwhelming opposition to their approval. And in addition to a number of state labeling efforts (including, not surprisingly, Alaska), there is now some movement in the U.S. Congress as well.
I use these bits of good news to cheer myself up in spite of much bigger environmental concerns: not yet knowing whether President Obama will live up to his State of the Union promises and ban the Keystone XL Pipeline and anger at the failure to protect polar bears from greenhouse gas pollution under the Endangered Species Act.
edited to add P.S.: And how could I have forgotten to mention this past weekend's protest over the Pipeline in Washington, D.C., with over 35,000 in attendance? At least there is an upswelling of activism concerning climate change. Even the Sierra Club got into the act!