next: "...when you dismiss Puzsztai's work (considered by many in the peer review literature to be the most comprehensive and best designed of studies into the health impacts on GE)..."

I am surprised to hear it has been considered comprehensive and well-designed - I understood that bad design was one of the main bases of criticism of the Pusztai study - are you sure? Bit of a moot point now, seeing the amount of time that has passed since the study, but just for my interest and completeness of understanding of the matter, could you direct me to the statements of those in the literature who hold that view?

Actually, it is worth stressing the amount of time that has passed since the Pusztai work. In such a fast-moving research area, where breakthroughs are being made every day, work quickly gets out-dated and the Pusztai results (valid or not) are not really applicable to the technology of today - it's like arguing the results of testing the first VS Beetle against the safety aspects of a Prius!

I also notice that people are dismissing the whole field of GMOs rather than looking at individual products case-by-case. Throwing babies out with bathwater is generally not a good idea, but discarding a whole research area based on perceived results of testing one or two products is very shortsighted and unduly restrictive. It's the equivalent of saying "God, Windows [name your version] is crap; let's ban computers" or (cars again!) "Skodas are crap; we should abandon development of cars altogether".

Sciencelaw,

I don't think anyone is arguing to throw the babies out with the bathwater nor are they arguing against the merit of individual test results and case studies.

What is wanted is a more transparency in GM research and further research.

Some of the antics of the biotechs like Monsanto etal are enough to throw doubt on GM food as a whole.

You said: "It's the equivalent of saying "God, Windows [name your version] is crap; let's ban computers" or (cars again!) "Skodas are crap; we should abandon development of cars altogether".

No-one has argued: "GM is crap; let's ban food". That is what your analogy suggests.

What we are saying is "GM is crap; lets ban GM until further testing and science absolutely confirms its safety in the marketplace.

Awesome effort, Bugsy.

Without your comments there would have been a distinct lack of balance in the discussion. As it is, I get to see both sides of the debate. Thanks.

next, Pyrme and Lembke had their piece published in 2003 and used papers up to 2002. They also restricted themselves to journal literature, with the exception of a couple of pieces from Arpad Pusztai. By 2004, over 40 peer-reviewed papers where animals had been fed GM foods or food material were found in PubMed http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html
This list does not include all the studies that need to be provided to regulators. It also includes more than a dozen papers not in Pryme's list. By 2006, more than 150 studies (both animal and test tube) published in journals were collected here http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/05/full-monty-on-animal-feeding-trials-of.html
I don’t think I am far from the mark in suggesting there are over 100 studies on animals.

As for Seralini’s work, others have pointed out the statistical trap he fell into. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html

Country Gal, the composition tests of GM and non-GM oil have to be conducted for regulatory purposes. Some journal papers have been published on the topic, although most are for crops with GM changed oil profile.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/a46807h10422g042/
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a756843403~db=all

It seems that canola can cross with wild radish, but at low frequencies. Wild turnip is not a risk.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fjljdtjd514enyx1/
http://abe.dynamicweb.dk/images/files/Gene%20flow%20to%20other%20Brassiceae%20species%20report%20-%20April%2002.pdf
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/A97138.htm
http://www.jcci.unimelb.edu.au/GMCanola2007/PS%20GM%20canola%20book.pdf

What have we got after 13 years since commercial release of GM? The same two traits they started with, not false promises being fullfilled. 68% is herbicide tolerant, 19% is Bt (the crop produces its own insecticide rather than spraying it on the outside) and both 13%. Between 70-80% is Roundup Ready which means the crop is resistant to glyphosate which is happening in our weeds without us wanting it to. It took one year for enterprising drug barons to produce non-GM glyphosate tolerant coca plantations after the aerial spraying of glyphosate on illegal plantations was introduced which proves you do not need GM to produce the "benefit".
GM is an aggressive plant breeding technique where a gene from soil bacteria is forced into the DNA of plant with the assistance of viral invaders. Considering one bent gene in a human gives you Downes syndrome, it is worth considering the damage to existing genes in the DNA. It is not natural but it is different enough to gain a patent where farmers become contract growers to the patent owner.
The aim is to gain a patent over the food supply, not to provide a benefit. This is done through alliances with public and private plant breeders.

Julie, what a rant. Pity you can’t managed to get your facts correct, again. For existing commercial traits there are 5 types of herbicide resistance, at least 7 types of insect resistance, hybrid system in canola, shelf life in carnations, flower color in carnations (several traits), virus resistance in papaya (1 trait), squash (3 separate traits) and potato (2 separate traits), and delayed softening gene in tomato. The tomato and potato traits are no longer grown commercially. (US list here http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html)

As to your idea that GM “is forced into the DNA of plant with the assistance of viral invaders”, nothing could be further from the truth. The DNA is inserted using Agrobacterium (a soil bacterium that naturally inserts DNA into plant genomes) or ballistics. The only viral bits used are gene promoters (and bits of virus for virus resistant crops) and not all crops have these. http://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/Haseloff/teaching/PlantBiotech2006/page4/assets/Tzfira2006.pdf

Downs syndrome is of course trisomy for chromosome 21, not a single “bent gene”, but a whole extra chromosome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

If you can’t get simple facts like these right, why should we believe anything else you say?