Rob from Canada, you have missed the point.
Yes, FSANZ claimed that GM canola oil was safe but they did not do any animal feeding studies on the oil which is the part consumers eat.
The remaining meal is stock feed and testing was ignored because FSANZ has no authority over stockfeed. The increase in liver weights was blamed on glucosinolates yet no reason was given why the glucosinolates were higher in the GM canola.
An earlier response to Country gal: the countries I mentioned that do aerial spray glyphosate do not have the same regulation that we have. Yes, we could sue farmers for spray drift, they can't because it is not regulated. Your anger against anyone coming up with any debate against GM is obvious with your comment: "To pull this one out of a bag suggests that you have little experience in agricultural spraying and the restrictions and liabilities that exist."
We did contract crop spraying for almost 20 years and I am well aware of the regulations in Australia. I was explaining the lack of regulation in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay

Re non-gm farmer and testing of GM canola oil.

The analysis of the constituents of GM canola oil showed it can be exactly replicated by a blend of non-GM canola oils.

With the low proportion of canola oil in healthy diets whether human or rat any further testing would see any results irrelevant as the larger proportion of the test diet (the non-oil part)would be the determinate of the eventual results.

These facts see any further animal tests as a waste, which will prove nothing. This is sound science well known to food safety authorities world wide and explains the absence of calls from them for further testing of gm oils cotton or canola

Non-GM farmer, a reason was given why glucosinolates were different in the GM canola feed in the rat feeding study. The difference resulted from “variation in the degree of processing of the GM and non-GM canola seed used in the second study, leading to differences in the levels of glucosinolates in the meal fraction” It says so clearly in FSANZ’s response to Greenpeace and others’ claims. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2004/gmcanolasafetyassess2498.cfm I am sure I have mentioned this to you once before and directed you to this document. Oh yes I have: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=827&page=0 Given you know that differences in processing were involved, why do you keep claiming GM canola gas more glucosinolates?

As for testing oil, For Choice has it exactly correct. You can relatively easily measure all the components of oil and show that oil from GM and non-GM sources are the same. Unless you believe in homeopathy, there is nothing different there to test.

If independent tests were done, I am sure they would process both GM and non-GM the same and that they would do animal feeding tests on the oil because that is the bit that humans eat. Because FSANZ has no authority over stock feed, meal escapes regulation.
Wouldn't it make sense to do the tests that consumers want rather than try to use any excuse to avoid them?
Avoiding the tests only makes consumers suspicious and wary.