EFTFNC, I did already take a look for Ermakova's publications on the GM study and found, surprise surprise- there are none! Just press releases, letters etc....it's like an urban myth that keeps getting repeated over and over again. If it had potential, why didn't Greenpeace (or Gene Ethics or any other anti-GM groups for that matter) sponsor her to do a properly controlled trial? Perhaps it has something more to do with advertising and memberships than actual science?

And if you prefer to read "scientific reports" from way back to present, then at least have the decency to be up-to-date with them and read actual science reports, not political websites like those you have directed us to.

I am not on the payroll of any pest control/chemical company, but if they pay handsomely then do you know who to contact to get on it? I'm giving this stuff away for free here! (D'OH!)

Oh, and thanks Agronomist for the links, I was beginning to wonder about the ISIS website when they couldn't make the distinction between protozoa and fungus (when discussing Colony Collapse Disorder)!

The high death rates in the (non-GM) control groups of Ermakova's experiments are abnormal - 10 to 15-fold greater than in well run labs. They indicate her general lab conditions are unsuitable for rats and that animal ethics oversight is appropriate. In simple terms, this is lab cruelty, and whether or not the GM rations are causing deaths is not established. PETA should be called in to argue for more humane lab conditions.

The use of such low numbers of rats also prevents useful conclusions. The standard practice is to used groups of 20 rats. Statistics on low numbers has little power to answer questions of causes.

Agronomist:
Of one of your sites (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=11319) suggested:
"6 One potential application of GM technology is to
improve the nutritional quality of crops."

(Yep that is just suggesting, we need more money for research)

It is possible that GM technology could lead to unpredicted harmful
changes in the nutritional status of foods (MRC, 2000).
Such alterations might also occur in the course of
conventional breeding.
Nutritional assessments are made as part of the safety assessment of GM crops,( Where is the unbiased research?)
but more detailed guidelines would be beneficial.(would be?)
Vulnerable groups such as infants need special
guidelines. To date no GM food for use in infant
products has been submitted for approval.(to right is it not?) Detailed guidelines and legislation already exist for infant
formulas and follow-on foods but it is not clear how
they interact with GM food regulations. Therefore we
recommend that both the Government and the
European Commission should ensure that these two
sets of regulations are complementary. Guidelines such
as those described by COMA (1996) for nutritional
assessment of infant formulas and more recently by
Aggett et al. (2001) should be adopted for both novel
and GM foods.
7 There is at present no evidence that GM foods cause
allergic reactions.( Is that so? How about those people and animals of poorer farming communities of India dying?) The allergenic risks posed by GM plants are in principle no greater than those posed by
conventionally derived crops or by plants introduced
from other areas of the world.(Yeh right.Is that what you believe?)
One shortcoming (Oh really? I call it a disaster)in current screening methods, which applies to both conventional and GM foods, is that there is no formal assessment of the allergenic risks posed by inhalation of pollen and dusts. We therefore recommend that
current decision trees be expanded to encompass inhalant as well as food allergies.
See next:

from previous:
8 Plant viral DNA sequences are commonly used in the
construction of the genes inserted into GM plants, and concern has been expressed about this.
Having reviewed the scientific evidence we conclude that the
risks to human health associated with the use of
specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible.(Does this count when Nano-tech. is applied as well)
9 One concern associated with GM foods is the possibility that genes introduced into GM plants might become incorporated into the consumer’s genetic make-up. (So here it is)
Since the Royal Society’s 1998 report various
The Royal Society Genetically modified plants for food use and human health—an update | February 2002| 3
Of course this an old report.Where is the NEW report? Why does it take so long to appear on that site?
This was the newest report from just one site.

But coming back to the original question: It doesn't say where you stand on this,would you feed it unknowingly to your family and take the risk of distroying your progeny and altering micro-organisms and unbalancing earth whilst you are at it?

It's a timely article.

Recently I was surprised to be told by a powerfull member of the very pro GM Victorian Farmers' Federation that, "If you are not pro GM, you either know nothing about the science, or you're a F..k Wit!!" .

There is plenty of interesting reading on the www.ofa.org.au website to give me at least some reluctance to go with the pro GM stance at this point of research knowledge.

Most farmers want to cut down on hebicide and increase production but how to do it in a responsible manner, with no dangerous long term environmental and health consequences may mean it will take more time for the research to be done thoroughly and then considered carefully.

It looks as though the VFF have closed their inquiring ? minds on Genetically Modified crops and by GM feed ingestion, the changed status of the animals that eat the GM crops and residues .

This is not good for Australia .

And just Who will pick up the Tab for compensation if there is accidental contamination of your "Clean Green " conventional or organic crop be it in the paddock or on the wharf?

Certainly not the Federal or State Governments , Monsanto or the VFF.

The Organic Farmers of Australia site for their side of the GM story is http://www.ofa.com.au
cheers.