SAFE: You may have been criticised for your scientific reasoning in other threads, but I hardly think that it constitutes an ‘attack’. If a university student was criticised by a professor for voicing an ill formed opinion because it was clear that he had no read the literature that opinion was about, and was also clear that the student had limited background in the subject, in this case toxicology and feeding experiments, then would that constitute an attack? Or merely a criticism?

As to why they do not feed rats 100% GM corn, I think it wise for you to read the original paper, I will paste some from the materials and methods (from Hammond et al 2004, same as in Hammond et al 2006):

“Diets containing test, control and reference control grain were formulated by Purina TestDiet (Richmond, IN) to be nutritionally and compositionally comparable to PMI Certified Rodent LabDiet®, 3 5002. Many toxicology laboratories use this diet in rodent feeding studies. Roundup Ready corn, control, and reference control grains were ground and added to diets at levels of approximately 33% w/w, the standard incorporation rate for Certified Rodent LabDiet 5002. Roundup Ready corn and control corn were also added to diets at 11% w/w to assess any potential dose-response of effects that might be observed at the 33% dietary level. To be consistent with all the other diets in the study, corn grain supplied by Purina TestDiet was added at 22% w/w to the 11% w/w corn grain diets to bring the total corn grain content up to 33% w/w, consistent with other diets. Following diet preparation, samples of all diets were analysed (Covance Laboratories, Madison, WI, USA) to confirm formulated diets met PMI specifications for certified 5002 rodent diet.”

cont'd....

It has to pointed out that Seralini et al did not actually find anything themselves, they just reinterpreted the data from Hammond et al. because to quote from their own acknowledgements: “This work was supported by Greenpeace Germany who, in June 2005, won the Appeal Court action against Monsanto, who wanted to keep the data confidential.”

So they get the data, then try and put a different interpretation on it, by looking at body weights over the whole study. However in the original study it was pointed out that the rate of body weight difference happened at week 3, with a slight decrease in week 4, and then no change in the rate of increase was observed. However, the slight increase in week 3 changed the totals over the whole experiment and was not considered biologically significant because the two events were in opposite directions and the increase was not considered biologically significant. That is the trend (for 1 week!) failed to continue, even if it threw the data out slightly. This was not controlled for in the Seralini analysis and the European Commission that reviewed the Seralini paper concluded that it was flawed:

To quote the main conclusions from the European Commission:
• The statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations. The assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results.
• EFSA considers that the paper does not present a sound scientific justification in order to question the safety of MON 863 maize.
• Observed statistically significant differences reported by Monsanto, Séralini et al., and EFSA, were considered not to be biologically relevant. In the absence of any indications that the observed differences are indicative of adverse effects, the GMO Panel does not consider that this paper raises new issues with respect to the safety of MON 863 maize. Therefore, the GMO Panel sees no reason to revise its previous Opinions that the MON 863 maize would not have an adverse effect in the context of its proposed use.

This should be after my first post:

In other words, for it to count, they have to be nutritionally similar or the results are meaningless. Rats, like humans are omnivores and 100% corn diets are not nutritionally balanced. You could not even possibly determine proper differences (even in humans) if they were fed on a 100% diet, because they would all be suffering from dietary deficiencies after a couple of weeks! The results would NOT “be multiplied x4” at all, in fact I would be surprised if even the controls survived the full 90 days.

While all this sciency talk might not convince you of anything, it should give you pause before commenting on scientific data that you obviously do not understand. It probably won’t though, because I have “serious concerns” over your sincerity about “not always being a non-GM person” (whatever that is supposed to mean, were you ever a pro-GM person?). I am also a consumer and I think that any technological advance that reduces the amount of pesticide residues on my food and in the environment the better!

Anyways, can we stop banging on about MON863?

I wonder what would happen,if the government would just stamp out ALL GM production here in Oz, and advertise to the world that we are GM free. I'll tell you what will happen..1.The consumers (this is what it is all about) will be very very happy! Farmers are supposed to look after there own country first and then what crop is left over should be put into a Co-op for export.Not the otherway around like "export-dollars" focussed.Old fields can be turned around to organics.
2. The world will knock our doors down for our quality products because they will be eventually healthier then mass produced/chem.fertilised crap what is on the local market now.
One only has to take a Brix measure to any store and see the difference in readings.

...and coming back to the discussion headline I would prefer to get unscientific and common consumers' views on this subject as people in the science world can outspeak non-learneth folks any time and never stop argueing about con or pro sumsing:-)
People who are in the field of science are still in the minority and people wanting to stay healthy as "nature intended" are the majority, so as nature tells you: majority rules!

Safe, I took you through part of the MON 863 study on another thread answering you questions about how much GM was fed to the rats and why the “differences” found were unimportant. I even pointed you to the original data that Monsanto has posted. You have simply come here repeating the same points. This study looked at a whole host of measurements of rats fed diets of GM corn. That there were a few differences is to absolutely expected, given the number of measurements made. However, there were no differences that were outside the range of normal responses, nor any that followed a dose response. Hence the conclusion that there was Mon 863 was safe. This conclusion was supported by EFSA and re-supported after their examination of Seralini’s paper.

With respect to BT cotton, you seem to be repeating old, debunked rumours about the crop. Today, more than 60% of cotton in the US is BT, and over 80% in Australia. If all the claims you are repeating about the crop are true, why are farmers continuing to plant it?