Thanks for the link. The article is way more specific than the wall of text you linked earlier, though many of my questions are still unanswered, and some answers that I found are actually in contradiction to what you said earlier. Here are the answers that I cpuld derive from the article you linked:


1. Who exactly are the "they" that made the tests?

A group of researchers from the Rowett Institute in Scotland, led by Arpad Pusztai. This is scientific institute, so the research was not done by some weirdos in a garage who later claim to be scientists and get latched on by the press (it does happen, unfortunately).


2. Who funded the tests?

UK government, through a research grant. The objective was apparently not to test whether genetically mutated food was healthy, but to develop a genetically mutated potato which produced its own insecticide.

However, the potato was developed by the institute itself. Monsanto had nothing to do with this potato.


3. In which peer-reviewed science journals were the results published?

None. This is a pretty bad sign. According to the article, "parts" of the results were published in The Lancet. The Lancet is a peer-reviewed and pretty reliable scientific journal, but I don't see any data about which results had been published and which had not.

So, an undeterminedly large part of the whole claim is based on data that apparently never got published, and never went through any peer review.

The fact that this _still_ gets published as a "scientific study" without even a caveat is sad, but doesn't really surprise me. The press has rarely been particularly selective in such cases.


4. What happened to the mice who got fed "natural" potatos?

There is no information about that in the article. It's probable that they didn't show the symptoms observed in the experimental group, but in a scientific article, such data needs to be stated clearly. It's missing here.


5. Were the mouse populations in the experimental group and in the experimental group comparable, and which precautions were taken to assure that?

There is no information about that in the article. Again, we can "assume" that experimental group and control group were selected properly, since this is a very basic procedure in scientific research, and the research was performed by trained scientists. But again, a scientific article needs to state such data clearly, and this one doesn't.


6. Which precautions where taken to prevent the organ failures to be just artifacts from the in-breeding? Which kinds post-hoc analysis were performed to assure that the cause of the malfunctions matched the hypothesis of the researchers?

There is no information about that in the article. The post-hoc analysis that _was_ performed found some anomalies, but no "organ failure", no sterility, and no multiple-generation tests at all (all of which were things you claimed). The anomalies are described, but what exactly caused them, or even which effect they had, is a matter of speculation.


7. Where are the objective results of the test, there ought to be at least some probability tests and a statistically valid comparison against the control group. Against which level of probability has the test been performed?

The results are not shown in the article. The article only mentions that "parts of the results were published in The Lancet", but fails to even mention in which volume. In science, lacking or incorrect quotation is never a good sign.


8. Did the test procedure adhere to a double-blind setup (this is an absolute necessity for tests like this)?

Sorry for repeating myself, but there's no information about that in the article.


9. Have the results been replicated by other scientists (and if yes, by whom, and where have they published their results)?

Sorry for repeating myself, but there's no information about that in the article.


So, let's sum it up:

Out of 9 questions, which are all derived from the very basics of scientific practice, only two were answered satisfactorily, one was answered in a way that raises doubt rather than proving anything, and 6 have not been addressed at all. That's not a good quota. So far, you have done little to prove your claims.

The article actually does raise some more doubt, especially with regard to the interpretation of the results. The article's reasoning is this: We have three groups of rats: one ate the mutated potato, one ate the insecticide that was introduced into the potato's DNA (but not the potato), and one ate natural potatos. Only the first group developed symptoms. This is odd, because if this data is correct, then the insecticide itself cannot be the culprit. The article then concludes that it must be _the process of changing the potato's genes_ that must be responsible for the symptoms observed in the rats. And this is where it gets weird. Because the logical conclusion, at this point, would be that _this specific potato_ was badly designed. This logical conclusion is not addressed at all, though I can see why it would be problematic for the institute to go that route (because it would mean that they wasted a 1.6 million research grant on developing a faulty product). Still, the fact that such an obvious explanation isn't addressed at all, and that instead the whole process of genetic mutation is questioned without even having an idea why and how this could have happened, raises considerable doubt.

So, in conclusion, I'm still not convinced. Most of my questions have not been answered, and the "proof" that you presented so far actually raises even more doubt. Feel free to try again though, it's an interesting topic. :)