I'm not going to argue the validity of any scientific studies, as I am not a scientist myself and this is not a black and white issue. I never said and don't believe all GMO food is bad and evil, yet, as I already mentioned I think consumers should be allowed to decide if they want to eat it or not and thus support GMO labeling.
Although I just pulled up that one article, my position that there are studies showing health problems from some of the GMO is based on a meeting of American Cancers Society a few months ago which I attended with my dad who is a Cardiologist and Internal Medicine doctor and member and part time speaker and cancer survivor. If you like, I can find out exactly which studies they presented and discused as I believe the Physicians there would be much better authorities on validity of studies than me or you. At the end of the day, the consensus among most of scientific community is that the time that has passed since GMO food has been out is not long enough to know what long term effects may be. I see you discounting the studies that have shown issues with animals tested, but keep in mind, animal testing is a standard for predicting human reactions. If I remember correctly, different animals are used to test different organs, for instance I believe pigs are used for digestive system related experiments. Also animals are used for their shorter life cycle because possible long term effects show up faster in them.
At the end of the day, The issue is not an all GMO is bad black/white type issue, but more of a grey issue and it seems the roundup ready crops are the ones that raise the biggest immediate concerns and there are studies already documenting issues.
Please do find the articles you mentioned from the meeting you attended as I am legitimately curious what the findings were. Alternatively, if you give me the meeting name/year I can just look up the abstracts and follow up that way.
The consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of GMOs being safe, but I'm curious about the cancer meeting you've attended. I've talked to many ag researchers on the subject, and I've read quite a bit of the literature, and I've found no evidence of bt crops/the process being unsafe.
I don't discount animal model studies at all - I discount the 2 studies your link quoted because 1 has been retracted from the article because the authors basically faked their results and the second used inadequate and terrible statistical methods and, according to researchers that actually study pig inflammation, used poor categorizing. They also published specific images (which you can see in this thread) that are incredibly bias and misleading because they didn't show the healthy pigs that also had bad inflammation. My problem is with THOSE studies, not with animal studies.
If you want to say there may be issues with pesticide X or Y, or that maybe growth hormones may be a problem, sure, fine, go for it. But to wholesale condemn GMO foods - and then link to an article that cites retracted and discredited scientific studies - is exactly the problem with this argument. I do not have a problem with GMO labeling but the anti-GMO crowd has done a good job at whipping up hysteria.
Frankly, I'd like to take labeling a step further. Why not label everything that isn't exactly as it occurs in nature? You'd be left with, what, blueberries? Heh.