"My Great Big List of Studies - Intro"
There is a list of studies on the "Biofortified.org" website that is frequently misrepresented. As of yesterday, 18 Sep 2013, the list on their "Studies for GENERA" page held 600 entries. 
Promoters of GM food and crops tend to cite this list as an enormous collection of studies demonstrating the human food safety of commercial GM crops. I begin this new series of posts to show that this list demonstrates nothing of the kind.
In fact, there has never been a study looking to see if GM food (of any single or combined exposures to GM lines, approved or rogue) has been safe to eat, or not. Not one. Indeed our food regulator here in Australia, FSANZ, has given the responsibility of post-marketing studies to the patent holders of the GM crops, Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Du Pont, Syngenta et al.  Given that such a study would prove their own liability (should an adverse finding be indicated) I'm not expecting one soon.
Statements of GM food safety are often accompanied by claims that some "trillions of GM meals" have been eaten without any demonstration of harm. This is a false statement, as detailed by Earth Open Source's "GMO Myths and Truths" . Indeed, browsing our hospital databases  reveals dramatic escalation in hospitalisation for life threatening allergy, immune and gastrointestinal disorders from the mid 1990's commensurate with the entry of GM products into the global trade lines.* The Australian Medical Association has policy resolutions calling for full labelling of GM foods and for an alert system whereby medical practitioners can notify authorities if they believe a reaction to consumption of a genetically modified or other novel food may have taken place.  But neither of these things have been achieved in Australia.
In contrast to such a specific evaluation of cause, effect, safety and/or a comparative quantified risk, the list of 600 studies is a random collection on the general topic. It contains a number of animal production studies performed by the GM companies, these presumably to demonstrate to the meat industries that their animals will survive to slaughter with an acceptable meat product. A number of the studies on the list report changes, findings of harm, or findings that contradict assumptions made by regulators when they approved GM food for consumption. There are studies on experimental GM crops that produced adverse health outcomes in animals. Other 'studies' are opinion based discussions founded on a priori assumptions, their validity yet to be demonstrated. Some are simply irrelevant to human food safety.
I have been looking at this list for some years and formed a view that it is not the studies themselves that are of importance to the GM promoters, but rather, the size of the list, as though The Bigger One's List the more power it wields. At various stages I have been through the complete list as it stood at the time, including the list of studies described as 'independent', noting and cataloguing their contents. I have written in the public space on this subject before.  It is time for a renewed effort and this blog signals my intention to publicly go through the studies on this list one by one, explaining what they report, until such a time as it is well understood that the "Studies for GENERA" list does not demonstrate the human food safety of commercial GM food crops.
In the meantime this book chapter "Is GM food safe to eat" is an excellent, cool logic, easy read discussion of the food safety and epidemiological risk issues before us. 
FAQ: Is post market monitoring of GM foods undertaken?
“There are currently no official mechanisms for monitoring the long-term impacts of GM foods in Australia.” The GM companies are expected to “monitor for existing and emerging risks” of their products."
 Particular reference to Section 3.5 http://earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods/3-5-myth-no-one-has-ever-been-made-ill-by-a-gm-food
 Policy Resolutions 7730-4-07 and 7730-5-07
*Update: This sentence may be ambiguous. I didn't present the hospital statistics to imply cause, but firstly to provide the warrant for concern and the need for investigation, and secondly to fend off anticipated claims (made in the absence of any evidence) that GM foods have not caused harm.
Commentaries to date: