iceaura If you have a valid point, then post it, and attach a backing reference from a reputable body. If you do not want to do that, then do not expect me to waste my time. On testing of GM foods, here is a reputable description. http://www.nepadbiosafety.net/for-regulators/resources/subjects/food-safety/testing-procedures It is necessary to establish substantial equivalence before a GM food can be approved. That is, it has to be considered as safe as an establsihed food. A GM apple would need to be seen as just as safe as a conventional apple. This 'substantial equivalence' concept is needed since some conventional foods (like potatoes) are not exactly 100% safe. So to require a GM food to be safer than its conventional counterpart would be unnecessary and unfair. To establish substantial equivalence, the following is done, and I quote. "Currently hazard identification tests routinely employed in the safety assessment for foods derived from genetically engineered plants typically include compositional analysis, toxicological and allergenicity testing (FAO/WHO, 2001). Nutritional assessment, though not a safety issue in itself is also carried out where appropriate to detect any significant unintended nutritional changes or intended nutritional modification that could affect the nutritional status of individuals consuming the food (FAO, 2008)." I am perfectly aware that anti-GM organisations and undoubtedly you as well, want GM foods to be tested to a point way beyond anything that has ever been done in the past, except for drugs. However, once substantial equivalence is demonstrated, the experts working for such organisations as the US FDA are happy. If the top experts accept it, I am not prepared to take the criticisms of non experts very seriously.