I started to read the comments and really don't want to finish. I see one person defending the study (who clearly agrees with its ideological bent, though she seems honest) against a bunch of knee-jerk ideologues bent on tearing the study apart, lacing a sprinkling of good arguments through terrible arguments. The supporter, Madeline, is not correct that this is a "dosing" study, even though it in some indirect away amounts to one. As a hypothesis-driven study it is a study that compared the use of GMO and non-GMO feed as would occur in the market on farm situations, which can generalize to farm situations. Criticizing this as "uncontrolled" without noting anything positive about the design is thoroughly outrageous. Of course it detracts from the ability to make a categorical statement of comparing presence vs absence of GMOs, but its very clear strength is that it is suitable for realistic inferences about what would happen to pigs on industrial farms fed these grains purchased commercially as they generally are.