Which one is correct?
You have stood by your (probably bogus) data from the "Stunning Corn Comparison" on Moms Across America. Here GMO corn is compared to conventional corn-- but the GMO corn, by your data, has no nutritional value and is full of formaldehyde and glyphosate. Everyone in the anti-GM world stands by these data as valid (even though they are adulterated soil data-- we don't do those tests on biological matter).
Now, you are second author on the "GM is bad for pig stomachs" study (Carman et al, 2013, Journal of Something Obscure). In this study it is stated in Materials and Methods on page 41:
"The GM soy and corn used in this study have been determined to be compositionally and substantially equivalent to non-GM varieties of soy and corn ... which indicates that there should be no phenotypical variation between the GM and non-GM varieties used in this study that could influence the outcomes measured in this study."
Good 'Ol Howard somehow wants it both ways, depending on the results he wants the "study" to convey. Stark inconsistencies between reports are suspicious.
Seems like one of your claims, or perhaps both, are not so reliable. I'm going to go as far to say that overlooking such inconsistencies is not just potential evidence of unethical scientific behavior, it you guys can't even keep your own poor data straight.
Sorry to be so harsh, but this is getting crazy. It is annoying that those opposed to biotechnology don't notice, and don't care, but critical evaluation of science is not their strong suit.
Keep up the stunning work. Your credibility, and the credibility of the fools that cling to it, will certainly be reflected in the future of this conversation.
UPDATE: Earth Open Source is now backing away from the "Stunning Corn Comparison" saying "it is not a published study"!!!!!! Get ready for Moms Across America to take that website down!