The amazing thing about the farm scale evaluations of GM crops appears to be that in fact they have done no such thing. As far as I can tell - although I haven't had the time to read much yet - they have looked at the impact of insecticides and herbicides used on those crops in comparison with those used on 'normal' crops. Since one of the herbicides (that used on conventional maize) is about to be banned, that seems to have given the lobbyists of all persuasions the chance to jump on their high horse and claim victory/outrage (take your pick).
I may be wrong, but Prof Stott at Envirospin Watch is quoting approvingly from the Telegraph leader which says:
The results of country-wide trials of GM crops do not show that they are dangerous. All they show is that GM beet and spring rape crops encourage fewer weeds to grow than conventional crops. And, in fact, when it comes to GM maize, more weeds grow than with conventional maize. So, with two out of three of the tested crops, genetic modification seems to do exactly what its fans claim: make healthier crops with greater yields. And that's it - no venomous seeds, no wiping out of organic food, no spectre of agricultural holocaust.
The problem as I see it is that there is no logical relationship between the statement in sentence 2 to the statement in the last sentence. If the farm scale trails have only been evaluating the impact of herbicides thay can say nothing about the impact of seeds, about the impact on organics or anything else.
Is this good science reporting Prof Stott?