Einstein, you have literally no idea how the scientific method works or why it's desirable.
The fact that many foods we commonly eat have small amounts of toxins which harm us if we eat these foods in too large of quantities in no way negates the findings of this study. It's completely unrelated. It's logically unconnected.
The study shows that GM corn has toxins in it which are not in non-GM corn. The study shows the harm these toxins cause rats and suggests the harm they likely cause other mammals. The fact that yes, many fish have relatively high levels of mercury in them (pregnant women shouldn't eat much lest they risk higher chances of autism and other ill effects in their children) has nothing to do with the study, nor does it negate the findings in any way.
Nothing you're saying has any logical connection to the study or its findings in any way. You're confused and you're confusing unrelated topics and unrelated science.
The fact that the FDA allows for X amount of rat droppings in your peanut butter is irrelevant; it doesn't make rat droppings safe. Again, nothing you're saying negates the findings of this study in any way.
Arsenic is a nutrient, by the way (in very small amounts). Apples are still good for you.
I've already won this argument, as far as your confused and unrelated ramblings are concerned. You have no idea what the study found (you made that clear twice). You have no understanding of the scientific method or why your comments in this thread are all unrelated to the study I referenced in the OP.
Civilized people don't drink chlorine; that's what they feed to the livestock, aka you. The wealthy and educated in Amerika have never drank the crap the put in tap water. Fluoride retards children's intellectual development too. It sounds like you grew up real "civilized." 
Your appeals to the majority "in civilized lands" are pretty sad. How civilized is the average Amerikan? How much nation debt does he owe? How educated is he? How fat? How strong are his moral values? How staunchly does he defend his rights and those of his offspring? On all of these topics the average person is a failure, yet you rely on the consensus of the majority's apathy to confirm that everything is, in fact, alright. Strange how you don't hold the same position on the national debt or gun rights--on those topics, you seem to think the lazy majority responsible for our current laws is in error. But if they don't care what crap is put in their foods, surely it's safe!
The Yell, people who eat products with lots of corn syrup (and high fructose corn syrup) already exhibit higher cancer rates than people with largely organic, raw-vegetable-filled (and low acid) diets. A slight increase in the corn's contribution to their cancer rates on top of all of their other unhealthy behavior is unlikely to produce statistically significant results. The fact that corn is already often linked to exposure and consumption of other carcinogens makes identifying it specifically as a cause virtually impossible.
Human beings lead far too different lives; variables in humans aren't standardized as with rats in a laboratory. How could GMO corn's contribution be isolated from terrible diets and exposure to the multitude of other factors which influence cancer rates in people? It can't be. GMO corn products are mixed with other cancer-inducing factors like high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-other-chemical-filled food products. Its contribution would just be attributed to the other cancerous food/behavior that comes along with.
In addition, human beings have much longer lives than rats. GMOs haven't even been commercially distributed (so far as we know) for two decades yet. We wouldn't expect such findings nearly as quick as with rats in a lab, even if it wasn't for the factors above (and others) preventing obvious attributions of cancer and organ failure to GMO toxins, even if they are responsible or contributing factors.
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
