The use of poor information to promote an initiative aimed at creating an informed consumer is a defining flaw of the Proposition 37 campaign.
Seralini comments that it would have been better to have tested 600 rats rather than 200, but then the study would have cost $26 million, not $4 million. "
I am not sure why testing 3 times the rats would have cost 6.5 times as much. I am also not sure I understand why it costs millions to feed a couple of hundred rats even allowing for documenting and testing costs. I am not a researcher so I have no basis for comparison. Are those numbers within the norm for a test of this type?
The cost for a project like this is mostly due to personnel. It is hard to imagine that costs for 2 people for 2 years would be more than $1M but perhaps there are additional costs for permits to experiment on rats. I also cannot understand why having 3x more rats would cost so much money. But then there is a lot that scientists do not understand about this project...