You basically wrote my reply before I could. This is why it is important to have multiple peer reviewed and re-reviewed studies:
"Looking at the data, it appears that the study authors never tested their results to see if the numbers they turned up could have occurred by random chance, said David Tribe, a microbiologist at the University of Melbourne in Australia. And given the small numbers of animals used in the study, that's a real possibility."
"Notably, the authors of the paper never responded to Sohn's request for an interview."
Not all scientists are good at the scientific method. One example could be the new natural food trend of drinking/consuming aloe plant pulp. Some people were claiming that it was bad to consume and could cause tumor growth. However, they didn't really read the studies and understand this:
"Components of Aloe have shown the possibility of inhibiting tumor growth in animal studies, but these effects have not been demonstrated clinically in humans."
I still feel that it supports the fight for labeling. The bottom line is that we do not know 100% what happens when these foods are consumed. There are mixed reviews from both sides. But we do know that the GM foods are banned or at least labeled in many other countries, so why not America? We do know the harmfulness the plants may have on a biological scale, so why continue to plant them?