Jump to content

Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Archiving

The size of this talk page recently grew to an utterly ridiculous 758,895 bytes - that makes it impossible for some to edit. I have therefore set the archiving to occur after 30, rather than 90 days, with an exception for the three most recent threads. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, that's an unwieldy size. On the other hand, there are related ongoing issues that are now spread across THREE archives, beginning with WHO source. This obscures the debate, and would seem to make it more difficult for newly-arriving editors to gain an overview. Subjecting things to endless argument seems to be the standard operating procedure for this article, which makes it difficult enough to propose changes, without current related discussion being hard to find. Perhaps manual archiving, to split archives into more useful sections, would be better in this case.
RSN, NOR and NPOV noticeboards are maxarchived at 250k. --Tsavage (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It would help if people wrote shorter comments instead of WP:WALLS. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I've seen a 903-word single paragraph replying to an editor having problems with this same scientific consensus. Impressive but not too user-friendly. --Tsavage (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is archived unless the section has not been edited for (with present settings) 30 days. That's not "ongoing". At 632,073 bytes, this is by far the longest talk page on Wikipedia - over 20% longer than the next-biggest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha, wow (20% longer), that's crazy. With that much text, I guess in practice it doesn't matter if it's accessible at a glance, who's going to read it all from scratch? I have no argument with settings on this page; the archive page size could be bigger. (FYI, re "ongoing," I think all but one of those sections going back to the WHO section (linked above) three archives away are directly connected to a current dispute about the scientific consensus statement and how it relates to the rest of the article, that is...ongoing. It's kinda ridiculous, but I guess that's the process - you should read it all!) Thanks for the reply. --Tsavage (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Taleb, redux

About this addition added by a WP:SPA account with regard to Taleb per their contribs, and my reversion, please see here Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not clear on the problem. Here's the deleted content:
Nassim Taleb, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady, Joseph Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam have proposed that many of the concerns raised about GMOs are valid. They posit that the threat posed by genetically modified organisms is vastly underestimated and the risk from GMOs should be treated differently from those that only have the potential for local harm. They show that GMOs represent a public risk of global harm (while harm from nuclear energy is comparatively limited and better characterized) and that a non-naive version of the Precautionary Principle should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMOs.The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)
I just read the cited paper. The GMO arguments are interesting and easily understood. Also read the previous discussion about this, and still not clear on what basis this is being argued for exclusion from a Controversies section:
  • Not familiar with Taleb, but quick search indicates that he is a noted academic, scientist and author of a popular book on the PP-related topic of unpredictability. The other authors of the paper seem to have reasonable credentials for the topic.
  • The paper is a primary source regarding its formulation of "non-naive PP," but I don't see how that is a problem in this context: hard scientific conclusions are not being drawn from it, and it presents an argument concerning safety and proliferation of GMOs that is fully cited and distinct from the PP aspect. This seems no different than presenting a controversy sourced to an Organic Consumers web page or newspaper article. And we readily reference primary sources (and secondary sources about their own primary source material) at the FDA and elsewhere.
To serve the reader on this complex, complicated subject, this article should be as representative of all views as possible; all verifiable information of general interest should included, and a hundred or so words on a GMO safety consideration from an interesting theoretical perspective seems as due as, for example, the (overweighted) 500 words on soy alone we currently have. Give appropriate weight where it is due. --Tsavage (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
taleb is an important economist but was way, way out of his field of expertise in writing about ecology, genetic engineering, and regulation. maybe fun to read and play with but has zero - zero - relevance to any consideration of GM food in the real world. not even serious enough to be FRINGE. To prove me wrong please bring some mainstream secondary sources that treat the analysis he presents seriously. thx Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"please bring some mainstream secondary sources that treat the analysis he presents seriously" Why? There's no arguing for his GMO analysis, only presenting it as a view under Controversies - and it is a risk analysis and complex systems experts' opinion about systemic GMO risk that is out there in reliable secondary sources.
"taleb ... was way, way out of his field of expertise in writing about ecology, genetic engineering, and regulation" That is identical to me saying biotechnologists are way, way, way out of their field in performing any sort of systemic risk analysis. None of the evidence I've seen here has to do with mathematical analysis of risk, the best I've read is cautious extrapolation of "no harm so far, let's keep our eyes open as we move forward" - please bring some mainstream biotech risk analysis, if that is what solely GE scientists are qualified to do in biotech. Or is biotech exempt from formal risk analysis? (I'm learning so much, when all I originally wanted to know was why 18 citations for scientific consensus, which STILL hasn't been resolved?!) --Tsavage (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
In order to mention the paper, you would have to show that it has received widespread coverage, which it has not. Google scholar for example shows that it has never been cited. TFD (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
It has received significant mainstream coverage: Business Insider, Motley Fool, [Bloomberg, Discover - I'm unclear as to the standard for noteworthiness for the existence of an academic paper, including a basic description of its content, that you're applying. In other discussions, mainstream media coverage was cited (I can specifically recall a scientific paper, and a court case). In this context, the paper is not being used for its academic finding, only to describe its general position as a controversial view. --Tsavage (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
not popular media crap. review articles in the field. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not answering my question. Why does it need review articles in the field to establish noteworthiness as to its existence and basic content in the context of Controversies? --Tsavage (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Famous person X who knows a lot about A says strident, ignorant things about B. It will never effect the actual field of B. That is why we use reviews/major statements, not popular press. If you want to make a claim that what he wrote is relevant to B, please bring a review from the field of B discussing it. This is not a video game article. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Still no answer. Expert in A publishes an Analysis of Field B within the framework of A. The Analysis receives significant popular media coverage. That should be sufficient for noteworthiness as to its existence. If there is insufficient reliable secondary source coverage, that's an argument against inclusion. Otherwise, where does a requirement for reviews from Field B come in (I assume you are referring to WP:PAG)? Under WP:WEIGHT, as a view held by a tiny minority, it could be excluded. However, in terms of describing controversies, which include a wide range of issues made relevant only by their popular discussion, this seems like a reasonable candidate (as an example of, from the Controversies section, "the effects on health, the environment"), if the secondary sources are sufficiently widespread. This could also be proposed via the secondary sources. This probably ends up as yet another editor consensus issue. --Tsavage (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I've answered you three times. We need secondary sources in the field, not from popular media. This is a science-based argument (from an expert about X writing about Y) - we need to hear from experts in the field of Y to decide if this should have any weight at all. In the former conversation at the Controversies article, in the absence of any secondary sources from the relevant field, we opted to give this zero weight. I have seen no secondary sources from the relevant field that would change that. Let me say this again - this is not an article about video games - this is a science-based article and we use the science-based literature. Your push to base this article on popular media will turn this article into a barnyard - a Gamergate II. We need to keep source quality high. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Tsavage, you would need to show the article has been picked up in review articles in order to determine its contribution to the scientific debate. If you merely want to claim that the position has attracted notice among the general public, then widespread media coverage would suffice. A brief mention in Business Insider, which does not even explain Taleb's article, is insufficient. The article in fact discusses the tone of tweets sent by him. TFD (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@TFD: Thanks for the clarification. I was quite clear on that, the point being the difference between your brief and directly relevant replies, and Jytdog's obfuscating approach (matched, to be sure, by my replies to him). I'm trying to see a way through this overall gridlock... As for Taleb, I'm not sure there is enough secondary coverage that would meet everyone's standards, but there is significant coverage online, mostly tirades against his PP paper, and on pro-GMO-y sites. Some:
I'm not pushing for inclusion here, I am questioning Jytdog's deletion and subsequent argument, which seems inappropriate for collaborative editing. --Tsavage (talk)

We already have this in article:

  • Opponents such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace claim risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.[citation needed]
Why is the bar so low for inclusion of this content (no source at all), but Taleb is silenced? This type inconsistency in editing at GM articles can be seen as biased. If there is another explanation for it, I haven't figured it out yet. petrarchan47คุก 01:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, the edit summaries for the 3 reverts of this content were not helpful. They referenced (loosely) some archive at another page. I'm sure this isn't how summaries are to work. I went looking for the elusive TP section to no avail. Please be kind to fellow editors and don't make things harder and more time consuming than need be. petrarchan47คุก 01:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Tsavage, those are mostly op-eds which are not considered reliable sources, even when they appear in respected newspapers, except for the opinions of their authors. Wikipedia is a tertiary source based primarily on secondary sources, which you would need to establish the significance of Taleb's article. TFD (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is sufficient support to establish that the Taleb paper was significantly brought to the public's attention. Among the sources listed, there are five regular columnists from two business news publications (Bloomberg[1][2], Motley Fool[3][4]) and one science (Discover[5]), who discuss and review the paper in fair detail. The publishers are well-established, and since the sources serve only to establish the existence and recognition of the paper, not to draw facts from, they should be reliable for that purpose. The paper itself is a reliable primary source for its title and brief description (for example, based on the abstract). Just one opinion. :) --Tsavage (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, columns are not reliable sources and weight requires coverage in reliable sources in order to establish significance. If you disagree with these two policies then you should argue to change them rather than to make an exception here. If the paper were significant, then there would be actual news stories about it. Journalists would then consult scientists and determine its degree of acceptance which we would then mention in the article. Until they do that, any mention of the article provides it with greater weight than it has in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
More importantly, if the paper were a significant contribution to the field of risk management of GMOs it would be discussed in secondary sources in the relevant literature - we don't use popular press to judge the WEIGHT to give to science-based matters. Wikipedia doesn't respond to science by press release - we ignore it. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The PAGs are generally fine, it's how they are interpreted that can get problematic. Rembember, we're talking about a Controversies section, where it has been argued that a "scientific consensus" statement is necessary to balance all sorts of unscientific claims. Taleb's paper is both well-publicized and controversial, yet somehow our rules can be interpreted to exclude it from Controversies. The columnists cited are journalists, analyzing the paper, much as a film or theater or fashion or automotive or food or health reviewer analyzes products in their field, and they are reliable sources (WP:NEWSORG) for those views.
We have multiple citations supporting hard science facts from an article in the Atlantic: What You Need to Know About Genetically Engineered Food has no citations, just a byline, and prominently incorporates findings from at least one primary source scientific study. Is this the author's opinion on the subject? Has the science been vetted by the Atlantic biotech editors? It seems we interpret PAGs as we wish to suit the desired outcome: include one general media source for hard science information in one place, but require MEDRS-grade sources somewhere else; include a press release because it's from a prestigious organization, and exclude a paper because it has the wrong kind of reliable source coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Taleb brought a novel analysis to GMO risk assessment; so far there it is being ignored in the relevant secondary literature. The stuff from Atlantic is rehashing stuff that is very well documented, like the scientific consensus. You are comparing apples to oranges. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
1. This is not argument for argument's sake, it is in the context of the Controverises section and article that have been vigorously argued for: RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? and Genetically modified food controversies. We have controversy section and article with little to no actual controversies described.
2. "The stuff from Atlantic is rehashing stuff that is very well documented" To the general reader, without benefit of your background understanding, it's a general interest magazine article being used to verify things like the percentage of GM DNA remaining in processed food products. Like I said, PAGs interpreted to fit the outcome. --Tsavage (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

With a little more looking, it turns out we do have academic citations for Taleb's Precautionary Principle paper:

--Tsavage (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

hm! First is some essay (written in the first person even); 2nd is another primary source that just cites Taleb. 3rd looks potentially useful - checking it out. thx for digging them up. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We'd get a lot further with less pain and text if if every seemingly anti-GMO proposed change was actually treated in good faith, and the energy used arguing about it was instead directed towards thoroughly checking it out. Those citations were not difficult to find with Google Scholar. And now, why with more non-useful criticisms?:
  • "First is some essay (written in the first person even)" The folks at Springer must be out of their minds charging 40 bucks to read some essay by Gloria Origgi. And if writing in the first person in an abstract is grounds for downgrading or dismissing a paper, then we need to look again at the Pamela Ronald support[6] for the scientific consensus safety statement, she makes the same grave error, writing in her abstract: "In this review, I describe some lessons learned,..." (We should look at that source more closely regardless.)
  • "2nd is another primary source that just cites Taleb" - for these purposes, a paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, ICASP12 Vancouver, Canada, July 12 - 15, 2015 seems to indicate some acceptance in the Taleb's field
The precautionary principle paper is about a "non-naive" version of the PP, and uses GMOs as an in-depth example, so there is the method and the application. On what grounds do we dismiss the method by criticizing the biological assumptions made in one specific example? All we're talking about here is incrementally improving a GM foods controversy section by listing noteworthy examples of controversial views. --Tsavage (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Tsavage, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." (my emphases) So columns cannot justify inclusion. As for the academic sources, two does not mention Taleb's article on GMO and while three does, it does not mention GMO. Those authors are interested in Taleb's writing on the precautionary principle, rather than GMO. TFD (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
No scientific facts are being asserted. The content entry named and gave a summary description of a paper, which can be sourced from the paper itself, a non-interpretative use of the primary source. Noteworthiness is established by the various RS columnists. The academic citations, further establish the noteworthiness. The context is controversial views. How are other controversial views established in the section and in the controversies article?
"two does not mention Taleb's article on GMO" - It does, check the citation, it is just using an earlier title of the same paper (there is a 2014 updated version). Please see the cited link. Also, the last paragrpha of my previous comment: Taleb has proposed a "non-naive PP" and GMO is a sample application. --Tsavage (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Noteworthiness can only be established by being written about in reliable sources. And even if two does cite Taleb's article it says nothing about GMO. TFD (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no sourcing issue: by policy, opinion pieces are reliable for quotation or direct paraphrase with in-line attribution (and they are by definition secondary sources for the topics they cover).

Weight is the only possible question: Taleb is notable, distinguished and well-known in science and to the public. When he produces material in his field that is directly relevant to a topic, simple mention of that material in coverage of that topic should not be a problem. If editors question Taleb's level of prominence, for discussion purposes, we can point to the multiple citations and columns from reputable publications to indicate that the item itself is in fact out there.

A simple descriptive mention in a Controversies section, where noteworthy contrary views are recorded, is fine with a citation to the paper itself. (This use of "primary source" as a magical eraser stick is unhelpful; primary sources are used in many routine cases - see this article's References - they're just not what most of the encyclopedia is built on, because we don't draw interpretive and summary material from them.) --Tsavage (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at the book source you brought this weekend; besides WEIGHT and FRINGE there is also the question of what article this would be added to. Controversies seems the most apt; Genetically modified crops seems next most apt since Taleb's focus is agriculture, not food. Seems least app here - this article is about food. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Weight is a critical issue. You mention that Taleb is notable, which is true and his views on the precautionary principle may be significant to that article. But being notable does not mean that everything one writes, regardless of whether it has been reported in reliable secondary sources, is significant. David Icke for example is a notable writer who claims that the world's leaders are secretly reptiles. By your reasoning, we could add that claim to countless articles. TFD (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
TFD: "being notable does not mean that everything one writes ... is significant" That is not what is being suggested. Work produced by an expert in his field can't be equated with any old extemporaneous comment about anything from anyone, just because they're notable. From Taleb's paper:
"The aim of this paper is to place the concept of precaution within a formal statistical and risk-analysis structure, grounding it in probability theory and the properties of complex systems."
From a renowned expert in statistics and risk analysis, that's a far different proposition than that of a well-known self-proclaimed "Son of the Godhead," with no other relevant qualifications, writing that politicians are in fact alien lifeforms - I'm surprised you'd make that comparison.
In this case, we have a Controversies section and spinoff article that hardly describe any controversies. Taleb's is an expert viewpoint that speaks to food safety, it's existence merits at least acknowledgement in a Controversies section and article, areas dedicated to minority views. If there is a problem with determining weight in the context of controversies, it's because there are no controversies to compare it to - this would be an incremental improvement, one minority view actually described and sourced. --Tsavage (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
FRINGE. not minority. we don't cite every expert spouting about things outside of their field. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog: It's one thing to cry FRINGE whenever you like, but to seriously claim anything as FRINGE - "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" - you have to be prepared to illustrate with specific examples and sources, whether in discussion or content.
I'm not arguing for Taleb's GMO PP, I am questioning your use of FRINGE.
In this case, what is the departure from mainstream in risk analysis? And what is the departure in biology/biotech? For instance, Taleb's paper states:
"For the impact of GMOs on health, the evaluation of whether the genetic engineering of a particular chemical (protein) into a plant is OK by the FDA is based upon considering limited existing knowledge of risks associated with that protein. The number of ways such an evaluation can be in error is large."
Can you state that that is categorically wrong? From what I've read in NAS and other comprehensive reviews of GM from the early 2000s (and I can quote), targeted testing for substantial equivalence is considered robust and adequate at this time (for food safety), however, the reviews also clearly acknowledge that tools and understanding for broader testing - non-targeted assessment, looking for the unknown unknowns - are currently not well advanced and need to be developed: there is lots that science can't yet measure and doesn't yet understand in this area, but what we have now may be sufficient to proceed with only reasonable risk.
In other words, unless I'm misunderstanding this entirely, Taleb is considering the systemic effect of the unknown and unexpected. This doesn't sound like a significant departure from the mainstream, instead, isn't it simply feeding mainstream biology into a particular risk model? You can argue specifics, saying his assumptions show a lack of understanding of the relevant biology, but isn't that more in line with, for example, a criticism of poor experimental design or faulty data, than with a wild departure from the mainstream? FRINGE has to be demonstrated. --Tsavage (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Tsavage, even if someone is the top expert in their field, it does not mean that every thing they write is significant. Their various theories are only significant to the extent they are reported in the relevant literature. If you think what Taleb wrote about about global warming is so significant it should be mentioned in this article, can you please explain why not a single expert has mentioned it? Do you think they are all wrong? In any case, the policy of weight is clear. This article is supposed to summarize what one would find in most mainstream sources and not provide weight to views never reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
TFD: The context here is "controversies," which hasn't been particularly well-defined by example, but seems to be widely inclusive: "key areas of controversy are whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, objectivity of scientific research and publication, and the effects on health, the environment." Taleb's PP has been in reliable sources, as demonstrated above. We're supposed to represent all relevant views with due weight, this in my opinion clears the bar for mention here.
"can you please explain why not a single expert has mentioned it" What type of expert are you referring to? I can guess that anything to do with GMOs and the precautionary principle is a scientific and political hot potato, it's hard to argue risk and uncertainty, when the risks are difficult to quantify and ultimately unknown. By publishing the Taleb GMO editorial last month, the NY Times made a statement, giving it wide play without having to take a position. Motley Fool, a popular financial news outlet, evaluated life sciences companies' exposure in light of Taleb's position. Common sense says, when we're devoting thousands of words to Controversies, this fits in for a mention. --Tsavage (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed untrue statement

I removed an untrue statement from the page (diff). The actual fact is that 98% of soybean meal is used as animal feed. A lot of soybean crop is processed into oil for human consumption, and the meal is put into animal feed. So i removed the untrue statement. Here is a source on that. SageRad (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Updating stats on U.S. acreage that is GM

Jytdog, thanks for noticing the apparent inconsistency when i added the stat on the glyphosate-tolerant trait in corn, that you removed in this diff. The 90% figure was from a 2010 source, and my stat was from the USDA 2015 data. I changed the first stat to specify 2010 as the date, as this data changes annually, and then i added back a breakdown of GE corn acreage in the U.S. by different traits. I think it makes useful information and explains the current state of corn growing in the U.S. very well now. Thanks for noting the inconsistency before. SageRad (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_food/Archive_11&oldid=1136757263"