Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

POV of the article

This article is written from a very subjective pro-GMO POV, centred on North America, particularly the US. It uses dated sources and figures, it's language and structure are quite manipulative and it also ignores several key concerns and controversies which would put GMOs in a much more negative light. Also, some of the "facts" of this article have been proven wrong and the article also misstates some others slightly in ways that would make GMOs seem better. Also, it tends to focus on one side or aspect of a controversy which in many cases is not even the main aspect. Furthermore, the article makes it seem like only some radical activists and nuts, bad scientists, as well as uninformed/misinformed people oppose GMOs. Truth is that most people are at least sceptical of GMOs and that many mainstream organisations and for example most churches oppose GMOs which is not mentioned in the article despite its relevancy to the subject. Instead there are several off-topic sentences or even paragraphs aiming to discredit critics and to manipulate readers. There are also some questionable resources, though I haven't had time to check them all.

This article is therefore profoundly unencyclopedic and notes should be added warning readers of this. Also, most of this article requires a complete rewrite to avoid the subjectivity and manipulation present in the current article. Alexlikescats (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur whole-heartedly. Over the course of the last year, it appears writers hired by Monsanto have reengineered nearly all sections. The entire article reads like a Monsanto infomercial. This goes way beyond narrow-POV into outright deception. The number of sources does not matter. What matters are the quality of those sources, all of which are heavily biased to being pro-GMO. Gone are previous references to exceptional studies calling the health issues of GMO foods into question in the first place. This entire article is a lie. Most articles on Wikipedia are reasonably objective. Not this one. As long as you know and accept you're being lied to, go ahead and read it with a large block of salt. This article should have been locked a while back, before Monsanto's goons got their hands on it. 107.2.182.250 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is well sourced and written in a NPOV fashion and I and others have worked hard, and in good faith, to make it that way. I understand that many people believe that GMOs are harmful but Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus, not "what most people think". And the article reports the scientific consensus accurately. If you have specific comments, I would be happy to discuss them, as would others who watch this page. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi. I can understand how you think this is written from a pro-GM POV, because it basically is. This is because the scientific consensus is generally pro, in so far as there is very little evidence to suggest harm or negative effects. Wikipedia gives the most weight to science sources, particularly reviews published in respected scientific journals, so this POV is to be expected and a good thing. The same applies to other controversial articles where large organisations disagree with the science (for example climate change, evolution, homeopathy and other alternative medicines). However, there is probably scope to expand the "public perception" section. I would be particularly interested if you could provide some sources about the views of churches as I rewrote the short paragraph (third one in public perception) a while ago and think it is in need of a sentence or two from other religions. AIRcorn (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner please undo 3 reverts in less than 24 hours 3RR and discuss edit warring.

Please undo 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. 3RR[2]

4 reverts made in less than 24 hours. [3] [4] [5] [6] "However, this retraction remains controversial." Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period.[7]

Please discuss Edit warring.[8]

Examples [9] [10] Sportmedman (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sportmedman, you have posted the same edit three times.

I recognise that you may be new to wikipedia and the user-interface isn't very friendly, which might somehow have allowed you to conclude that those links represent three different edits by me. They do not. I made one edit, cleaning up some problematic content. One is not three. If anybody can find an actual problem, I would be happy to discuss that. bobrayner (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I made 4 separate edits[11] [12] [13] [14] and you reverted all 3 in less than 24 hours violating the 3RR. I will ask you again to undo your revert of the 3 separate edits. I will also again ask you to review 3RR[15] as well as discuss your edit warring.[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)‎

I think I can see why Sportmedman is confused, as they made three edits and Bob reverted most of it, but as it was only one edit, there is no way that Bob violated 3RR which would require multiple reverts in a short time. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

SmartSE A 4th revert was also made [17] "However, this retraction remains controversial." Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period.[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 May 2014

Err no - that's still the same one edit. (and please sign your posts with ~~~~) SmartSE (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sportmedman, please do sign your comments, and I will re-iterate what everyone here has said - you are interpreting what a "reversion" is incorrectly. Your argument has no legs, please turn back from this path which is not productive, and instead, as per WP:BRD please explain why your edits should stand and ask for bobraynor to explain what he sees as being wrong with them. That could be a productive conversation. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

also, Sportmedman please do not edit, in a simple way, your own comments, once others have responded to them. This edit is the wrong way to do things, as it makes it look like you originally said "4" and gave 4 difs, when in actuality you wrote "3" and gave 3 difs. Doing this, makes the comments of those who responded to you, make no sense. The correct way to go back and change a comment you made after others have responded to it, is to use the "strike" markup which looks like this while you are editing <s>text I am striking</s> and looks like this text I am striking after you save it, and then put your replacement text in italics (<i>new text</i> and looks like this new text), and re-sign the comment with a note that you edited it - add something like this to the end: "(note: I changed "3" to 4" as per the markup Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC))" Then it makes sense to everyone. Or better yet, just acknowledge the mistake in the thread, and change your argument on the fly. But doing it as you did is neither ethical nor proper. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Jytdog. I was unaware that someone can revert 4 or more previous edits from different times and dates in "one" edit and that is not considered a violation of 3RR. I apologize to Bobrayner for the misunderstanding. However, I do believe that Wikipedia's 3RR rule is flawed as someone could revert an entire page to how it was years ago in "one" edit and make hundreds of reversions in the process yet that be considered "one" edit. I also plan to discuss my edits that were reverted by Bobrayner with him when I have more time. Thanks to everyone here for the help understanding 3RR and other advice. Sportmedman (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

perfect, thanks sportmedman. Bobrayner when he comes back and justifies his edits as per WP:BRD, I do look for you to respond. His edits raise some interesting issues that are worth discussing. I don't know (and I really don't know) if the edits will stand or remain rejected, but they are worth discussing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement not supported by reference.

The reference provided for this statement, "Food and Chemical Toxicology published 17 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism of the Seralini paper."[19] is a link to the journal home page which does not support the statement. Please provide proper reference or remove. Sportmedman (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am guessing it linked to the page that showed the 17 letters, but the url has been updated since then. Even if it still linked to the right page that would be a primary source and borderline original research. It might pass as simple maths is not considered original research, but unless a reliable secondary source is found using that number I would be inclined to remove it as we should always be looking to present what the secondary sources say. AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

amended text and supplied different source, as per sportmedman's note two sections below. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Why a sentence about a 2013 review is inaccurate.

In the Scientific Publishing section[20]

The sentence :

"A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from genetic engineering to humans or animals."

This edit was reverted to the above sentence :

"A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 concluded the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of authorized GM crops."

The current sentence is misleading since it gives the impression of no evidence of danger from any genetically engineering crops authorized or unauthorized. This is not supported by the review which states, "only two cases are known about the potential allergenicity of transgenic proteins, the verified case of the brazil-nut storage protein in soybean, which has not been marketed'.

So the authors acknowledge at least one unauthorized genetically engineered crop could have potential risks for humans. They go on to say, "pre-screening of transgenic proteins through bioinformatic analyses contributes to avoid the introduction of potentially toxic, allergenic or bioactive proteins into food and feed crops" So again they acknowledge that unauthorized genetically engineered crops that have not gone through this pre-screening process may have potential risks.

All of this is under a section that begins with, "The experimental data collected so far on authorized GE crops can be summarized as follows:"

My edit uses almost an exact quote from the conclusion which says :

"the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."

The only word I added was the word, "authorized" to give those who have not read the full study a better understanding of what the authors are talking about.

The almost exact quote from the conclusion of the review should be used here since it is what the authors actually conclude. If not, the sentence should at least be changed to indicate that the authors are only talking about authorized genetically modified crops and food. Sportmedman (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be hair-splitting. What is the actual significance of the difference in wording? if you are trying to make it all scandal-y that GM technology could be dangerous, then this is not relevant. Water can kill you. There is nothing on the planet that is 100% safe. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You also don't seem to have a good handle on how we generate content from sources here. Please see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. If there is a high quality secondary source we reasonably paraphrase it, putting things in plain English. It is when we use primary sources - which is extremely rarely - that we have to stick extremely close to what the primary source says.Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you believe it is splitting hairs then there should be no objection to adding the word "authorized" or something similar. The significance is accuracy and the current sentence does not accurately paraphrase the review as was already stated. Sportmedman (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been reflecting on this and part of your point is good; I don't like the current language either. You get what I said above, right? There is no technology, and no thing, anywhere on Earth, that is 100% risk free. The thing about allergy is known to everybody in the scientific community - anti GMO activists like to wave it around like it is secret knowledge but when new GM crops are developed, allergy testing is routine and in cases where there is a clear risk - like when they put gene for the brazil nut protein in, they test extra hard. And they caught it. So yeah, the allergy thing is a straw man (like warning people not to bring a toaster into the bathtub) The key adjective that is lacking, is the language we use in the scientific consensus statement on food safety. I will add it. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Some problems in Controversial studies section.

In the section Controversial studies[21] for the 2012 Seralini paragraph. The following sentence was added and then reverted :

"However, this retraction remains controversial.[22][23][24][25]

One reference was rightfully deleted by User:Jytdog since it was before the retraction.

This paragraph contains 14 sentences of which 12 mention only criticism, 1 sentence describes the results of the study which I will comment on and 1 sentence states that the author responded to the criticism.

This paragraph gives the impression that there is no controversy and only the author supports the study.

Several claims are made in this paragraph which have citations that do not support the claim or have some broken links such as:

"The paper concluded that rats fed the modified maize had an increased incidence of cancer."

The authors actually state, "We drew no inference and made no claims about “cancer” ; nowhere did we claim a “definitive link between GMO and cancer”. In fact, our entire paper does not even mention the word “cancer”."[26]

Another example :

"National food safety and regulatory agencies also reviewed the paper and dismissed it."

There are several broken links or links that seem to have nothing to do with this sentence here which should be fixed or removed. [27][28][29][30]

Of the few that do work such as the CTNBIO citation by 4 people[31] there are more than 4 members and former members of CTNBIO that wrote in support of the study.[32] So a controversy exists.

Another is an EFSA reference[33] which has been criticized in a peer reviewed paper for having a double standard.[34] So a controversy exists.

Another example is the following :

"Food and Chemical Toxicology published 17 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism of the Seralini paper."[35]

This reference is to a journal home page which I previously mentioned.[36]

In the journal's link to the paper itself[37] I count a total of 13 letters published before the retraction with at least 1 of these supporting the study.[38]

Since the retraction there were 5 letters to the editor published. 4 of these letters question the retraction[39][40][41][42] and only one supports the retraction.[43]

The journal itself published more criticism of the retraction than support, yet this Wikipedia article doesn't even mention a controversy for the retraction exists. There also does not seem to be 17 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism published here.

Since there is no mention of anything that occurred after the retraction in this Wikipedia article, not even the author questioning the retraction, it gives the impression that everyone including the authors accept the retraction which is not the case.[44]

I wouldn't expect a detailed explanation of the controversy. A sentence stating that the retraction is controversial or at least shows somebody disagrees with the retraction would lend a more neutral point of view[45] especially since the journal itself published more criticism of the retraction than support. I would appreciate any feedback. Sportmedman (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you read our seralini affair article? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

this is way too long. You seem to mixing up issues about deadlinks, with arguing about what content there should be. In the future it would do you and everybody else well, if you would separate out issues in different sections. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

deadlinks - I addressed all the ones you listed, plus the brazilian one that you didn't list. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You are also confusing 1) Wikipedia standing very solidly with mainstream science and giving mainstream science the greatest weight, with 2) some non-Wikipedia idea about giving all sides equal play. Please see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Seralini's original research is FRINGE, as FRINGE is defined on Wikipedia. The 10,000 foot level key message on Seralini's original GMO studies, is that every regulatory agency on the planet that has reviewed his findings, has rejected his findings and the journal that published his 2012 paper retracted it. That is the mainstream view on Seralini's research. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

added detail that press conference attracted wide media coverage. added protests to retraction. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

point raised by sportredman about the study not being about cancer is not legit. the press conference featured huge images of rat tumors, as does the paper itself. Seralini's protests afterwards that study was not about cancer, fly in the face of what he actually did. And in addition, the word "tumor" appears 44 times in the article. Saying "oh I didn't say the word 'cancer'" is just disingenuous. (you can still find the paper online - look for yourself) Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank User:Jytdog for the edits and I will try to take your advice to separate problems into different posts in the future. I understand your confusion, but it would be disingenuous and not legit to use the term "cancer" if the authors actually said "tumors". As the authors mention in the earlier reference, "It should be noted that tumorigenesis is not synonymous with cancer."[46]. I have not counted the amount of times the word "tumor" appears in the study. If you are correct and "tumor" is used 44 times and the authors are correct that the word "cancer" is not used to describe the results, obviously the word "cancer" in the sentence should be changed to "tumors" to be accurate. Sportmedman (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not confused. the guy has been in the media spotlight plenty long enough to know that if you have a press conference with huge posters showing huge tumors and you keep talking about tumors that everybody is going to walk away thinking "cancer". cancer is why we even talk about about tumors.Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That is your own view. "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct". Sportmedman (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This is called wikilawyering. Look, you are pretty new here and I am happy to help you, but the fifth pillar of Wikipedia is that common sense applies. And you are trying to push Seralini's absurd non-distinction into a Wikipedia article, which is not going to fly. I can bring dozens of reliable sources where people discussed his work in terms of cancer. Here is the NY Times article on the retraction: "Paper Tying Rat Cancer to Herbicide Is Retracted"; As I said the main page of His own site features a rat with a big old tumor to call people's attention to a link to petition protesting the retraction. LOOK RAT CANCER!. GMOseralini features an article by a... get ready, an oncologist, supporting his paper. This is the table he laid, with the way he presented and continues to present his research - BIG PICTURES OF RAT TUMORS. It drives me crazy when he and his supporters try to downplay the cancer angle. It is pure wordgame bullshit. That horse is waaaaaay out of the barn, and like I said even he is perpetuating it by still featuring those images. If he really wanted to downplay the cancer angle, as he does verbally, why would he keep featuring these images? Real question! You do not have a strong argument - I am happy to bow when people do. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"Cancer" is not mentioned in the conclusion of the study. Other sources may have confused the term "tumor" as automatically meaning "cancer" but that isn't in the study conclusion. You may feel that a pic of a tumor somehow makes people think of cancer but that is your view and not what the study concludes. I see no evidence that gmoseralini.org is Seralini's site as you claim. In the About section it says, "Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, his colleagues, and the organizations with which they are affiliated have no connection with the owners or editors of this website and bear no responsibility for its content."[47] Sportmedman (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have heard you - you are saying that the word "cancer" doesn't appear in the paper and Seralini has said that he drew no conclusions about cancer. You are not showing that you are hearing me at all - which is not how we do things on Wikipedia - we try to reach consensus, not to win. To avoid going around in circles more and in an effort to reach consensus, I made edits to the article accordingly.Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help Jytdog. Sportmedman (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for talking! it is too too easy to get into a warrior mindset around here. so thanks for talking.Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Same study mentioned twice in Insecticides.

In the Insecticide section[48]

Sentences read :

A study on the effects of using Bt cotton in six northern provinces of China from 1990 to 2010 concluded that Bt cotton halved the use of pesticides and doubled the level of ladybirds, lacewings and spiders, with the environmental benefits extended to neighbouring crops of maize, peanuts and soybeans.[49][50]

In 2012, a study published in Nature showed that the use of Bt cotton has halved the use of insecticides. Usually insecicides also kill the natural enemies of pests, so this has led to an increased number of the enemies and hence also decreased the numbers of secondary pests. The surrounding, non-modified fields have also benefitted from the nearby crops. Southampton University ecology professor Guy Poppy said that the huge scale of the study will end the discussion on the subject.[51][52]

Both the top sentence and bottom paragraph are about the same study and mislead the reader into believing these are two different studies.

Deleting either the top sentence or bottom paragraph just makes sense since they both contain almost the same information like:

"Bt cotton halved the use of pesticides" in the top sentence and, "Bt cotton has halved the use of insecticides" in the bottom paragraph,

or, "with the environmental benefits extended to neighbouring crops" in the top sentence and, "The surrounding, non-modified fields have also benefitted" in the bottom paragraph.

If not, then it should all be combined into one paragraph so it does not give the appearance of two different studies. Sportmedman (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

nice catch. crap like that creeps in - no ill intent. this is wikipedia and you will find duplications like this all over the place. thanks for catching it.Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. I reverted it back after having seen it deleted, because I didn't understand that this was the case. Thanks for fixing my error. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead inadequate tag

Please do not remove this until the lead conforms to the requirements set out in the tag. I do not see an "overview of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." There are eight main sections in the article, currently the lead only touches upon a fraction of what is presented. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeitransgenic, do you have specific reccomendations or critisism of the leed which may assist in making this leed meet the tags requirements. Most leeds only touch upon a fraction of what is presented that is why it is a leed and not the article. This leed seems to me to be if anything too long. My thoughts no tag needed at this time, looks like tagging and run - Tag O' Shame. VViking_TalkEdits 11:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The lead is certainly not too long, and I'm not sure what needs explaining here, the statement is pretty clear on what the lead should contain: a concise version of the article. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Where specifically does the leed fall short of being a concise version of the article? What areas are missing? VViking_TalkEdits 15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semitransgenic Thanks for clarifying. I see what you mean. I am crazy busy the next couple of days but will address over the weekend. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that, while there is some room for mentioning, briefly, more of the page topics in the lead, there really is not much need to expand the lead a lot. It does not have to include a summary of every section of the page. Instead of thinking about the issue in terms of page sections, it may be helpful to think about it in terms of the major concepts, some of which span more than one section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed the lead again. It weaves together everything in the article, very concisely. I added some more explicit mentions of a few things, but I think the level of detail is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked at it, and I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have also looked at the lead an in my opinion it is excellent. Except it is too long. It should be shortened. SylviaStanley (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Independent scientific testing and a consensus

Most products on the market undergo a testing process which including independent testing which then makes public that information good or bad and is reviewed and regulated by the government additionally for safety concerns. Monsanto has a considerable hold on the government through lobbying, funding campaigns, and placing their employees in charge of positions which are meant to safeguard the public from their products up to and including getting a supreme court justice placed on the bench who refuses to recuse himself in cases with a conflict of interest. There has never been a single independent paper done on GMO products. In order for any scientist to test a product they must sign a contract stating if Monsanto finds the results to be negative the scientist is not allowed to publish that information. This is not normal in the least. While the few negative tests that have been published on the subject were yes not great science the many positive tests are also flawed for this reason. You have the boards of organizations like the AAAS paid by Monsanto and backing their claims while the individual scientists inside the AAAS coming out and saying the statements made by their organization do not represent the views of those doing the science on the issue. If the board is making this pro-GMO statement for profit and political reasons while those disagreeing are anti-GMO based purely on the science how can you possibly say there is a consensus in the science community? If a company stands to make billions of dollars if they are lying and fighting so hard to deny any real science to back it up there is nearly always a reason. It took a very long time to get science and regulatory committees and corporations to admit a product like tobacco can cause any health issues at all. GMOs are going through the exact same process.

You should truly either change the GMO articles or change the wiki article for what the scientific method means or you are failing at a fundamental level to inform those that go to you for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.227.32 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. Additionally, several things you wrote are not true; this however is not the place to discuss those issues. Would be happy to discuss on my talk page or yours, if are interested.Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A few suggestions after reading the article

1. The article provides so much information and it is easy to get lost in all of it. This is especially true if you don't know significant amounts of information on the topic. I think a conclusion paragraph or a section that wraps up the article would really be helpful, just to sum up some of the major points of the article and provide a very basic outline of the arguments for/against GM products.
2. The article focuses a lot on the research and information aspect of the GMO debate, but does not get into any of the actual foods being genetically produced. It does not do so in much detail anyways. It would be useful, especially for those accessing the article in attempts to learn about common GMO foods, if there was a list of commonly genetically modified foods.
3. You mention the rejection of GMO foods by Zambia in 2002. It may be worthwhile to mention that they were not the only African country to turn down foreign aid at this time; Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique also turned down American aid on the basis of the GMO maize that was being provided. You could also discuss how there are still only four African countries that allow genetically modified products and the debates about introducing the testing of GMOs in Kenya and Tanzania.

Overall, it was super informative and I learned a lot. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuller.328 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

if you look at the top of the article, you will links to Genetic engineering, Genetically modified organism, Genetically modified food, and Genetically modified crops, each of which provides information on what those things actually are. This article is for the controversy over all of them. btw, the article from Entropy that you added as a source today is not a reliable source - if you search the archives of this page you can see discussion of that. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

suggestion

Found some information that may be of use to the Insecticides, or even Yield, section of your article. It is more recent than than the studies you have listed in the Insecticides section, and discusses the Bt sweet corn and insecticide use in New York, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, and Georgia. It supports your first sentence in the section, stating "Our data shows that using Bt sweet corn will dramatically reduce the use of traditional pesticides. ... growers should realize increased profits, and there will be less risk to non-target organisms..." Here is the link: http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/images/Shelton-Bt%20sweet%20corn%20multi-state%20trials-JEconEntomol-2013.pdf

Shelton, A.M., D.L. Olmstead, E.C. Burkness, W.D. Hutchison, G. Dively, C. Welty and A.N. Sparks. Multi-state trials of Bt sweet corn varieties for control of the corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol., October 2013

Just thought it might be helpful and provide more recent support to the section. Do with it as you like.

Also, I was wondering if you could give a few details on the Entropy article on herbicides that was deemed unreliable. I looked in the Talk archives and had trouble finding the discussion about it. Just curious what went wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuller.328 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the citation! However that is a WP:PRIMARY source and so we shouldn't use it, per WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Sorrry, I misdirected you about the Entropy article - it was originally brought up on the Monsanto article and from there went to WP:MEDRS. It later came up in the Glyphosate article too. here are the three most extended discussions.

• april 28 2013 Talk:Monsanto/Archives/2013/May#entropy_study.2Fbad_science.3F
• april 30 2013 Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_7#Review_of_Monsanto.27s_Roundup_herbicide (this is the key discussion)
• december 2013 Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_3#Entropy_article_.28again.29

there you go. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/341069. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for fixing that! Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

lead

Lfstevens, about your edit condensing the lead, just so you know, not long ago another editor tagged this article claiming that the lead was not complete. See Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_9#Lead_inadequate_tag. not objecting to your edit, just making sure you are aware of how it go to where it was prior to your edit. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit

Working my way through this overlong article. Feedback encouraged. Comments (more to come):

• I don't see the point of having 8 refs for a single sentence. It would be great for an SME to pick a winner or two and reduce the glut.
• In the gene flow section, I found this:

There are concerns that the spread of genes from modified organisms to unmodified relatives could produce species of weeds resistant to herbicides that could contaminate nearby non-genetically modified crops or organic crops, or could disrupt the ecosystem,

I can't get it to make sense, which means I can't fix it. "produce species of weeds" sounds like gene flow. But the the (one functioning) ref talks about GMOs escaping and becoming considered weeds, which doesn't sound like gene flow. Lfstevens (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

About the multiple citations, I'm not sure which sentence you are referring to, but if it has anything to do with GMO safety and scientific consensus, please be aware that this has been a topic of lengthy discussion and dispute, so it is probably better not to delete any of those sources. That comment also relates to what Jytdog said just above.

About the gene flow question, I could be wrong, but that sounds like crop escape rather than gene flow to me, and perhaps is in the wrong section – I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Lfstevens please do an issue per section. it gets too messy to respond to multiple things in one thread. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

ditto what trypto said on the multiple citations on the scientific consensus statement. please don't change that - it is has been intensely negotiated, the exact language was subject of an RfC, and it is constantly under attack. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I see this discussion expanding more rapidly than any article (>10k) that I've worked on. I will split up henceforth. Lfstevens (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

with respect to gene flow... PMID 12943539 describes outcrossing and horizontal gene transfer; the now-archived page on the Human Genome Project site mentions "unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollinatio"=n"; you are correct that the Progressive citation is about mixing seeds for planting or harvests (not gene flow); the NY Times article on salmon mentions interbreeding (gene flow) along with out-competing; ditto the Congressional Research Service report. i just fixed the citation on that; the other 3 work. I moved the Progressive citation and I removed the Human Genome Project citation as it says little, other than providing a useful outline. More generally, i acknowledge taht the sentences you point out, are "up to" a lot of things at once. Especially when you start to get into environmental issues, a host of things crowd in. The very idea of gene flow upsets people regardless of what it does. On top of that, the concrete results can be things like extinction of existing species (gene flow leading to "better" species which outcompete the existing ones), economic trouble (weediness conferred on otherwise not-so-weedy plants) Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that complex things are complex. This one seemed not complex but self-contradictory. I'd recommend treating gene flow separately from GM crops that are considered weeds when they travel, at least in the section on the former. One of the 3 refs that I checked did not address the subject. I removed that one. Another was a dead link. I marked that one. The third I left. Let me know if other action is appropriate.Lfstevens (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

and in general, thanks for your great work! Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! Lots more to come. Lfstevens (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Africa and India

I don't see why these have sections to themselves. I'd suggest merging them into the appropriate other sections (Labeling, etc.) Without objection, I will do so. Lfstevens (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

i struggled with where to fit that information. there is not that much on Africa. The India stuff was especially problematic, as 1) to some extent the issues replicate those elsewhere BUT 2) india has Vandana Shiva, a physicist turned anti-.... Big Food activist. As part of that speaks out against GMOs all the time. She wants all of India to go back to subsistence farming, as best I can tell. Claims to speak for the people... but in India like everywhere else GM crops have become available, actual farmers broadly adopted them as soon as they could. Her activism/organizing presents issues unique to India. 3) Likewise, the farmer suicide issues are unique to India. For those reasons India deserved its own section, in my mind. And since I had that, it made sense to put Africa next to, in a broader emerging markets section. That was my thinking anyway. Will be interested to see how you deal with it now... Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Developing nations

• Edited this pretty hard and found that the citations in several cases did not support the claims. I fixed what I could and left a cn in there.
• The section doesn't appear to be about economic issues or developing countries particularly. Without objection I'll put the material in a better place. Lfstevens (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Economy?

I didn't see anything about the economy in this para:

Genetically modified crops play a key role in intensive crop farming, which involves monoculture, use of herbicides and pesticides, use of equipment that requires large amounts of fossil fuels, and irrigation. Opponents of modified food, like Jonathan Latham of the Bioscience Research Center and Vandana Shiva, often treat industrial agriculture and modified crops as closely related topics, and call for an agriculture that works with the environment instead of controlling it.

I left it there after shortening it. I'll try to find a better place for it. Lfstevens (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

that was another effort of mine at trying to explain how the various issues intersect and feed each other. one can drill down a lot into the various issues but i felt it was important to also show the integration. do you see what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)

The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms).

PDF download here.

According to Medium.com, "Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin, Says Black Swan Author. Experts have severely underestimated the risks of genetically modified food, says a group of researchers lead by Nassim Nicholas Taleb."

I'm interested in a discussion on how the article by Taleb and his coauthors may be used to improve this Wikipedia article.

IjonTichy (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There are also WP:FRINGE aspects to keep in mind whenever you see precautionary principle and GMO used in the same sentence. It would be a thorny thing to actually try to describe in this article, so I've largely left the topic alone. It could be worth describing someday, but it could easily be a major time sink. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:PRIMARY source and we need to wait to see what secondary sources do with it.Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to work this out on the talk page without igniting a conflict. While this specific application of the group's interpretation may or may not be germane for this article, it does seem appropriate as a proposed framework for assessing applications of the Precautionary Principle in that article. Lfstevens (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

of course! thank you for proposing this topic for discussion! however, this remains a primary source and we should not use it anywhere in Wikipedia. I have been meaning for a while to try to build some content about the PP in this article, but I wanted to use that article as a starting point and it is so, so bad that I have first been improving that article. That work is far from done and I still digging into what it actually is and how it is actually used. It is more complex than it is in the stories people throw around. Remember - regulators in the EU have approved lots of GMOs - the problems there have been politicians preventing their release. The paucity in the EU is not due to some more stringent application of the PPP (that is another misunderstanding widely found in the anti-GMO bubble) Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"this remains a primary source and we should not use it anywhere in Wikipedia." Far too restrictive. Based on that standard you would have to delete most of the current content on WP.

"The paucity in the EU is not due to some more stringent application of the PPP" - perhaps the regulators did not apply the PP but the politicians did, because of pressure from (at least some segments of) the public?

"anti-GMO bubble" - what about the pro-GMO bubble?

IjonTichy (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The policies WP:OR and WP:NPOV both strongly urge editors to use secondary sources and the guideline WP:RS explains why. There is no deadline here - there is no reason not to wait and see how this is dealt with in secondary sources, so that we provide the public with reliable, NPOV content. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the source, and it looks to me like authors proposing such a "principle". As such, I also think that it is premature to add anything about it to this page. Once we have sourcing to indicate either that the principle is being widely applied, or that it is at least widely discussed, I think we could add it here, but not until then. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

[Chuckling]. The "rule" about citing only secondary sources is itself a variation on the PP! And as in parallel with the widespread use of GMOs in many countries, the secondary source approach is not widely observed on WP. The exception is in the medical area, which has shown much greater discipline. GMO/pesticide articles are pretty good about that, too, in no small part due to jytdog's (dogged?) diligence. It would seem to me that supporters of the PP would analogously be supporters of the secondary source approach. Lfstevens (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, we are all familiar with WP policies and guidelines and thus it is a waste of our time to list them here. However, all your other feedback, insights and suggestions are helpful. Thank you for that.

Kingofaces43, Tryptofish and Lfstevens, thanks for the feedback.

IjonTichy (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Taleb and his followers are investigating whether GMO page editing is being whitewashed by corporations. I imagine due to failure of the black swan piece to make it to the page thus far. Mmangan333 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, Mmangan333. What is happening at that site falls afoul of WP:CANVASS, so if any new single purpose accounts show up here, we will know where they came from. And no, I am not part of a corporation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope it goes without saying, but I have no connection to the biotech industry. Lfstevens (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It goes without saying, and neither does anyone else. We have WP:COI, and any editors who need to identify conflicts should have done so. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Widely misunderstood

I removed that bit because it was vague and not specifically sourced. It would be better to use a cited quote than a statement. Also how wide is widely? Another way to handle it is to cite some examples of its misuse. Lfstevens (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

i don't know if you read the source provided there, but it provides what you are asking. (I can download it and email it to you if you want) And in my experience, it is true; anti-GMO people bring up this story all the time as an example of how GMOs and Monsanto are evil. In the version that circulates in their world, the seed blew onto Schmeiser's land and blammo Monsanto sued him. In that version of the story, GMOs are bad because their seed is so easily spread, and Monsanto is evil because they take advantage of that easy spreading to sue everybody and their brother, like big bullies. Told that way, it is pretty compelling. But of course that version leaves out the key facts that it was Schmeiser's intentional saving, cleaning, and replanting the next year - his knowing actions - that got him into trouble. (there is a deeper and interesting more story about the clash between tangible material rights and intellectual property rights, but that has nothing to do with the main thrust of what gets people upset about the story)Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't doubting the truth of the claim. I just thought it needed a cite. The quote didn't seem to apply directly to the case. The supplied description makes me wonder why he was using Roundup in the first place. If he thought his seed was conventional he would have known that Roundup would kill the plants. Buying Roundup in ag quantities seems like a pretty clear indicator that your crop is GM. Are there any non-GM crops that use it? Lfstevens (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

there is a whole article on the court case, since it was a supreme court case. its wikilinked (or it was anyway :) ) in this article. short story with made-up narration for the purposes of compression: he was killing some weeds with roundup in the easement between the road and his field and some stray canola there didn't die. (his neighbor had planted GM canola, btw) there was kind of trail of it leading from the road into his field, and he thought, hmmm.... and sprayed that part of his field with roundup and sure enough, a bunch of it didn't die. so he sprayed more, til he found the end of it, leaving him with a free stand of GM canola, all by itself. he thought - "that is my land. that is my canola. i am going to save it and replant it, just like i do my regular canola. to hell with monsanto and their patents. this is my land, my canola." that is the argument he took all the way to the canadian supreme court. that is the clash between tangible material rights and IP rights that i mentioned. supreme court said that IP rights trump tangible material rights. along the way, he really played up the david v goliath angle and the anti-GMO folks got behind him full force, generally without understanding the actual story. if you spend just 5 minutes googling it you will find anti-GMO sites touting the (incorrect) story and lots of references to monsanto suing farmers "when seeds blow onto their land". Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

and as I said above, the article from which the quote was drawn specifically discusses the Schmeiser case and specifically says that the case is widely misunderstood. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Lfstevens per the above conversation, see this piece of vandalism; it is typical. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would call it bias rather than vandalism. The vandals insert random nonsense. This is just pushing a political and unsupported narrative. It's interesting to watch the evolution of the discipline contend with such narratives. The FDA's approval of the ostensibly more healthful GM potato and Starbuck's efforts to create a resistant coffee bean without GE are interesting developments. I'm really curious to see how CRISPR will affect the rate of progress of GM agriculture. That rate has not been astonishingly high to date. Lfstevens (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation Overkill - scientific consensus statement

we've been over this before, citation overkill is not helpful, use a few strong sources that make this statement categorically, do not string a bunch of cites together to support a statement, that's OR, it also contravenes guidelines on Text–source integrity. Unless you can demonstrate that the cited source reflects what is written, do not use it as a citation. Semitransgenic _talk. 01:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a discussion. You know that the statement and sources for it have been upheld in an RfC and have been in this article for over a year now. Please be bring an argument based on policy or guideline to overcome all that. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing of the sort, I do not dispute the claim, I dispute the rather blatant citation overkill and abuse of text–source integrity that is clearly evident here. Jumping to an accusation of edit warring is anti-AGF. I would suggest you remove that from my talk page. I would be happy escalate to the first dispute resolution is you so wish. Semitransgenic _talk. 01:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I replied to your concern about the edit-warring warning on my Talk page, where you wrote the same thing. You are edit warring. You have now changed that content/sourcing for the third time and you have removed one of the strongest sources there, which I cannot make any sense of and which I am sure other editors here will restore. Your deletion will not stand. On the substance rather than your behavior: the statement about scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed GM food is attacked all the time, which is the reason for the pile of references. The RfC is here. Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

While adhering to editing guidelines on citation usage, I improved the content, whereas you made two blind reverts in a row without explanation. I did not revert three times as you so claim.

With respect to the citations you are defending, some of the citations clearly mention, explicitly, the matter of scientific consensus, I have no problem with this whatsoever, these are the cites that should be used.

Let me reiterate the problem I have; because you are now trying to colour this as an attack on the veracity of the statement itself. We are engaging in questionable referencing behaviour to make a point, this sets a poor example, because this is highly irrational citation overkill; many of the references do not explicitly support the sentence in question so should not be used here. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I put the citation back as it's best to stick with the last stable version when discussing a controversial change to avoid editing warring. Right now, I don't see any reason for removing citations, even citing citation-overkill. It's a contentious topic amongst the public, so we do want to be very clear on what the scientific consensus is. Sometimes you do need quite a few citations to show depth, especially when you are making a statement that most scientists say something. By nature, you typically need to cite a bunch of people to show consensus. Basically there are times when multiple citations are justified, and I'd have to read the RfC for more background, but this would be one case where this many appear justified to maintain NPOV. If readability is a concern, (which I don't think we're at quite yet) then it would be best to add one or two of the lesser quality citations to the last footnote like we currently do. There's no reason to remove these sources though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

that's fine, but can you please address the fact that multiple sources that are cited here mention nothing about scientific consensus, and why you believe we should continue to list them at the end of the sentence concerning this? some mention the existence of "overwhelming evidence," they do not mention overall consensus, they are not the same thing, this should perhaps be reflected in the wording with the appropriate citations located at the correct place. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In general, for statements about consensus, WP:RS/AC is useful. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Welp, here's each of the sources and what they say:

1. "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the AAAS Board of Directors has concluded." [53]
2. "Based on a growing body of evidence that biotechnology is not more risky than alternative technologies"[54]
3. "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." [55]
4. "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature." [56].
5. "Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat. . ."[57]
6. "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health." [58]
7. "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002)."[59]
8. "Nor does it matter that august agencies, such as the World Health Organization, the US National Academy of Sciences, the European Commission or the American Medical Association, have come out with ringing endorsements of their safety."[60]
9. "The report concludes that food derived from GM plants approvedin the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from “conventional” food."[61]
10. "France's Academy of Sciences has published a report which says that the current criticisms of genetically modified (GM) crops are scientifically "unfounded." [62] Could be better to reference the actual report if possible, not nothing out of line in this source either.
11. "GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, to be safe for use in human and animal foods." [63] (translation with citation)
12. "I’m not the first journalist to notice the consensus. Science-oriented publications including Nature and Scientific American have taken a hard look at safety and also concluded there’s no evidence that GMOs are bad for us. Nathanael Johnson, who’s doing yeoman’s fact-finding work at Grist.org, concurs." [64] Washington Post may not be the best source here for summarizing scientific consensus (may be a candidate to go unless something else was being referenced), but it is agreeing with the content.
13. "General Accounting Office (GAO) report concluding that all commercial GE food products produced to date in the United States have been adequately tested for safety by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and pose no unique hazards (GAO 2002)." [65]
14. "As the journal Nature editorialized in 1992, a broad scientific consensus holds that ‘the same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods. [Therefore] no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes. [66].
15. Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food.[67] Looks like a primary study and not really mentioning anything we could use here in the abstract anyways. That one can go.
16. [68] Looks pretty dated (latest reference is 2004). We've got plenty of peer-reviewed or reputable organization statements, so this one should probably go too.
17. "Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Food safety assessments by national regulatory agencies in several countries have deemed currently available GM foods to be as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts and suitable for human consumption." [69]

So out of all the sources, two are easy pickings for removal, and one more could potentially go depending on if one wants to consider the Washington Post a reliable "lay" source for this topic. Most though are pretty much right in line with what the content says with even a quick glance through sources like I did. Doesn't quite seem to be worth the fuss that I saw in the reverts and start of talk section. I wouldn't suggest adding any more sources, but this is a case where many are needed since we are dealing with a well documented real-world consensus that some editors on Wikipedia have trouble swallowing sometimes as mentioned above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Chief Science Advisor to Pres of EC

just came across this source: "Michael Spector for the New Yorker. 21 November. 2014 European Science’s Great Leap Backward", which is about the elimination of the position of the "chief scientific adviser to the President of the European Commission". According to that article, this happened following statements made by the former occupant, Anne Glover, confirming the scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed GM foods, and calling opposition on the grounds of food safety "madness" Not sure if this is a big enough deal to generate content. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection

This page could be gamed any which way. I reckon best off that everyone edits with a named account. Happy for me (or any other admin) to unprotect if an IP puts a case for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

just pointing out the "g" is left out of the hyperlink "genetic use restriction technology".

One way to avoid environmental contamination is genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also

it should be

One way to avoid environmental contamination is genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also 199.107.67.99 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference missing

Hi, I tried to reach where this statement came from "Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists,", but I didn't find anywhere that the Union of Concerned Scientist are opponents of genetically modified food. Can somebody either add a reference or delete it? Thanks, Fernando. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando Aleman G (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fernando. It is sourced in the body of the article. If you search the page for "Union of Concerned Scientists" you will see that reference #20 is used to support that statement. (btw the lead paragraph of an article just summarizes what is in the body and what appears in the lead doesn't need to be sourced unless it is controversial - this is all described in our guideline WP:LEAD) If you ever run into that problem again look in the body of the article! Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your answer. I followed reference #20 and they just say "That’s the point Margaret Mellon made when I called her at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, D.C. Mellon has been critical of U.S. policies on genetically engineered crops". Furthermore, I couldn't find this person at the Union of Concerned Scientist website, but what I found on their website is "Does UCS have a position on GE?" http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture and obviously they are not against GM food. They just want more control and more proofs of their safety, but they don't "opposed" to genetically modified food. I see this issue as a large scientific consensus about the safety of GMOs but (the same as with climate change) there are still a few scientist that go against majority. So that statement is at least misleading if not completely wrong. Thanks, Fernando.

the union of concerned scientists unfortunately takes several fringe positions. this is one of them. the source supports the statement. if you want more just go to their website and you will see plenty. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Does UCS have a position on GE? Yes Stacie Croquet (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

yes and they exaggerate the risks there like anti-GMO groups. they are not mainstream in that. it is irresponsible science to write something like "GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts." There is nothing on the planet that does not have that exact same potential. Making that their pole position locates them out of the mainstream. and what really puts the kicker in it is that anti-climate change groups make the same kind of bullshitty arguments. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

They State "We understand the potential benefits of the technology" Where is your evidence to support your edit that they Oppose it? Stacie Croquet (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

They do all the moves typical of the anti-GMO movement:

• here where they supposedly describe what "genetic engineering" is, they provide ridiculous examples and emphasize only the risks. Remember this is the site where they are telling readers what genetic engineering is. Contrast with a site actually trying to educate, like say our page Genetic engineering or this blog of this university extension site. UCS' "education" site is just fear-mongering, uneducational bullshit. (can you tell that I am disappointed with the nonscientific approach of the Union of Concerned Scientists?)
• as i wrote above, in the "Environmental and health risks" section they have the nonsensical statement: "While the risks of genetic engineering are often exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may spread undesirable traits to weeds and non-GE crops, produce new allergens and toxins, or harm animals that consume them." The latter part of the sentence is exactly what is "often exaggerated or misrepresented". fake balance. not reasonable.
• right under that is a link to the "Risks of Genetic Engineering" where again they first give a mumbly nod to "there are no real risks" and then they jump into Seralini-like "It is also an exaggeration, however, to state that there are no health risks associated with GE. For one thing, not enough is known: research on the effects of specific genes has been limited—and tightly controlled by the industry." If you actually understand genetic engineering and food, like actual scientists do, you know that there is no plausible mechanism by which commercially-oriented genetic engineering of crops - with all the testing they do - is going to cause harm. yet they plunge ahead and talk up the dangers of potential allergens being introduced - which is a well-known risk and tested-for like crazy. it is just exasperating.
• their claim that " Policy decisions about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry public relations campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland." is a statement that has completely swallowed the kool aid that biotech companies somehow "own" the discourse. They do not. You have to work your ass off to learn facts about GMOs as this article in the NY TImes aptly described. the anti-GMO world owns the public discourse, and it is only because regulators in the US are actually science-driven that ag bioech is as advanced as it is in the US.
• their focus on Monsanto is also right inline with the anti-GMO crowd. They make Monsanto their badboy. forget bayer, syngenta, etc. in my view, this is probably the key "tell" for what is driving them. it is not objective science, it is the anti-GMO discourse that they are just following along with.
• i could go on but i will stop. at every chance they get, they do emphasize the risks in a way that is not reasonable and that mainstream science does not follow. I completely understand their concern about monoculture and sustainability but their "concern" about genetic engineering is not scientifically stated nor based in mainstream science. (oh and did i mention they supported Prop 37?)Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

All very fascinating, and much that you say I agree with...but (and it is a big but)...Your edit states, without references, that they are "opponents of genetically modified food" and they they are "a group opposed to genetic engineering" whereas their own website states "We understand the potential benefits of the technology, and support continued advances in molecular biology, the underlying science...some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production". Please self revert or provided references to back up your assertions. Stacie Croquet (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

i read that the other two times you wrote it. does this satisfy you? please see discussion near the end of this as well. bottom line here is that UCS does concern trolling on GMOs - its pretty ugly. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Er...no...the bottom line here is that ...Your edit states, without references, that the Union of Concerned Scientists are "opponents of genetically modified food" and they they are "a group opposed to genetic engineering" Indeed your own (2nd) Link states "The Union of Concerned Scientists takes a middle ground, Our major concern about genetic engineering is not its risks but that its over-hyped promises" and your first reference is merely attacking this middle ground stance. Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

please respond to what i wrote. especially the last two sources, which are not me saying it, but third parties. and please tell me what actual use of GM crops in the world today they actually support. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, UoCS is considered a fringe group per WP:FRINGE. I can't recall if it's been discussed somewhere in the archives in this page or a related one, but it was some time ago. Either way, we don't really give the time of day with such organizations, so I don't really see this conversation going anywhere to improve the article because we don't represent the opinions of fringe groups. I'd do a little digging if I had time this week, so if someone else recalls a similar conversation, feel free to link it here to help Stacie out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me what actual use of GM crops in the world today they actually support, Well, not that that I see the relevance, but I was curious: Virus-resistant GE papaya has prevented substantial yield loss...I've also trawled through the Archives...think that fringe discussion was somewhere else...but I did note this...The verifiability policy says:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.

I'm sure UCS's fringe status make this all the more relevant. ...But the bottom line remains that this edit needs to be reverted Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

i don't understand your comment. The document you listed there is one of their key planks in opposing GM crops (see their 3 recommendations on page 5, each of which recommend directing $ away from GE research and making it more difficult to get new GM crops approved. That is opposition. Shall we cite that article of theirs as evidence of their opposition? Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to restore we really do need to cite some, any article as evidence of their opposition. Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stacie, Jytdog and Kingofaces43. I think in this link we can all see very clear that the UCS does not oppose GMOs: http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.VIZpsckrEuE At the end of their site they expose their opinion. Which is a middle position, "GMOs can be good and can be bad" that's all. Is anybody understanding something different? If you guys understand the same, the sentence "Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists," is just wrong, because they don't support GMOs nor oppose them, they just want to be cautious. Do we agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando Aleman G (talk • contribs) 03:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

this was settled a month ago. there are boatloads of refs for it now. UCS has been opposing what they see as too-cozy regulators since the 1990s and continues to concern troll. Please read the sources that are there. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Substantial Equivalence

I took out the statement:

The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.

This is not universally true, the regulation varies by country. The first source cited goes to a broken link. The second source is related to U.S. policy and is not ubiquitous. The last source appears simply to argue in favor of the the substantial equivalence method.

I'm not sure why Jytdog reverted my deletion. I had already informed Jytdog on my talk page that this statement is incorrect and unjustifiable.

This policy is not used in the E.U. See: Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union. GMO regulation varies widely by country. See: Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms David Tornheim (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I provided the reason for my reversion in my edit note, here. let me know what is not clear there. thanks for pointing out the dead link. fixed that. Added another source, with quote: "The guiding principle in the evaluation of BD foods by regulatory agencies in Europe and the U.S. is that their human and environmental safety is most effectively considered, relative to comparable products and processes currently in use. From this arises the concept of 'substantial equivalence.'" It is not a policy, and this article does not call it a policy. it is a principle. Please react to what the article actually says. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

with regard to South Africa: The South African Department of Health states that: "[all] assessments are done case-by-case and step-by-step. As with all new experiences comparisons with known foods are constantly made. This approach, which is the stating point for risk assessment of genetically modified food, is often called substantial equivalency". Source: Fikremarkos Merso Birhanu. Gentically Modified Organisms in Africa: Regulating a Threat or Opportunity? Chapter 9 (pp 227-253) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. page. 241

Canada does the same. see Jane Matthews Glenn. The Coexistence of Genetically Modified and Non-genetially modified Agriculture in Canada: A Courtroom Drama. Chapter 10 (pp 254-273) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. page. 266

Mercosur also uses the principle. See Rosario Silva Gilli. Genetically Modified Organisms in MERCOSUR. Chapter 11 (pp 274-298) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. page 283 Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

same book, different chapter, more generally: See Margaret Rosso Grossman. Genetically Modified Crops and Food in the United States: The Federal Regulatory Framework, State Measures, and Liability in Tort. Chapter 12 (pp 299-336) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. pp 311-312 which says: "In its 1992 Policy Statement, the FDA indicated that the scientific concepts described 'are consistent with the concepts of substantial equivalence of new foods' articulated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and principles for assessment of food safety established by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Substantial equivalence is 'regulatory shorthand for defining those new foods that do not raise safety issues that require special, intensive, case by case scutiny. It is "an internationally recognized standard that measures whether a biotech food or crop shares similar health and nutritional characteristics with its conventional counterpart". Substantial equivalence is not a safety assessment, Instead, it is a "comparative approach and embodies the idea that existing traditionally produced foods can serve as a reference to evaluate the safety of genetically modified foods."

It is not a policy - it is principle used globally as a starting point for regulatory assessment, as our article says. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional references. I did some additional searching specifically on E.U. for substantial equivalence, and it appears to be a part of the process for GMO's:

"The term substantial equivalence is also referred to in the Regulation(EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients which came into force in the member states of the European Union on 15 May 1997."

* * *

"This procedure does not apply to novel foods containing, or consisting of, GMOs. For the placing on the market of this category of novel foods, authorisations are mandatory, even if the result of the safety assessment may prove their substantial equivalence to conventional foods."

http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/schauzu.pdf source PDF link

I believe the pertinent EU Reg is:

"Regulation (EC) No 258/97 also provides for a notification procedure for novel foods which are substantially equivalent to existing foods. Whilst substantial equivalence is a key step in the procedure for assessment of the safety of genetically modified foods, it is not a safety assessment in itself. In order to ensure clarity, transparency and a harmonised framework for authorisation of genetically modified food, this notification procedure should be abandoned in respect of genetically modified foods" source link

I have no idea if the link I provides is of a draft, actual Reg that was passed, or an older version that has been changed. For now, I will assume that indeed the "substantial equivalence" explained in these two documents I just dug up is part of the process of the E.U. approval in addition to, and not instead of, all of the other additional mandated testing described that is not required in the U.S.

So I understand the defense of the above line about "substantial equivalence" now. The line may indeed be technically correct, but it is part of a bigger problem, that I am trying to address: lack of NPOV, lack of balance and that it is slanted. I see another user raised this issue and was quickly scared off by Jytdog. That user's objections were on point--unfortunately, they were just archived, so I will try to resurrect some of those concerns. I will start a new topic on these issues and see if progress can be made to address the major problems the user raised, which have not been addressed. I am sad that new user, who probably did not understand the process well enough to stick around, is no longer with us and will not be able to participate in the discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

glad this one is laid to rest. my sense is, that as with this one, when you dig into the next specific thing, you will find that the article as it stands is on point. it's the same process i went through, anyway. if you find something wrong we can of course work to fix it. the article is better now, with stronger sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)