Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Controversies

I removed the bias in this section. I understand that this section should be brief and not give specifics because there is a whole article for controversies but when users come to this article for the first time they are given the impression that the antagonists for GM foods are conspiracy theorists and that is definitely not the case. There are two sides to this controversy and I think it’s very important the article lets the readers know that and briefly touches on that. Why is it okay to say there is no evidence that supports anything bad coming from GMO's but it's not okay to supply that evidence.TiaMarie08 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for talking! Wikipedia stands solidly with the scientific consensus, where it exists. The statement of the scientific consensus (namely, that currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as food from conventional organisms) underwent an RfC here and was upheld in the process. The scientific consensus is not "biased". Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is, this a huge controversial topic right now for lots of people all over the world. This article may be their “one stop shop” to get information on the topic and I feel like there are significant parts of this article that are biased. The article does talk about both sides of the argument but it always blows off all evidence that says genetically modified foods are bad and only touches on the evidence stating genetically modified foods are good. There is substantial evidence on both sides of the topic so I don’t understand why you feel only one side is important to include.TiaMarie08 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. I don't know that the topic is any more controversial now than it was, say 6 months ago (last March against Monsanto), or a year ago (seralini article). And in any case wikipedia is not a newspaper - see WP:RECENT. Your second point, about bias. You say, broadly, things about "good" and "bad". There is no such broad language in the article - I don't know anybody who says that GM food is "good", period. Nothing is good, period. If you could be more specific, it would be helpful.Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Today User:TiaMarie08 added the following to the Controversies section in this dif, which I reverted: "Numerous sources have also said that the FDA gives blanket approval to new genetically modified foods being introduced simply because they don’t detect changes in the composition of the food. (ref)Bouffard, Kevin. “Nature Vs. GMO: Sides Face Off Over Genetically Modified Food.” McClatchy – Tribune Business News Sept 03 2013. Proquest. Web. 17 Sept. 2013.(/ref)(ref) Smith, Jeffrey M. "Genetically Modified Crops Are Harmful." Genetic Engineering. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Contemporary Issues Companion. Rpt. from "Genetically Engineered Foods May Pose National Health Risk." www.seedsofdeception.com. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.(/ref)"

Issues with this: 1) there is no reliable source to rely on, for a statement that the "FDA gives blanket approval" because this is not true. It comes close to describing substantial equivalence but that is a starting point for regulators, not an endpoint. 2) The statement itself is not encyclopedic. There are actual facts here, about how the FDA regulates - there is a whole article on Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms that describes how the FDA, EPA, USDA regulate GM crops and food and how they are regulated elsewhere; it can be described objectively and we don't conspiracy-theory sounding reliance on "numerous sources". 3) Jeffery Smith is unfortunately not a reliable source for statements of fact about anything controversial about GMOs.

Additionally, Regulation itself is covered in the regulation article; controversies over regulation are discussed in the humongous article on the controversies around GM food (see Genetically modified food controversies). That regulation is covered there, is mentioned in the existing text that mentions regulations several times. Tiamarie, if we were to flesh out everything in the short section on Controversies here, we would just replicate the huge other article. This is why content gets split - articles become too long otherwise. I hope that makes sense! Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (note - moved my comment up here to keep this thread together. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC))

I agree with you that the evidence I presented about the “FDA giving blanket approval” is not as reliable as information posted here should be and definitely not encyclopedic. The problems I’m facing are1) the FDA, EPA, and USDA are who approve genetically modified food, so why would they ever admit to “blanket approving” these foods and 2) they are the government agencies deemed most credible to publish information about the topic so I will never be able to find sufficient evidence to trump that in the “general consensus’s” view. I feel as if this is a huge topic not because of the attention it has gotten by the media lately in the last 6 months or year. I feel it’s important because this topic impacts what most American’s consume every day. All the time new scientists are posting new studies about genetically modified foods causing cancer, intestinal problems, and all sorts of health benefits, regardless of what either of us or any Wikipedian’s thinks about the matter I think it’s important to provide either both sides or neither. The controversies section of this article says, “There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food” According to a recent CBS/ New York times poll 53% of American’s would not buy genetically modified food if it was labeled and according to a recent Mellman Group poll 89% want genetically modified food labeled. So I took that piece out because it’s biased when there are poll’s showing that just as many people want it labeled. The article also says, “There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health” In the Genetically Modified Food Controversies Article there are multiple different studies showing there is evidence supporting GM Food to be harmful. I’m just confused as to why both sides can’t be in this article because every time I add information you take it down. Since this is the case, why is there even a controversies section in this article if we aren’t able to give information about both sides of the controversy. I really want to contribute to this article in a positive way so I’m curious as to what I can do to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiaMarie08 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi TiaMarie08 - first, thanks for talking! I really, really appreciate it, and I appreciate your desire to improve the article. Several things, I guess. There are many issues you raise... let me tease them out and address them one by one, so we can discuss them clearly.

1. The relative safety of eating currently marketed GM food. There actually is a scientific consensus on this. Full stop. This is what I wrote to you in my first note, above. What that means, is that we do not give equal WP:WEIGHT to views that run counter to the consensus. (please do read WP:WEIGHT) And I know it is hard to hear but that is how Wikipedia works; NPOV does not mean that all points of view get equal WEIGHT. Please note that when I say "there is a scientific consensus on this" I am only talking about the relative safety of eating currently marketed GM food - not any GM food imaginable, and not all the other issues related to GM crops. Do you get that? This is a really key point.Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. In the first response I wrote to you, I said "The statement of the scientific consensus (namely, that currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as food from conventional organisms) underwent an RfC here and was upheld in the process." I don't know if you know what an "RfC" is, but it is a "request for comments" which is a process we use to get wider Wikipedia community input on an issue. I don't know if you clicked on the link and read what was there. You are very welcome to contribute, but it is really useful if you take some time and understand the history of the conversation you are joining. Consensus that comes out of an RfC is not something you can set aside lightly... Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. All of us who work here, are very aware that many people are afraid that GM food is somehow harmful. The "public opinion" section in the Controversies article cites the polls you mention. However, just because people believe something, does not make it true. For example "almost half of Americans, for instance, think the phrase, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,' appears in the United States Constitution." (from here). Not true. When we speak in Wikipedia's voice, what we write there needs to be as close to reality as we can make it - and for science-related matters, that means we have to listen to what the scientific community is saying. So the argument about "95% of people believe it so it must be true" just doesn't fly.Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Regulatory agencies are part of the mainstream consensus on the safety of currently marketed foods. You may believe the regulatory agencies are corrupt (and we do have a section in the Controversies article discussing that) but Wikipedia is not here to "right great wrongs" so if that is your goal, you are not aligned with Wikipedia's goals. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
5. What you say above, about "why would they ever admit to “blanket approving” these foods" is kind of hard to hear. I tried to tell you above, that there are published regulations that govern how the US and other countries regulate, and these agencies implement those regulations and they publish their work. You can find it on their websites and you can find news and information in reliable sources about it. And these agencies have rejected GM products. Really! The whole "blanket approval" thing is just not true. I really encourage you to read the Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms article to learn more about this, and spend time reading the sources provided in that article. There is actual, verifiable information out there - please do not treat this topic like it is unknowable and we have to even consider conspiracy theories or try to guess about what happens in secret. Your help is really welcome, but you have to be willing to do your homework. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Regulatory agencies are corrupt? If there is good, citable evidence that they are (I don't know exactly what kind of evidence there is), then they should not be cited. This is not a matter of “righting great wrongs”, it's a matter of maintaining reliable sources. In particular, FDA's Michael R. Taylor, because of his known work for Monsanto, should never be cited as a credible source on this matter.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful of WP:BLP. On top of that, Michael Taylor's story is more complex than your description allows.Jytdog (talk) 12

50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

“There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.” [6 sources are cited.] Almost all sources I've gotten say otherwise. Right now, in Washington State, where I am, we are voting on initiative I-522, which would require GMO labeling, so it is a big controversy. More importantly, any sources saying GMOs are safe should be checked for conflict of interest. Sources affiliated with Monsanto or suchlike have an obvious conflict of interest and should most definitely not be cited.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not looking at mainstream science, Solomon. There is indeed tons of garbage out there about putative health risks. It sounds like you haven't actually read the sources that are cited here. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that there has been a huge spike in food allergies in kids since 1997, which can easily be correlated since they started producing GMO foods in the markets in 1996.Seashell1 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)§

Correlation is not causation.Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lots of bias in this artical, and it is now semi-protected

Someone has removed all sources and studies that oppose genetically modified food, and I feel it is heavily biased. I tried to edit more sources in, however it is now semi-protected after I added more facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmccoy1111 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to describe, in a neutral way, with reliable sources, what genetically modified food is, so that people can be informed about that. There is a separate article called Genetically modified food controversies that goes into great detail about all the controversies. This article is about the thing itself, not all the feelings that people have about it. It is not biased. I understand that if you are very opposed to GM food it is disappointing to not see here, all the negative information that you see elsewhere on the internet. But Wikipedia is not the internet or a blog; it is not a site for advocacy either. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Also, if the content you want to add is anything about health, please be aware that the WP:MEDRS guideline needs to be followed for that. Thanks for commenting! Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems you're heavily biased and involved in the biotech industry, Jytdog. There is bias in this article, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.", while many of those studies, if not all, are funded by biotech corporations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmccoy1111 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:B:14F:C0D3:211C:C8E7:AE56 (talk)

Please see the consensus of the Wikipedia community that upheld the statement of the scientific consensus, here. Your accusations of bad faith are unwelcome; constructive comments and improvements of the article are very welcome! Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regulations

I would like to add Senate Bill 802 would require food intended for human consumption that is entirely or partially genetically-engineered to bear the words “Produced with Genetic Engineering” on their packaging. The phrase must be printed in the same size and font as the ingredients on the product’s nutrition facts panel. Unpack aged raw agricultural commodities must be labeled on their retail shelf or bin. if approved will provide citation.Seashell1 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that should most likely go into the section on Labeling in the Controversies article -- Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Labeling. I do hope the source is reliable! Thanks for contributing. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone added this to the GM Controversies article with (kind of) a source. Turns out this "Senate Bill 802" was a Connecticut state assembly bill - it has become law, and the Controversies article has content on that already. Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add currently only The USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency regulate GMOs. Companies such as Monsanto, the largest purveyor of genetically engineered seeds, must get approval before planting or selling the products commercially. Also that GMO label doesn't apply to plants bred through natural cross-pollination in a field or the hybrid breeding of two species of the same crop, methods used by farmers for thousands of years to grow, cull and propagate the hardiest, best varieties. GMO seeds are prohibited under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act for certified organic growers or any certified organic product.Seashell1 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)§

I wanted to add that there is currently 26 countries that ban GMO foods in their countries. Seashell1 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)§

Labeling

On November 5, 2013, Washington voted whether or not to label foods that contain GMOs. There were some controversies with this because if the law were to pass it would not include food in restaurants or milk/meat. Although the bill did not pass it was a huge step forward in the labeling GMO's movement.[citation needed] This comment was entered although it did not provide a source. I would like to add a source and additional information. Initiative Measure No. I-522 filed June 29, 2012 is AN ACT Relating to disclosure of foods produced through genetic engineering; adding a new chapter to Title 70 RCW; and prescribing penalties. On November 5, Bill I-522 did not pass on November 5th, with a final result of 51-49 labeling Genetically Engineered Foods.§Seashell1 (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contributing to the article. If you peruse the Talk above, you will see that this article is pretty well worked over, and is part of suite of GM-related articles. The focus of this article is GM Food per se -- it seeks to answer the question, "what food is genetically modified, exactly?" In the past, this article was totally overwhelmed with various aspects of the controversies around GM food and there was actually no description of what food is actually genetically modified. The editors working on these articles cleaned that up and sorted out the content among the various articles, so that each one had a clear focus, and we left "stub" sections based on the leads of the related articles, so that the whole picture was retained. So the way to go, is to add detail to the relevant article. If it is important enough to make it to the lead of that article, then it comes back into the stub sections of the all the related articles. That way the information stays clean - and importantly, stays aligned and we don't get bushy growth in odd places. Just kind of basic gardening. There is information about labeling initiatives in the article on Genetically modified food controversies - you will find that the Washington State failed initiative is already there (it didn't go into the US section of the Regulation article because it is not actual regulation). Best regards! Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to provide an update to inform users that there is currently 64 countries that require GMO foods to be labeled. Seashell1 (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)§

you already did... unclear why you left this note. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bmccoy111 issues

You're clearly closely watching this article every day to see changes, and editing out all changes that are against GMO food, it seems, which I find odd, Jytdog. Can you provide proof that you don't work for a big agricultural corporation? I just find it very odd that you're editing out all changes and you love the line "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.". If you removed that line, the article would be relatively unbiased, from either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmccoy1111 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bmccoy1111, while I am glad you find the article to be generally NPOV, your accusation is ugly. As this is the second time you have made it (see this dif for the first) and you are a pretty new editor, I am pointing you to Wikipedia:Civility - a pillar of Wikipedia; the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks; and the guideline, WP:AGF, and am strongly suggesting that you read them and abide by them. Short version - be civil, focus on content not contributors, and assume good faith. In any case, to respond to your accusations, please see my userpage, which is the thing that editors normally do when they are curious about another editor; I wrote it for editors like you. It is true that I work to keep inaccurate, biased and off-target information out of this article and related ones, and work to expand their on-target, accurate, NPOV, and well sourced content. Two things about your recent edits that I want to point out. First, there is no GM crop that can "self-produce Glyphosphate". (This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology; one of my goals in working on this page and related ones, like Genetically modified crops, is to provide reliable information about the technology - I hope you do actually read the articles and learn from them) Secondly, there is scientific consensus that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe as food from conventional crops. The statement of the consensus, and the sources used to support it, have been through an RfC which validates it in the Wikipedia community - please see that discussion here. I pointed you to the RfC before, but you apparently didn't read it. Everybody is welcome to edit, but things go better when editors take the time to understand how Wikipedia works and in controversial articles like this one, take some time to understand the issues and the conversations that have been going on - Wikipedia is not an internet forum where people flame each other and leave; we are a community, and it is just plain decent politeness to understand the conversation you are joining and to treat others with civility. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference after safety issues??? It has been there for quite a while. Bmccoy1111 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why the double question marks?? And you didn't respond to anything I wrote above. This should be a dialogue. To answer your new question... Wikipedia guidance on providing citations in the lead section of articles, is described here: Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations. Basically, there is no need for citations in the lead for material that is supported in the body. Generally you only use citations in the lead a) if there is a generalizing/summarizing statement in the lead that somebody might judge goes too far beyond what is in the body, or b) if what is in the body is so surprising that even though it is well supported in the body, it makes sense to also use citations in the lead just to stop people from freaking out. With respect to the content in the lead of our article, stating that some people think there are safety issues around GMOs... I think there is nobody on the planet who would contest that this is true. So there is no point to having a citation there - it is just clutter. On the other hand, there are multiple sources on the content describing the scientific consensus, as this seems to be surprising information to some readers. I hope that explanation makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

regulatory section

User:Seashell1 has wanted to add the following to the article, in the Regulatory section, as per this dif and earlier ones:

"The USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency regulate GMOs. Companies such as Monsanto, the largest purveyor of genetically engineered seeds, must get approval before planting or selling the products commercially. Also that GMO label doesn't apply to plants bred through natural cross-pollination in a field or the hybrid breeding of two species of the same crop, methods used by farmers for thousands of years to grow, cull and propagate the hardiest, best varieties. GMO seeds are prohibited under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act for certified organic growers or any certified organic product.(ref)"Defining GMO.” McClatchy Tribune Business News.(May 2011). Proquest.com.Web.19 Sept. 2013.(/ref)"

I have reverted, as I did in this dif with an explanation: "reverted re-addition content on regulation of GMOs in the US. as previously noted, this is US-centric. please discuss on Talk instead of edit-warring, thanks".

As I wrote there, the Regulatory section is taken from the lead of the main articles, Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms and Regulation of genetic engineering. Regulation is a GLOBAL issue - every country does it differently, and the edit that Seashell is making, is US-centric. Additionally -- the first is not accurate, since there are 3 US federal agencies involved, not just two. The second sentence is globally true and we could keep. The third sentence is irrelevant - this article is about GM crops, not normal crops. The 4th sentence is about organic crops, not GM crops. So we can keep the second sentence if you all like, but the rest should not come in. Other people have tried to add other countries (like Switzerland) in here, and once we start going there, we basically replicate the Regulation article in this article, and that is just silly. User:Seashell1 please discuss. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

caption for new corn image

User:Bmccoy1111 has added this pic to the article, and originally wanted the caption to read "Corn genetically engineered to self-produce Glyphosphate, for self-resistance to pests" (see this dif). I removed the caption in this dif and my edit note made 2 points:

1. the image is of corn, not GM corn (not that they look any different, but image is called "corn") I feel it is dishonest to misrepresent the image. GM corn does not look different from non-GM corn, but nonetheless, I think Wikipedia should not misrepresent anything.
2. also, there is no GM crop that can "self-produce Glyphosphate".

Later today Bmccoy1111 put a caption back in this dif. The new caption reads: "Corn that is resistant to Glyphosate, a commonly used insecticide". We have the same two issues - a misrepresentation and a description based on a lack of understanding. In this case the lack of understanding is that glyphosate is not an insecticide - it is an herbicide. The misrepresentation issue remains. I again deleted the caption except for the word "corn". We should not misrepresent the image, and if an image of GM corn is found, it should accurately describe the modification. Bmccoy1111 do you see the problems? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on that, I suppose,. However, there is no need to remove the sources after "safety issues". That is the whole reason I am mad at you for only keeping the sources that are on your side. I am not insulting you in any way, we can certainly agree to disagree.Bmccoy1111 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I wrote to you above about he source issue; please respond there. Again, this is not an internet discussion board - please stop behaving as though you are on one. This is a community working on a serious project. We work here, and we work together, as professionally as we can. Please stop running around and deleting things and please talk. You are editing in a disruptive way and it is going to get you blocked or banned - this is why it is unwise to learn to edit by jumping into a controversial article and making aggressive changes. Please slow down, learn how things work, and for pete's sake, discuss things. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Only controversial claims need citing in the lead section of an article. The part that you are adding references to is fully referenced in Genetically modified food controversies which is linked to in that section. Plenty of people would disagree with "GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" which is why it needs to be well referenced even in the lead. This isn't about 'sides'. I've removed the corn photo altogether - it's definitely not GM as it was taken in the UK where GM food can't be sold. We should probably have start a new thread to debate a suitable photo for the lead, assuming that the old one is problematic. SmartSE (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Smartse thanks for jumping in here! Quick note - the consensus statement is fully sourced in this article, between the lead and the Controversies section, which is copied from the lead of the Genetically modified food controversies article. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The only person who objected to the plum photo is Bmccoy1111; I would say restore til Bmccoy1111 can find an image of GM corn.Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to restore the plum photo until we can find a better one. Bmccoy1111 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

deletion of material from body

In this dif, User:Bmccoy1111 deleted a big chunk of text from the body, with the edit note: "Removed "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.", because it is repetitive and already stated in the beginning of the article)". This deletion was later reverted by User:Thargor Orlando in this dif with edit note " Restoring current consensus version, see talk"

The reasons stated for the deletion by Bmccoy1111 are incorrect. As per The Manual of Style on the lead section - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - the lead is supposed to be repetitive and the lead is only supposed to have content that is already in the body. You write the body first, and then you write the lead, summarizing the body. If something is not in the body, it should not be in the lead! Bmccoy1111 did not provide valid grounds for deleting this content from the body. User:Bmccoy1111 it is frustrating that you are making aggressive edits, and not talking, when you do not understand how Wikipedia works and you do not understand the subject matter very well. Please slow down, and talk about things. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll just leave this page alone until I understand Wikipedia more, as it is a very controversial subject at the time. Bmccoy1111 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Bmccoy1111 - I do not mean at all to drive you away... if you choose to continue to work on this article, please just slow down and discuss things. I will be happy to work with you and help you figure out how things work, if you want to learn here. If you want to learn on other articles, I wish you the best. Thanks for talking, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Time limit needed on RfC and "broad scientific consensus"?

Shouldn't a date be specified in the claim that, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" and in the accompanying Request for Comments (RfC)? That RfC ran from July to September 2013. For example, shouldn't the statement read something more like "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market as of mid-2013 and derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food"? Or make it two sentences like, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food; this does not include foods introduced since mid-2013"?

To what extent might that "broad scientific consensus" extend to GM foods introduced since the most recent scientific article reviewed during that period?

For example, does that consensus include GMO apples, currently under regulatory review in the US and Canada? DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a date will inaccurately give the impression that the consensus has changed, when we'd be better off changing the wording outright if that consensus were to change. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That would give the implication that the consensus has changed when there is no evidence that it has. When and if evidence exists that the consensus has changed, then the appropriate changes would be made. BlackHades (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. The scientific consensus is based on a few different things, but primarily it is based on an understanding of the biology involved in making a GM crop, the DNA and proteins involved, the key kinds of toxicity that are possible, and the regulatory process (which looks for those toxicities, and others). So anything that makes it through the regulatory process is therefore just like everything that came before, safety-wise. And there has still been no compelling experiment done, or finding made, that overturns any of the things upon which the consensus is based (things like "electron-microscope organisms' are pseudoscience that don't affect mainstream science). It would take something like that to make it worthwhile to date the consensus - some event that actually changed the consensus. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Labelling

today user:BrianWo added content on labelling in these difs]. I moved that content in part into the Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms article in this dif and in part (as there was duplication) into the Genetically modified food controversies article, in this dif. This reason for this is WP:SUMMARY. Both the Regulation and Controversies articles are very very long, and we have worked hard to edit these articles so they are well organized and synced, and cover all the relevant issues. There is constant temptation to add material to this article but such efforts often bring detail that doesn't rise to the Lead of the split articles and so shouldn't be here either. Hope this makes sense; happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wheat

There is no mention whatsoever of wheat in the article. Wheat is modified to withstand herbicides, pesticides and drought. Seems to me that would increase our ingestion of poison in our diet, since wheat is in so many processed foods. Besides that, GMO wheat products spike blood sugar faster than eating pure sugar.108.194.197.251 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It is my understanding that there is no GM wheat on the market, at all, and there never has been. So nGM wheat is not in anyone's diet to cause any kind of sugar spike. If you have any reliable sources for GM wheat actually being on the market, or for any effects on humans who eat GM wheat, I would be very very interested to see them and would be happy to incorporate that information and sources into the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jytdog is correct. No GM wheat is on the market at the moment. It has undergone lots of selective breeding breeding, which some people might consider genetic modification, but this does not apply to the definition we use here. It is being developed for various traits though and may arrive in the future. BTW I don't beleive any crops have been released commercially that are drought resistant. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

hey User:Aircorn actually Monsanto has a drought-resistant corn on the market, called droughtgard - here is a good update on what's happening on that front. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Take a break from this area for a couple of months and something new comes out. Is it the maize that curls its leaves? We should probably mention it somewhere. AIRcorn (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a cold shock protein. Mentioned here and here.  :) Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food"

Let me put it right up-front: I admit I am no expert on GMO food. But I am scientist and know how to dig scientific literature. Searching the literature for an hour or so, I do not find any broad scientific consensus that GMO is safe; rather, I found there is some controversy, and that some GMO foods are considered safe, while others are not. Moreover, some foods have not been extensively tested or need to be tested longer.

Please read, consider, and take a stance, on e.g., this review, in particular the 'Final remarks' therein if you're in a hurry: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055

How can one state in this Wikipedia article that there is a broad scientific consensus? In the light of (even) one article (above), I must conclude: the statement quoted in the subject/headline is false. According to the article there is rather a 1:1 I'd like to ask the editor of the article to have a look at this. and consider that this wikipedia article is not neutrally written.

Let me quote from above review: "However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be the information published in reputed international journals, which has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure. "

This issue has been talked to death. Please review the Talk page above, and the archives. We even had a Request for Comment on it, which you can read here. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I've read that. Apparently no consensus in the discussion came out, and frankly, I didn't find the discussions very helpful, but rather of semantic nature. The quotation I inserted above is from a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, and is a REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS on the topic; it is not, in comparison as quoted somewhere in the Talk page, from some unreliable news report. Broad agreement and consensus means something else. It would be good if people who make claims about scientific literature actually read it. Sorry for being so direct -- please do not misunderstand, I do not mean to attack with this. In conclusion: we clearly have a scientific review of scientific literature, summarizing findings about research on the safety of GMO food: conclusions are that the effects from GMO food in general are unclear, and that much literature is clearly biased. This is hardly reflected in the phrase 'there is broad scientific consensus'. BTW, Talking something to death does not imply the problem was solved! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbarmeter (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think that scientific consensus means unanimity. It does not mean unanimity.Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

To put Domingo in context of the wider scientific community, see articles like this and this as well as the many sources that are provided in support of the statement of consensus. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I do certainly NOT mean unanimity. Since you like to use Wikipedia itself for definitions, let me quote: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity." So, I mean consensus in the way it's written black on white here: as a general agreement, implying that (at least) 50% scientists believe that. I do not see that this is the case, in particular when referring to the review above.

Thanks for the references. As I see it, many scientists, according to the Nature article, think that many studies allow not to make strong conclusions as of the safety of GMO. I just see that many scientists agree that they cannot tell what possible long term effects are? If that's what you understand under 'broad scientific consensus that GMO food is not more harmful than normal food', fine. It just seems to me worth pointing out that long-term effects are unknown, and I don't see that the Wikipedia article is representative of this statement. Correct me if I missed this somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.222.49 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2014 UTC

we don't know the long term effects of eating any food. please think about that, and what that means. Please also see this article, especially the section starting in the 2nd column, called "Selection of chemicals to be ranked." Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion above

I second this article is not neutrally written. 'Some' instead of 'broad' would be much more appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.229.58 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Some" would imply a lack of scientific consensus and therefore would be wp:weasel. Please show wp:RS, preferably wp:MEDRS supporting your assertions. Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's one. [1] 'Scientific uncertainty and ambiguity, omitted research areas, and lack of basic knowledge crucial to risk assessments have become apparent'

And another [www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/2012GMC0028R.pdf] 'Increased levels of aflatoxins in DT maize will lead to increased toxicity for consumers' under the section requiring consideration.

And another [2] 'The sex differences and the non linear dose or time related effects should be considered in contrast to the claims of a Monsanto-supported expert panel about a GMO, the MON 863 Bt maize, but also for pesticides or drugs, in particular to reveal hormone-dependent diseases and first signs of toxicities.'

And [3] 'We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.229.58 (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 67.201.229.58, the Myhr/ Traavik dates from 2002 and as per MEDRS we use recent sources where we can. The two other sources are from Seralini and are discussed at length in the Genetically modified food controversies article, as well as in the Seralini affair article. They are not mainstream scientific positions. Please do see the the sources already provided in this article in support of the statement about the scientific consensus, and please do see the RfC we had on whether this statement is appropriate in Wikipedia, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which you can read here. Nothing has changed with regard to studies published in the scientific literature since last summer, that would change the scientific consensus. I do acknowledge, very clearly, that there is a lot of public sentiment that GM food is dangerous. That public sentiment does not reflect the scientific consensus, which is that currently marketed GM food is as as safe as conventional food. Jytdog (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)\

Hi, Would you consider this one main stream? [4] 'Thus, the finding of human effects consistent with impaired retinoic signaling in agricultural areas with heavy RoundUp use raises concern about the potential health effects of heavy herbicide usage. Although these studies do not prove that RoundUp/glyphosate creates unwarranted human risks, they raise significant concerns.' It has been stated in the other article Genetically modified food controversies that genetically modified foods have lead to a increase in RoundUp use so even if the actually GM crop is safe, to say the food on the market doesn't pose a greater risk doesn't seem accurate. My professor was actually impressed that instead of turning in my paper on GM crops that I instead was editing Wikipedia :)67.201.229.58 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Gabe

Hi, as I wrote on your Talk page, please slow down, take your time, and learn how things work here, in terms of policies and guidelines. More on point, please read the many, many sources we have provided (and there are even more supporting the consensus statement in the genetically modified food controversies article), and please read the RfC (request for comment) that I linked to above, which validated the consensus statement and its sources, based on WP policies and guidelines. I recognize that there are LOTS of websites out there that preach a very black-and-white and negative picture of GM food. There is a lot of passion, and a lot of ignorance, and a lot of exaggeration out there. Real world, the mainstream scientific community recognizes that a) conventional food is not 100% safe (nothing is); b) food derived from currently marketed GM crops is not substantially different from conventional food, and there is no legitimate theory as to why it might be. With respect to human exposure to any herbicide or pesticide while it is being used in the field, that is not relevant to exposure you get from eating food derived from GM crops, and the consensus statement doesn't speak to that - that is off topic. With respect to pesticide residues on food - pesticide residues on food are regulated, and the exposure you get to glyphosate and other pesticides through eating food has been studied, and levels set that are dramatically lower than levels that are dangerous. (that is not to say that rarely - from time to time - levels exceed regulation, and when they do, there is trouble). And in any case most food derived from GM crops is highly processed and just a part of the actual food you eat -- sugar from GM sugar beets is highly refined pure sucrose, just like sugar from conventional sugar beets. Soy, corn, cottonseed.. all are (of course) washed before they are processed into milled grain or oil or what have you. Please slow down, and think carefully. I get it that you find the scientific consensus statement jarring; that it is new to you doesn't make it wrong. Until you have caught up with the sources that are actually used here, and with the RfC and past discussions, please don't just grab random arguments and sources and throw them at the statement. Please catch up with the discussion. Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't speak to your source with the dissenters to the AAAS statement. Yep, there are dissenters from the consensus. There always are, and the fact that they exist doesn't change the fact that there is a consensus. As I wrote above, the consensus is very solidly grounded based on the actual science that has been to date, and no science has emerged to change it. The Seralini 2012 paper ~could have~ been consensus-changing had that study been done soundly (or could have backed the consensus!) but we will never know b/c the data is basically not interpretable. Other long-term feeding studies are underway, more rigorously designed, and they might show us something. But as of 2014 there is no good evidence that food from currently marketed GM crops is harmful, and more importantly no good hypotheses to explain why it would be. Please do not bring arguments as to why some theoretical product might be harmful (e.g. "could cause allergy") - the risks in the technology are understood and those kinds of things are tested for, before products are put on the market. The consensus statement is about currently marketed food from GM crops - not about any theoretical GM crop that could be made.Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

FDA policy on labels

@Jytdog: requested discussion of my change from:

no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA.

to:

no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is required by the US FDA, as long as there are no differences in health, environmental safety, and consumer expectations based on the packaging.

The original text sounded to me like it was implying the FDA has a blanket policy that there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO foods, so it doesn't test them and doesn't require labelling. I did not do a very good job clarifying, so here's a second try. Maybe what we want to say is:

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has no general requirement that GMO foods must be labelled as such. Its policy is to require a specific label if there is a specific difference material to health, environment, or consumer expectations, but it has not found any such difference in any GMO food currently approved for sale in the U.S.

The parts of the referenced source I have in mind are:

The FDCA Section 403(a)(1) states that a food is misbranded if its labeling is untrue or misleading, whereas Section 201(n) states that a label is misleading if it fails to reveal “material facts” about a product. Material facts have been interpreted by the FDA to mean (1) changes in health or environmental safety posed by the product, (2) statements that might mislead the consumer in light of other information on the label, and (3) a food label that might cause a consumer to expect that the product closely resembles a food product from which it differs in one or more significant characteristics. The FDA would require labels on products that demonstrably pose novel hazards that might affect safety or have significant unexpected differences in composition. These are material facts. In contrast, production methods that create no material difference in products require no special labeling.

The FDA has stated that it has no basis for finding that GE foods “differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding” (USFDA 1992). Therefore, since GE production methods create no material difference in products, no label is required for GE foods. In the two decades since this initial finding, the FDA has not encountered any evidence or data that have caused it to change its position despite having reviewed regulatory packages on more than one hundred GE events (Herman and Price 2013). If a new GE process changed a product such that it differed significantly from its conventional counterpart, the FDA could require labeling for those specific qualities. For instance, since high omega-3 and high oleic vegetable oils differ significantly in composition from their conventional counterparts, the FDA could require that these oils be labeled—not because they were produced using GE, but because there is a material difference in the oil products. The FDA could also require labeling for potential allergenicity if the food contained a novel allergen that a consumer would not expect to be present in a specific type of food. As an example, if a peanut protein was inserted into a tomato, the product would need to be labeled to warn individuals allergic to peanuts that the GE tomato may present an allergenic risk unless the developer could demonstrate that there was no allergy risk from that peanut gene. To date, no GE products have required such a specific label.

the food safety of GE crops and animals, and ingredients derived from them, has been reviewed by the FDA prior to introduction of all new GE varieties commercialized to date

Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! I see what you are saying about the existing language, and I understand your desire to improve it. The quote we provide in the ref is "To date, no material differences in composition or safety of commercialized GE crops have been identified that would justify a label based on the GE nature of the product." The current text says "Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries,[89] it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA.[90]" SO how about the last part be changed to: ", it is not required in the United States law, and the FDA has found no differences in the composition or safety of currently marketed GM food that would justify a label based on the product's origin." Does that work for you? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

went with "in the United States, there is general requirement that GMO foods must be labelled as such. The FDA's policy is to require a specific label if there are significant differences in composition or differences that are material to health, but it has not found any such differences in any GMO food currently approved for sale." Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, are you sure you didn't mean, "in the United States, there is no general requirement that GMO foods must be labelled as such"? I'm not aware of any general requirement for labeling GMO foods here, so I'm assuming that was just a typo/missing word? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

wow, that was a boner. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"For related content" hatnote

I've never seen such a hatnote on any other article. It is blatantly opposed to Wikipedia style conventions; essentially a "See also" list of associative links disguised as a hatnote. "Genetically modified food" is not an ambiguous title. There is no reason to present people with links to related content at this prominent position, which is specifically to guide readers who are likely to have arrived at the wrong article. WP:RELATED specifically discourages hatnotes merely linking to related content, and does not mention any exceptions. Therefore, I have removed the hatnote again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finally opening a discussion. There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up and sorted content to minimize overlap. We put the hatnotes at the top ofeach article in the suite of articles to help people who would edit content related to one back in to the wrong one, get to the right place. This is about editing Wikipedia to keep articles well-related to one another - not just about editing a single article. It has been stable for a couple of years now - you are the first person in ages who has made any objection. It works. We should keep it, so that it can continue working. I acknowledge that this is a discussion of preferences - there is no policy or guideline that governs this. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RELATED is a guideline or even policy, and it is completely unambiguous. Hatnotes are for readers, not editors. If there are problems with people adding misplaced content, what we do is insert a HTML comment at the beginning that is visible only to editors. If the problem is really getting out of hand, locking the article (and, if necessary, related articles) at least for non-established users needs to be considered, or alternatively pending changes. I see no reason at all for this unique misuse of hatnotes. Alternatively, maybe this is an indication that the articles should be merged because the subjects overlap too much. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That said, if you are really, really convinced that all of the alternative solutions are completely out of the question, you should open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote whether this special, unique exception should be allowed, and perhaps somehow enshrined into the guideline, or at least mentioned there, so that editors won't wonder why the guideline is so blatantly ignored in this case. A HTML comment explaining the point of the hatnote wouldn't hurt, either. I'm not usually a policy-thumper, but these are issues of house style that shouldn't be taken too lightly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly seeing what the issue is here. These articles fall under the topic of GMOs. Much of the content was under a single page but was too unwieldy. That's what I've been able to see as the reason for splitting and it seems like content wise there doesn't seem like many other options. WP:RELATED states: "Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title." It would seem to me that most of the articles listed here fit that definition since some could be referred to by the same title (or at least very large portions of the articles). I would argue that this case isn't entirely unambiguous, but given that the topics are very closely related to the point that they can be searching for one topic with the intent of actually looking for another, it would seem this approach fits the spirit of what hatnotes are intended for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but in your quotation of WP:RELATED (Hatnote editing guidelines), you left off the more pertinent sentence that follows: "[Hatnotes] are are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic." One really can't argue that this article and these linked pages are all simply the same topic but under different titles; rather, they have very different, if related, focuses. The solution, as the guideline goes on to suggest, is to link to the related articles in a See also section (which has already been done), or to summarize the related topics in a subsection. This page is hardly unique in having related pages, so let's stick with one of the established solutions for handling related content. —Waldhorn (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In my original quote I was also intending that the part you mentioned was being lead into. I was indicating that the pages go beyond simply being related to each other, but are so closely related that a case could be made where the sentence you quoted isn't disallowing hatnotes as used here. The main factor is that these pages to a good degree are interchangable titles for the general reader, which can lead to confusion among readers without the current hatnotes. That would seem to be the basis for using hatnotes under the guidelines we're talking about. These are separate topics that are referred to by the same title among general readers who haven't made the subtle distinctions yet between the different topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Republished peer reviewed study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (24 June 2014), Environmental Sciences Europe

‘Significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures’

The study examines the health effects on rats of eating Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water. It found:

• “Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related.

• “In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater.

• “In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier.

• “This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize.

• “All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable.

• “Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls;

• “the pituitary was the second most disabled organ;

“the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments.

“Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted.

“These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.

“Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.”

The paper concludes: ”Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes.

“They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.

“We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.”

IjonTichy (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything we could include on this page about it. It's mainly just a repeat of the retracted the study, so all the same criticisms of the original study design apply that make it an unreliable source for the claims above. Plus it's primary literature, which in a topic like this we typically avoid like the plague when it comes to WP:MEDRS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

and that content goes primarily in the Seralini affair article - it is already there. The Seralini affair article has a WP:SUMMARY in the Genetically modified foods controversies article. The Seralini affair is not currently mentioned in the lead of the GM foods controversies article, and so is not present in this article, which in turn has a WP:SUMMARY section of the Genetically modified foods controversies article. So it doesn't belong here. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Kingofaces43 and Jytdog, thank you for the feedback. And thanks for informing me that we have an article on the Seralini affair. I've continued the discussion there. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

debate on GM food

For me GM foods are very harmful as it changes the genetic quality and can make it harmful to consume it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.37.130 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum for debate. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vandana-shiva/from-seeds-of-suicide-to_b_192419.html 203.192.255.248 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please include details as listed on posts above, is wikipedia paid by these private comnpanies to hide the real danger of gmo seeds. Many times ion the article its mentioned that genetically modified crops are same as conventional, just read about the dangers in above link. It lead to suicide of 250,000 farmers in india and its not even mentioned once that how they completely destroy the farming economy, the land, the crops, etc.

If wikipedia is not a paid source of private corporates, prove it!!!

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete reference to GMO potatoes

On this page (Genetically Modified Foods) in the section labeled Foods with protein or DNA remaining from GMOs, the following sentence appears:

"There are currently no transgenic potatoes marketed for human consumption.[21]"

This is no longer true, according to the third paragraph following, about the USDA approval and release to the market of the Simplot company's Innate potato.

This sentence needs to be deleted.

172.56.20.30 (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)David Kinne

 Done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

In the introduction, it would be appropriate to note that genetic modification simply refers to the editing of DNA sequence, and cannot be classified as entirely dangerous or not. It depends on the genes being altered. Much like changes in the human genome can be favorable (e.g. HIV resistance through Ccr5 polymorphism), unfavorable (e.g. CFTR mutation causing cystic fibrosis), or context-dependent (e.g. polymorphism for sickle cell anemia).

Also, what is required to be able to edit this page? I have a PhD from Harvard. Thanks. CellbioPhD (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)cellbiophd

anyone can edit the page. if your edit is not good, it will be reverted. this is natural especially when you are learning, so don't take it personally. please read the introduction again. it does not say that any genetic modification is safe. what it says is very carefully worded. please the comment above, as well. Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

CellbioPhD (talk): Thank you for your suggestion. Can we all agree this should be added to the article? David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Politifact: Sen. Donna Nesselbush: three quarters of processed foods have genetically modified organisms

Maybe this article or the sources it links to can be used for something, here or in one of the subarticles. [5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm. that is a pretty decent source... might be good for a general section - with the correct information from the body of that article :) Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on scientific consensus on GMO safety elsewhere

See particularly.

FYI. The claim of "scientific consensus" on GMO safety is being discussed here and was briefly discussed here. David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit

Took a run through this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:

• Reduced wc by about 15%
• Still a lot of extra stuff in there that describes various foods, regardless of whether they are GM. The piece would be better without it, but since I didn't know why it was there, I let it ride.
• Added 1 cn for the Greenpeace sentence.
• Grouped the various kinds of mods.

Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks, i appreciate your run-through. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

me too. I have not had a chance to review your changes yet. David Tornheim (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of what I looked at where you cut out unnecessary words is good editting. This change does more than cut down words and eliminates some meaning:

• Original: "economic concerns raised by the fact that GM seeds (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property rights owned by corporations."
• Revision: " the fact that some GM seeds that are food sources are subject to intellectual property rights and owned by corporations"

I request you restore it back to the original, because economic concerns are in addition to property rights, and the idea of patenting animals is an additional concern. To shorten it, this might work:

• Proposed Alternative: "economic concerns, especially intellectual property rights over food sources (currently GM seeds), and possibly animals, that become monopolistic." David Tornheim (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I took out "economic concerns" because it was vague. If you have a citeable list of specific concerns, happy to add those. Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please restore these two sentence unless all of the material is found elsewhere in the article

• "Food biotechnology has grown to include cloning of plants and animals, as well as further development in genetically modified foods in recent years."

Cloning is not GM. This article is not about biotek. The last half is too vague. If you have specifics in mind, list and source them. Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Plants are now engineered for insect resistance, fungal resistance, viral resistance, herbicide resistance, changed nutritional content, improved taste, and improved storage."

Need cite. Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Process section: Re Regulation: My understanding is that applications are voluntary, but I did not see that in the original or the revision of this section.

Is there such a thing as an involuntary application for anything? Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm stopping here for tonight...David Tornheim (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the scrutiny. Keep it up! Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)