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)