This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
There is a scientific consensus[1][2][3][4] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[5][6][7][8][9] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[10][11][12] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[13][14][15][16] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[17][18][19][20]
Citations
^Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research"(PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34: 1–12. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID24041244. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.
The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.
^"State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
^Ronald, Pamela (May 5, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188: 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC3120150. PMID21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants"(PDF). Environment International. 37: 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. 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.
Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment"(PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 1–32. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.
And contrast:
Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 1–5. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN0738-8551. PMID26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.
The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.
Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."
^"Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods"(PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2016. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: 'The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.' The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
^"AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved March 19, 2016. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.(from original report by AMA: [1])
^"Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.
^"Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects". The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). 2016. p. 149. Retrieved May 19, 2016. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.
^"Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.
GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.
^Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:
"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement"(PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.
When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.
The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.
^Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 24, 2016. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.
This wording has been implemented into this article per the result of the RfC above. The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions to implement the result of this RfC. After implementation, editors must not change or remove any part or whole of the text above in the article, including its wording and citations. There is no prejudice against editing other text. Any uninvolved administrator may use discretionary sanctions against editors who repeatedly breach this rule.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stanleybee (article contribs).
I removed the link to http://www.rense.com/general40/GMcropsfailing.htm as a reference to removal of Bt 176 from the market as this site didn't seem to be credible. The report referred to was from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace which are not known for their NPOV. In addition, the information on the Wikipedia page stated that Bt 176 was withdrawn from the market after review by "competent authorities" in the U.S. This was a quote from the web page referred to and gave no indication who the "competent authorities" or why they chose to withdraw Bt 176 from the market.
I found information from the E.P.A. about the withdrawl of Bt 176 from the market and added that as a reference. I also gave information about why it was voluntarilly withdrawn.
I removed this sentence from the end of the Starlink controversy section because it fails NPOV:
"There have never been any adequately controlled studies to determine whether StarLink actually poses any greater risk of allergic reaction than ordinary varieties of corn."
The word 'adequately' clearly makes this statement one of opinion. If a similar statement is to be reinstated it must attribute this claim to the specific organization (regulatory body or consumer advocacy group probably) or expert that made it. An external link next to the sentence (rather than listed below) would be helpful as well. --AAMiller 29 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't explain my last change better, I had written something but forgot to save the change. The following phrase is the one in question:
Corn sent by the UN and the US as help to Central American nations was also found to contain a large percentage of StarLink corn.
I had changed "large percentage" to "some", and in the summary I asked for a citation. The anonymous editor changed "some" back to "large amount". I will assume this was an honest attempt to correct the problem. However, I did not say that I thought a citation was needed just because the word "percentage" was used. Rather, the word "large" is what I was concerned with. "Large" is subject to interpretation, and somewhat loaded. It could mean more than half to some, or half of a percent to others. This statement is far from being the only one in Wikipedia that needs a citation, and for that reason the qualitative information can stay. However, I will not condone the use of a Weasel word to make it sound quantitative. If a hard figure cannot be cited, then it must suffice to say that "some" of the starlink corn was present. Again, sorry I failed to save my explaination the first time. --AAMiller02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supersweet varieties
Why not include supersweet varieties in this article?
I removed Yamamoto Ichiro's link again, not for lack of relevance but because it is improperly formatted and placed in the article. I'm not educated on the subject enough to tell, but if it's a proper reference or link, then it needs to be placed in the article as a reference or working link, not pasted in the middle of the article. Thanks! -- Syd17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute sweet corn
I added the section and the link to Seedway, but had not signed in first. Only my IP shows. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be an annon poster on a such a contoversial subjJtmilesmmr (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)I have since chgd the link to the Rogers seed Attribute page as it has more info.Jtmilesmmr (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
infertility in mice
A report by greenpeace does not count as a reliable source.
As it turns out Greenpeaces report is based on preliminary results from some Austrian scientists who "published" a report at a press conference.
Report: Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice
Authors: Alberta Velimirov, Claudia Binter, and Jurgen Zentek Sponsor: Austrian Ministries for Agriculture and Health. Date: October 2008
This report has not been published in a refereed journal and has thus not been peer reviewed. Thus, it may contain errors. The report has been reviewed by the scientist that invented the method used by the Austrians to examine the mice fertility. He has found many mistakes in the report and concludes: "When properly analyzed, these data do not appear to suppor an effect on fertility or reproduction from consumption of GM corn"
[2]
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
Main discussion at [[Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Long term Roundup herbicide or Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize extremely toxic & carcinogenic PMID22999595]]AIRcorn(talk)20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
I expanded the lead, because:
1) there is a tag on the article saying the lead needs to be expanded
2) as per WP:LEAD the lead is meant to summarize the article.
"The investigation concluded that 28 people had experienced apparent allergic reactions. These people had also reported eating corn products that may have contained Cry9c protein. With the endorsement of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Scientific Advisory Panel which convened on November 28, 2000, CDC recommended that the banked serum samples be evaluated to see if they contained evidence of an allergic response to the Cry9c protein."
Ok, User:Canoe1967 just edited the article in this dif and reverted to the 51 people number, and added a source: http://www.usda.gov/documents/LLP%20Incidents%202.docx which says "After the discovery of StarLink® in food, 51 people reported adverse effects to the Food and Drug Administration. This information was provided to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which conducted an epidemiological investigation. Of the 51 cases reporting adverse effects, 28 met the case definition for the CDC investigation. Of these, 25 gave FDA permission to release identifying information to CDC."
I am OK keeping the 51 number for people reporting - we need to include the number of 28 people as people report all kinds of irrelevant things - in this case, 23 people did. So I am adding text as shown in italics here: 51 people reported apparent allergic reactionsadverse effects to the FDA; these reports were reviewed by the CDC, which determined that 28 of them were possibly related to Starlink. hopefully this is acceptable to Canoe. Please note that including the phrase "adverse effects" is not copyvio - it is the the term of art for describing these things. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Discussion: proposal to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" on GMO food safety in all GMO articles
A fresh discussion has started with a proposal for revision to this sentence:
There is general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. [citations omitted]
to:
There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.[citations omitted]
Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety
A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect language in the Controversy section of this article. The WordsmithTalk to me and Laser brain(talk) have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms
Lead section is clear, rather short. It's very broad but it summarizes the rest of the article.
Structure is clear and organized. Each section has a header and the information correlates with each subject header.
Some sections are very short- only one or two sentences. Each section should be balanced and this article has sections that are heavier than others.
Coverage is neutral. There is no bias in this article.
Plenty of reliable sources.
Products in development: This section is lacking in information, more than just one product has been, or is under development. This section should be improved to add to the overall balance of the subject. This section could include not only food products developed from GM maize but also potential biofuels or non-crop related products.
Corporate Espionage: This section is also lacking in information. There are only a few, pointed sentences about this section. More detail should be given to fully understand the happenings of this event. This section is not completely clear on what seeds were being stolen or what type of trade secrets were being stolen.
No such thing as genex or not, ceptu, be/can be any no matter what.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Genetically modified maize. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stanleybee (article contribs).
