Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Business impact section is POV

I tagged the section after coming to this page reading this for the first time today. The section only describes (impact on) the side of the GMO industry, not the other side, farmers that produce crops with traditional, non-GMO seeds.

Until and unless that is represented in this section I dont think the section is a neutral portrait of the issue.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:*NOTE: Restored this section from archives to address removal of POV tag (edit summary: Economy: standard removal of POV tag without active discussion on talk page - criterion 3 at Template:POV)). Also restored tag. Additional discussion begins below. --Tsavage (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

POV tags are to be removed "if the discussion has become dormant" - I cited inactivity of discussion, not absence, so it was not an error as your edit summary suggested. I checked the archives and found only this single comment with no replies, despite the talk page being highly active in the intervening time period. Of course, if you wish to reopen the discussion then restoration is fine. Sunrise (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of the tag. I agree with Tsavage and Wuerzele that the material is POV. I was not aware of the tag until today --David Tornheim (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sunrise: You are correct, you cite Rule 3, not Rule 2, and two months seems reasonable to consider a topic dormant - good observance of the rules! I had read this section when posted but hadn't gotten around to commenting. The POV tag I believe is valid, so I will continue that discussion as I should have earlier. (Best would be to just fix the section through improvement!) --Tsavage (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The section does seem to present only one industry-centric view of the economic benefits of GM crops. Overall, the section is poorly organized. The current version, which has been in place for some time newly expanded, comprises seven paragraphs.

• Para 1-2 describes economic benefits in the billions of dollars, leading with: GM food's economic value to farmers is one of its major benefits, including in developing nations.

• Para 3 introduces a critical assertion: Critics challenged the claimed benefits to farmers over the prevalence of biased observers and by the absence of randomized controlled trials. A review report is cited, mentioning promising but mixed results, and highly variable returns depending on year, farm type, and location. This is followed by a quote from Mark Lynas, which doesn't make much sense in context, but is apparently meant to counter the negative assertions (any time Lynas is used as a counter, red flags should be hoisted all around the region; he is not a credible source for this area.)

• Para 4 has the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) petitioning the EU to stop getting in the way of GM technology.

• Para 5-7 is an assortment of industry information, including biotech seed sales and patent status.

Overall, there is a clear impression given of economic advantage, and no real discussion of the various balancing issues, including variability in returns (touched on in Para 3), impact of glyphosate and Bt resistance, and criticism of study methods analyzing economic returns, among other concerns.

Economic impact appears to be yet another tangled area of GM agriculture, but that isn't a good reason to have a section that offers a one-sided view. --Tsavage (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tsavage: FYI. Sunrise added this same material over Genetically modified food as well. I think this might be premature until the issues you raise are resolved. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it's not new material. I copied 3 paragraphs from the introductory Economics section at the Controversies page, because it seemed more relevant on these pages (I'd probably support removing it from Controversies as well). On this page a similar section already existed, so I made some edits to integrate them. That other section, which was titled "Business impact," is the one that originally had a POV tag, and it looked like this. The comment above refers to the new version. Sunrise (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: It would probably be helpful if you reverted your substantial copying of this section to Genetically modified food, it is unhelpful and potentially disruptive. You'd just removed a POV tag from it here, imported paragraphs from Controversies, and within minutes copied the challenged section to an article where it is of questionable relevance: this is about economic return to farmers, which, for better or for worse, is the focus of this article. Better settle the POV issues in one place, rather than duplicate content and disputes across articles.

I also amended my comment above, to reflect your new edit. Why would you move content from Controversies to here, and then from here to GM food? Did you, for example, check sources? Lynas alone is a POV indicator, that should give one pause. --Tsavage (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

^I agree with all of Tsavage's observations and request same. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you've already gone ahead and reverted. But I didn't do what you're saying I did, so I'm not sure how to respond here. The section I copied to the GM food article is the same one that I copied to here. You're free to conclude that it isn't relevant in the food article, though I would note that the section begins "GM food's economic value to farmers..." Either way, copying content between articles is a relatively common action. It's almost a guarantee that I don't agree with everything in the copied text, because I'm not going to copy paragraphs with sentences or sources removed - if I did that, it would (rightly) be seen as deceptive. Copying with minimal changes at least reflects text that already existed. It can be edited further, and I can do that, but anyone else can do that as well. Sunrise (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that copying without changing when you copy is the right way to do it, but I also agree with Tsavage that the language should be corrected before we have 3 copies that we have to fix. I was surprised some of the stuff you copied over from that article Genetically modified food conspiracy theories that had blogs and references from Jon Entine. That page Genetically modified food conspiracy theories is very weakly sourced and needs far more work before anything makes it into our major articles IMHO. So, I'm just saying, if you are going to copy a bulk of text, let's make sure it is tip top shape first, and if there is a POV issues, let's work on that first before we have multiple copies we have to address. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe David has effectively summed up the situation, and it would seem most useful if content is well-examined where it is before being copied to other articles.

As for the newly imported Economy content, now that it's here, imo it should be improved here, where it seems most relevant, and the copy in Controversies should be edited down to whatever directly controversy-related content it contains, that seems...logical.

(Sunrise: Hopefully, everything about the content copies is clear at this point (I amended my comment just above). Please let me know if there's anything you'd like me to respond to. Thanks!) --Tsavage (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That plan works for me. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to ask editors not to reuse material in other articles until everyone agrees with it, if the content in question is not under dispute at the time. That sounds too much like ownership to me. Making changes before copying, in my opinion, is not much better in a context like this one, because the reuse no longer reflects pre-existing content from the other article. Of course you can disagree, and even revert, but I don't think you should object to (what I see as) an improvement on the grounds that I have not made other additional improvements.

Tsavage, FWIW I'd point out that part of the main premises of your comment (e.g. much of the first paragraph) doesn't apply; striking those three words is only a small step towards correcting it. If there were no other issues, I could have made the correction mentally and replied to your points directly. Of course, I'm not going to be bothered by what you do or do not choose to strike; I'm just pointing it out for you and anyone else who might read this page. I don't have strong opinions in this topic area, other than wanting the articles to reflect the highest-quality sources - but you can choose to believe that or not, of course. Sunrise (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why there's a tag at this point. There's never been any sourcing discussed to indicate a POV problem, nor is content being proposed. We're just getting editor claims of POV. Since tags are not marks of shame, etc. it would seem appropriate at this time to remove the tag per WP:DETAG. If someone wants to start proposing specific content, they can do that, but they don't need a tag for that. I'm not seeing any current problematic content that currently exists in the section, so the best thing to do is WP:FIXIT rather than just keep saying it's somehow biased. Editors also should keep WP:WEIGHT in mind. Just because something is overall described in a positive light does not inherently indicate bias. Some things also just aren't well quantified in the literature yet either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Safety summary for lede

Editors have been asked by three different people on this talk page why it is that we are trying to summarize content that has yet to be added to the article. Perhaps that was not a straight-forward approach, as it has gone ignored, and the fight over this GMO safety statement continues.

From WP:LEDE

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

Not only is it 'law', but it would make the process of coming up with a summary quite simple, especially compared with this fruitless back and forth.

How would you all summarize Panchen for the body? And the AMA, the WHO, Domingo and Krimsky? Would it be wise, given the protracted dispute over this bit, to use direct quotations from these groups/papers? If we can agree on this content, the summary writes itself. Time is precious, let's be smart about this. petrarchan47คุก 01:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is part of WP:MOS, which is a guideline, not "law", nor even policy. I think it is obvious that there would be just as much prolonged disagreement about what the main text would say, as about what the lead would say. In fact, the "Controversy" section already does have pretty much the same version of the safety statement that the lead currently has. And it would be wiki-lawyering to demand that anything be omitted from the lead until it is covered in greater detail in the body text.

Now, having said all that, in no way do I want to discourage anyone from working to improve the main text, so by all means, let's work to improve it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sentence regarding case-by-case testing in different countries

These two edits replaced sourced material:

Yet, some countries such as United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt do not have any special regulations for testing GM food on a case-by-case basis.

with this unsourced statement:

The safety of individual crops is assessed on a case-by-case basis...

This later statement is contradicted by RS about GMO regulations. In the edit which removed the original source statement, Kingofaces43 wrote "Not in source." Apparently, the editor did not read the source, it is indeed in the source and is brought up repeatedly in RS, especially RS that distinguishes US from EU regulations Numerous other law review articles say the same thing about the U.S., that there is no special testing for GM food, because of the substantial equivalence and Generally recognized as safe doctrines. . There was no justification for deleting the well sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material that is contradicted by the RS; therefore, I have restored the sourced material.

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

These tendentious tactics, especially the edit warring, needs to stop. Other editors mistaking a moved expanded sentence as deleted hasn't helped this discussion either. The source on the "special regulation" language says nothing of the sort. It says there isn't specialized legislation that mentions GMOs by name, but that's a non-issue because regulatory agencies deal with those nuances of developing new regulation. It goes quite in depth into the different ways GMOs are regulated in the US such as APHIS, FDA, etc. showing the language you are trying to revert back in is purely OR. You're basically trying to claim that because substantial equivalence is practiced, crops aren't evaluated on a case-by-case. That's a personal interpretation and an extremely incorrect one at that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I did nothing tendentious. I simply wrote what is in the RS. APHIS is not part of the FDA. The FDA regulates American food for safety, not APHIS. All of the resources say the same thing: that GMO's are Generally recognized as safe by the FDA, and if a GMO product can be shown to "substantially equivalent" to the conventional crop, no special toxicity and animal feeding studies are required, unlike for food additives (and "novel" food), where those studies are required (explained on page 746 of Marden). The RS also say that part of the process of approval in the U.S. is voluntary despite requests from the AMA that it be made mandatory (verifying this is as simple as looking at the FDA website under the section titled "Consultation" here). To suggest that GMO products are tested on case-by-case basis with toxicity and animal feeding studies as is required in Europe is misleading. If any edit is tendentious, it is putting such a misleading statement in the article. If you want to take this to a notice board, please do. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That's actually the part that demonstrates your novel synthesis, so I highly suggest self-reverting as you edit warred the content back in. To be considered substantially equivalent, testing is still needed to establish that (e.g., biochemical composition, etc.) on a case-by-case basis. The source also demonstrates that there are multiple regulatory agencies involved in the process. The source does say there isn't legislation specific to GMOs, but that's the case for many topics out there. Regulatory agencies are given some autonomy to decide what needs to be dealt with in their domain, so even mentioning specialized legislation in the article is a misnomer. As of right now, the source directly contradicts the statement you tried to make it say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the RS I provided? You claim the source contradicts the language in the article. Please provide a sentence or page and the language you claim contradicts the sentence. So far Aircorn, Tryptofish have seen the language, and I assume other editors who monitor the articles. Tryptofish even slightly revised it in one of the articles. The language is a summary of material in the article referenced--we could expand it to summarize what goes on in other countries too and how it varies from country to country. So far, you are the only editor who objects to it. I do agree that to prove substantial equivalence one must do what is required for ALL food, which is what the FDA says here, not just GMO, so it is not specialized for GMO, which is consistent with what is said in the various RS. And again case-by-case is referring to the toxicology and animal feeding studies required by the EU (not test required of ALL food to prove substantial equivalence)--we could add the lack of "toxicological and animal feeding studies" to the sentence if that makes it clearer and satisfies your objection. And again the EPA and USDA do not regulate food safety; the FDA does. The language in the sentence specifically says "food" not crops and is directly relevant to the preceding sentence about FOOD safety, not the topics that are covered by the other agencies. So I do not see evidence of a problem with the sentence, or any suggestions to improve it if you really feel it has a problem. Can you please propose a better sentence that reflects what is in the RS I provided if you think there is a problem? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry David, but the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate the source says this, not me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:11, January 31, 2016‎ (UTC)

Unless it's untrue that the United States, Canada, Lebanon, and Egypt do not require it (that's a double negative, so in other words, unless it's true that they do require it), I'm OK with that sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is explicitly untrue:

"In the United States, in fact, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing in order to receive regulatory approval, AAAS noted. It must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which it was derived and if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic. "As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions," AAAS reported, "GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever.”[1]

and

"Whereas each new genetically engineered crop variety is assessed on a case-by-case basis by three governmental agencies, conventional crops are not regulated by these agencies. Still, to date, compounds with harmful effects on humans or animals have been documented only in foods developed through conventional breeding approaches."[2] (my bolding)

We're dealing with language that is not in the cited source as far as I can find as it appears to be an original synthesis of what the reader thinks it means barring some further clarification that the source does say this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The AAAS statement from a SCIENTIFIC and technology advocacy organization as part of a PR campaign against labeling is hardly RS on regulations. Regulations are legal, not scientific, so the RS from legal sources about the regulatory system trumps statements by scientific organization with an agenda. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking to the subject, there is no mandatory GM food testing in the US, in fact, there is no specific GMO regulation in the US. This is amply documented. For example (my emphasis in both):

The FDA regulates GM foods as part of the “coordinated framework” of federal agencies that also includes the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).16 This framework, which has been the subject of critical analysis and calls for redesign,17 is available online18 and contains a searchable database that covers “genetically engineered crop plants intended for food or feed that have completed all recommended or required reviews.”19 The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)20 places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”21 So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary “consultation procedures,” but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data.22 There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.23 American Bar Association health law article (2013)

...and...

The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rather, GMOs are regulated pursuant to health, safety, and environmental legislation governing conventional products.

Under the FFDCA, substances added to food can be classified either as “food additives,” which require approval from the FDA that they are safe before they can be marketed,[45] and substances added to food classified as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), as to which preapproval is not needed.[46] In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA reaffirmed that in most cases it would treat foods derived from GMOs like those derived from conventionally bred plants, and that most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS. Library of Congress report on GMO restriction in the US (2014)

Our GM food/crop articles should make clear the rather unique US regulatory situation: Compared to other countries, regulation of GMOs in the US is relatively favorable to their development.Library of Congress report --Tsavage (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agree. I have added that kind of information to some articles, and more needs to be done. Our articles do a poor job of explaining the very large differences in how GMO's are regulated from country to country, and some articles try to make it sound like the regulations are more or less the same everywhere, which is quite misleading. That is precisely what the AAAS statement does, which is why we should not use the AAAS statement as RS--it is not reliable. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In the well-written AAAS statement, In the United States, in fact, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing in order to receive regulatory approval I believe refers to the fact that the biotech companies are expected to test each product for safety, but there is no requirement that they do anything beyond that, including publish the test results, if the company is satisfied of safety. So it's accurate that way, but doesn't refer to what some might think it does, that there is mandatory independent testing. I believe companies have submitted to the voluntary consultation process for all approved products, so essentially, GM foods are safety tested by the companies themselves, with results reviewed by the FDA. --Tsavage (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement you quoted is IMHO deliberately misleading to make it sound like there is more testing than there actually is, as part of their agenda to oppose labeling in California. Hence, we should not rely on that statement as RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't yet have an opinion on this, but I tagged the sentence pending further discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you did. So do you mind if I tag the sentence regarding the "scientific agreement" (which others like you say should read "scientific consensus") in the same way since clearly there is a dispute about it? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be pointy at this time per WP:TAGGING. People are already aware of the of the ongoing discussion on the consensus statement, but the current version has been the stable version for awhile. Do realize the text you edit-warred in ignoring WP:BRD on the other hand is there at this time because of the current tag compromise.

Focusing on the content at hand, it's pretty apparent the content doesn't quite match up with the sources you're providing and is further disputed by others. To say there are no "special" regulations in the U.S. is just false. Each regulatory agency has their specific set of regulations they've developed for GMOs, and they get approved on an individual basis. Such a statement in the lede makes it appear like there is no regulation in this area and becomes undue weight due to cherrypicking specific statements and synthesizing new meaning. Not to mention that we have no such content in the lede. At the end of the day, USDA, FDA, and EPA each have specific regulatory frameworks for dealing with GMOs. Even the FDA's substantial equivalence call is a layered case-by-case evaluation where information that does not fulfill substantial equivalence triggers further testing. Even the EPA requires food-safety analysis for allergenicity, etc.[3]. When it often costs over $100 million to get through the regulatory phase in the U.S., people are going to have a tough time claiming there aren't special regulations. It's looking like it's time to remove the content and more accurately reflect the sources in other areas instead of just inserting it into the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: The simple, factual summary appears to be, in the US, there is no government regulation specific to GMOs, GM food is treated in the same way as conventional food, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of 1938. Unless there is an indication that any new food may be unsafe, it is generally recognized as safe (GRAS, an FDA term), and does not require preapproval. Determining whether a food may be unsafe and therefore require special testing is the responsibility of industry. There is a voluntary consultation process, wherein industry can submit their own testing to indicate safety. For approved GM products to date, industry has submitted to voluntary consultation.

In more detail, what is regulated for food safety is not the entire organism, it is the introduced DNA material and resulting proteins, which are considered under food additive provisions in the FFDCA. Safety is determined pursuant to FFDCA 402(a)(1) "Poisonous, insanitary, etc., ingredients.". Substantial equivalence is used to determine whether the DNA or resulting proteins are unsafe, by comparing the GMO with an unmodified equivalent organism that is GRAS. A specific set of indicators are measured, and if there is no substantial difference between GM and non-GM organism, then the food additive, and so, the entire GMO, is considered GRAS as well. That is my understanding.

The simplest accurate description of GM food regulation in the US, which does beg explanation, is; In the US, industry is entirely responsible for determining GM food safety. --Tsavage (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

{[ec}}Tsavage, the simple fact is that there is specialized regulation in regards to GMOs in the US. If people want to engage in personal opinion about things they think regulation should cover (which has come up here) this is not the place to engage in such personal opinion. There's been too much synthesizing going on here and personal point of views coming into play here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an extraordinary conclusion, "personal opinion," in the face of sources, both secondary and the actual statutes. This isn't some sort of convoluted description, it is a simple summary of the law, procedure, and responsibilities. The FDA is solely responsible for the food safety aspect of GMOs, and they have passed that responsibility to industry. The statutory law is a 1938 food safety act. What you describe as "specialized regulation" is the way the Act is applied to biotech products. The framework is not specialized in any common understanding of that term, because it cannot treat biotech products any differently than what was specified about them in 1938, which was...nothing.

It is misleading to call something specialized that is in fact a way to conform to not having specialized laws, which is the case here. Whether specialized GM food safety legislation is warranted is the great debate - to suggest the US already has them is wrong. --Tsavage (talk)

I'm sorry, but your claims are original research and more personal opinion, especially the claim that the industry is entirely responsible for determining food safety. They need to submit the data, but it's the regulatory agencies with final say. You are ignoring aspects of the regulatory process to make your claims. Both FDA and EPA are in charge of this too. The way regulatory agencies work in the U.S. is that laws are passed giving them general authority over topics, and those agencies develop the actual regulations within. It's a huge misnomer to say there isn't specialized regulation by citing the food safety act, and the level of maneuvering going on to make this claim is getting into very problematic territory. At this point, the sources contradict that there isn't specialized regulation on the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 vs Library of Congress: The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rather, GMOs are regulated pursuant to health, safety, and environmental legislation governing conventional products.

What I summarized does not suggest that there is no evaluation of GM food in the US: there is evaluation through a voluntary process (which industry has consistently submitted to), where the results of industry testing are submitted to the FDA for approval. According to the FDA:

At some stage in the process of research and development, a firm will have accumulated the information that it believes is adequate to ensure that the product is safe and complies with the relevant provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). The firm will then be in a position to conclude any ongoing consultation with FDA. The agency recommends that the developer take the following steps to inform FDA about bioengineered foods that are intended to be introduced into commercial distribution: submit to FDA a summary of the safety and nutritional assessment that has been conducted (as described below); and if necessary, meet with agency scientists (at headquarters or through a video- or teleconference, depending on the circumstances) to discuss the scientific data and information that support the summary of the safety and nutritional assessment.}^[4]

By law in the US, GM food is generally considered GRAS, therefore, no preapproval is required. In choosing to voluntarily submit, the objective is to confirm GRAS via substantial equivalence comparison, based on the results of industry testing. Realistically, the industry only submits results that they believe indicate equivalence/safety, so there is not much room for or likelihood of a differing conclusion in the FDA evaluation for final approval.

None of this is to suggest that the system is somehow ineffective or corrupt, however, we commonly accept neutrality and independence as cornerstones of fair and impartial decision-making, culturally and legally, so it would seem to be somewhat disingenuous at best to avoid making clear the voluntary nature of the safety approval, and the industry source of the results. This speaks to the Library of Congress noting: Compared to other countries, regulation of GMOs in the US is relatively favorable to their development. We should be clear, straightforward, and comprehensive. --Tsavage (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What you summarized says there isn't federal legislation that specifically names GMOs, not that there isn't regulation developed by regulatory agencies. That's the key content problem here, and even just changing the content to say there isn't specific legislation by name is still a problem because it ignores that regulations actually are in place. In addition to those problems, you're still focusing just on the FDA here. Focusing on the actual content at hand, the content is not supported by sources. It's directly contradicted by them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

With Tryptofish's recent edit, I for one am good with the change. In the future, let's first remember that we need to respect 1RR and engage in WP:BRD when a new change is rejected, and remember that content needs to be fleshed out in the body first, not the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Trypotifish's edit excludes well-sourced information, on what editorial basis is not clear (Revise the disputed sentence, in hopes that this will resolve the lengthy arguments in talk). We should be respecting sources and balanced content, not catering to editor disputes.

In an overview of GMO regulation, that a very few countries, notably the US, which is the leading GMO producer, has no specific GMO legislation, and has an entirely voluntary safety approval process that relies on industry testing and findings, is certainly notable, and is in fact noted as noteworthy in sources. This is well-documented. The only reason I can see to exclude it is not raise anything that might cause a reader to think critically about GM food safety. I think we should be here to inform, not shape opinion.. --Tsavage (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: To be balanced, we should also at least outline the process in the EU, as the EU is usually mentioned in contrast with the US. It's all ultimately based on substantial equivalence, so the most relevant differences appear to be that there is specific EU GMO legislation and the actual approval process, that there is no presumption of GRAS, and the requirement for post-market follow-up. --Tsavage (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I really have been reading this discussion closely, and I made the edit only in the context of what I have read other editors saying. I feel strongly that this discussion was becoming an impasse and that someone needed to break the logjam. I agree that there are further details about regulation in the US and in the EU that are appropriate to including on this page, but I think that they need not be in the lead, as opposed to being explained with more nuance lower on the page. And, I want to make something else very, very clear. I see repeatedly in these discussions some editors describing AAAS as if it were some sort of K Street lobbying group. This is utter nonsense, and it needs to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to create a different sentence that more editors think accurately reflect what is in the RS, but why did you not propose it here before changing it? I agree with Tsavage that this is not what the RS says. It is probably true and you can probably find RS that supports this view, and then we can consider whether that is what is proposed is better than what is written. But the RS that is currently cited for that sentence is high quality, and what you wrote does not reflect what is in the article. That RS summarizes what the regulations ARE not what they SHOULD be. The other RS I provided does the same, although the other RS does talk more about arguments people have made against the U.S. regulation approach. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind that you reverted it, and I hope that editors can come up with an alternative that gets consensus. Good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing this revert, it's looking like we don't have any consensus version, so I've restored the last clean version. I agree that any content in the lede on regulation needs to have that nuance developed in the body first instead of trying to insert it directly there. I'll note that the content I just removed has been edit warred in before when it was clear those that wanted it would need to gain consensus on the talk page instead, so we should not be seeing that happen again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There was consensus for that sentence. You were the only one who objected to it. You are the one who is edit-warring against consensus with such tendentious edits and removals of well-sourced material. That includes your removal of the sentence about bans. Your words apply to you: "These tendentious tactics, especially the edit warring, needs to stop." --David Tornheim (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry David, but you were alerted from the start that there wasn't ever consensus for this before you initially re-reverted it back in even after I specifically mentioned to follow BRD if you felt strongly about including it. I can't make it any clearer than that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of the different readings of the sources by different editors, partly because legal issues are not my forte as an editing topic. But, given how difficult it is proving to attain consensus about what the sentence should say, would it perhaps be better to leave it out of the lead section, and instead, deal with it lower on the page, where there is less need to keep it succinct? I'm not persuaded that it is necessary to cover this point in the lead, and I don't think that the WHO source about case-by-case requires an immediately following analysis of where the testing does or does not occur. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• In reviewing some materials, I found other statements that address this issue about testing (or more specifically lack thereof): [5], [6], where the AMA calls for "pre-market" testing. I still do not understand why that is not in the lede of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd still like to move forward with this... --David Tornheim (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it work better for you to work with my revised proposal below, or to put forward an alternative proposal? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)