Jump to content

Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops

Interesting article, maybe it can be used for something. [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It contains quite a few misconceptions about basic agronomy, so it's not exactly much of a reliable source for this kind of content.[2] I'm not sure what we could use it for at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Review

I was distracted by a couple grammatical errors. In addition the article feels a bit biased towards pro-GMO, though backed by facts. The anti-GMO view point seems under presented. Saleaust (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The anti-GMO viewpoint is under presented so as to avoid creating a false balance. WP editors are encouraged to avoid giving minority views undue weight. Kwagoner (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
See also: Genetically modified food controversies. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Genetically modified crops. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genetically modified crops. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Multiple trait integration

Perhaps we might mention some specific examples with this. I was mainly thinking of the combined use of traits that are "always" useful (like improved photosynthesis by integrating both the non-photochemical quenching improvement, and C4 pathway as well as improved stress resistance traits (which can either be drought, frost, or increased soil salinity or even a combination of these). In many cases the Bt (pest resistance) trait can also prove useful (depending on which pests commonly attack the crop). Another thing which seems very useful is the chemically labile lignin bonds improvement (particularly if the crop is used as biofuel). I found no reference of crops that have a combination of these types of improvements added (using genetic modification that is, using cross-breeding, there are examples to be found). Perhaps someone can expand the section with more info on the combinations described. Genetics4good (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Consensus is that, WP:SINGULAR aside, the sources usually use the plural "crops". Cúchullain t/c 16:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


Genetically modified crops → Genetically modified crop – Per WP:SINGULAR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There is some process/method info, but that’s mainly dealt with in other articles. This is primarily for how GM crops are used in general, how they fit in to ag. systems, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll also point out that my WP:SINGULAR support is fairly meh either way, and pretty much solely because of it being preferred by policy. I personally think the plural sounds better, but I can't give that weight in terms of Wiki-policy. Sources don't treat it as a term like scissors, etc. that are pretty much always plural, and those sources also shouldn't be misconstrued as such due to frequently talking about GMO, etc. in the plural since news, etc. articles simply tend to talk about multiple GM crops/organisms broadly (though I've also frequently seeing language stating that X plant/variety is a GM crop or organism singular). Because of that, we don't really have an instance of sources saying there is a preference for one or the other. Otherwise, I could make an argument at say goose that it should be plural because sources often talk about a bunch of geese causing a ruckus, etc.
One can definitely make a case that GM crop falls in part into a class set (though technically you could for near anything like the policy example like horse I guess), but it doesn't seem like a nice clean fit there either. From the singular naming policy, things like Arabic numerals or Bantu languages are given as such examples. Even if I say Bantu language or Arabic numeral, there's still a pretty strong class set connotation unless you add language to make it explicitly singular. For GM crop, it can be used that way, but it doesn't seem as inherent as the others either. Because the other GM articles are already singular and the policy has a preference for it, I'd slightly rather see them all standardized this way, but I don't see it as a big deal either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see Genetic engineering as the process focused article and Genetically modified organism as the product focussed article. This article is a subset of the GMO one, with the List of genetically modified crops being a subset of this. It does get a bit confusing with there being a lot of crossover (GM crop, GM food and GM plant in particular). Genetically modified crops sounds better to my ear, but I guess Genetically modified crop is more consistent with other articles. Personally not too fussed either way. AIRcorn (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose change. The naming criteria (WP:CRITERIA) begins with “Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. “ google search shows "genetically modified crop" is used less often in sources than "genetically modified crops”, and when it is used, it is often with a plural construction like “crop species” or “crop plants”. Wikipedia should reflect what most RS sources use.Dialectric (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with a mild oppose to the change from plural to singular, and a very strong oppose to renaming the page for the modification process. If I put myself in the position of a typical English-speaking reader, the plural name is what they would typically be coming here to read about. I think some of this has to do with the fact that there is controversy about this topic, so people tend to think of these crops as a category that has controversy about the group as opposed to controversy about individual crops. But, that said, I don't feel strongly about whether it's singular or plural in the title, as it strikes me as a very minor issue. On the other hand, I would object strongly to renaming the page in terms of the process of genetic modification. First of all, the way the multiple pages in this category are organized, this isn't primarily a page about how crop plants are modified; the scope of the page is a lot broader than that. And the pagename is very much something that readers come here to read about, for reasons a lot broader than to find out how genes are transferred. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clear majority of sources use the plural. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Traits

Perhaps mention some other traits that can be added using GM:

GMO food/GM crops

Just in case interested editors are watching this page and not the other. I am planning on doing some work on this and the GM Food article and would appreciate any thoughts. May be easier to keep the main thread at Talk:Genetically_modified_food#GMO_food/GM_crops, but I will see any comments left here too. AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit plus bot

@Lfstevens: Did this work? I can't tell. (Also posted at Talk:Pesticide because same thing.) Invasive Spices (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Controversy edit

Add Information regarding the Companies that have a large influence on the GMO Crops. Bayers and Monsanto Merge of 2018 and how it is one of many Merge that start a precedence in which can lead to a monopoly in this market.

  • In the crop controversy there is corporations merging that influence the GMO world. This is including Monsanto, Bayer, Dupont, Dow chemical Company, and Syngenta. These companies are advancing technology while also shutting down the competition in the GMO world by merging together one of them is Monsanto and Bayer together have become a big player in the GMO world when the merge occurred in 2018.*[1] Due to[2]

Shantasukra (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bae, Yea (2019). Pesticides and GMOs (first ed.). New York: Greenhaven Publishing. pp. 94, 95. ISBN 9781534504141.
  2. ^ Peschard & Randeria, Karine & Shalini (06-09-2020). "Taking Monsanto to court: legal activism around intellectual property in Brazil and India". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 47 (4): 792–819. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Economics section I will be editing

Adding the economics of patents connection with royalties that have been part of the economy behind the scenes of countries like India to keep the cost of GMO crop from getting to inflated preventing monopolizing the market.

"Patents aren't the only thing that expire or change. Royalties are also incurred depending on the laws implemented by each country. In each country Patents must be in place and royalties have to be approved by the government on how it is appropriated. These royalties are managed by law in order to prevent monopoly of the market by any GMO producers."

[1] 

[2]

Shantasukra (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello Shantasukra. Sorry I had to revert what you just added. Some of it is clearly not WP:NPOV or WP:RS. I am uncertain about Peschard & Randeria. The difference between patents and royalties, and the economics involved, would be a good subject to add however. If you could do that in a different way that might be OK. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Ooof, that was citing Shiva too. Shantasukra, that is a huge WP:NPOV issue, namely that we don't take points of view from WP:FRINGE activists. In this subject, that would be like going to a climate change denier for sourcing in a climate change article. We generally want to steer clear from such activist sources because they're practically never reliable. KoA (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Karine Peschard & Shalini Randeria (2020) Taking Monsanto to court: legal activism around intellectual property in Brazil and India, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47:4, 792-819, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2020.1753184
  2. ^ Monsanto loses right to patent seeds." Pioneer [New Delhi, India], 17 Apr. 2018. Gale OneFile: News, Accessed 21 Nov. 2021.

adding to regulations in the united states.

adding regulations that were updated and noted by the usda in 2020.

"Regulations in the United States are changing with the times as the USDA had updated its regulation to streamline and help increase productivity of future Crops in the United States to stay ahead and keep its consumers safe with new GMO products coming to the market. This occurred on May 14, 2020 when they announced their plans to update the Regulations regarding Biotechnology in the agriculture field."

[1]

Nothing is particularly informative in this content text. WP:NOTNEWS policy applies too. The article here should be an overview of what policies are for GMOs rather than take a late-breaking approach to new developments and describing them in a blow by blow fashion. KoA (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ USDA "USDA SECURE Rule Paves Way for Agricultural Innovation" May 14, 2020 https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/news/sa_by_date/sa-2020/secure

Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India

The sentence "widespread introduction of Bt cotton led to 25% decline in farmer suicides in India." should be removed. Cited to a 2020 'Brief Communication' by Stuart J. Smyth[1] , the sentence gives undue weight to a Brief Communication that advances a view of causation not supported by more complete review articles focused on Bt Cotton and suicides in India: Gruère, G. & Sengupta, D. (2011)[2] and other refs found in the section Farmers'_suicides_in_India#GM_crops describe some correlation, but not a clear causal link between Bt cotton and changes in suicide numbers. These papers also describe a complex set of factors that are correlated with farmer suicides, including weather, institutional factors, and economic factors. Smyth's paper presents no supporting data on suicides in India, and the only citation Smyth uses related to suicides in India is to Gruère, G. & Sengupta, D. (2011), who do not discuss such a 25% decline. In fact, Gruère & Sengupta's paper includes the statement "our analysis is sufficiently well documented to discredit the possibility of a naive direct causal or reciprocal relationship between Bt cotton and farmer suicides."p332 Dialectric (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of this comment gets into WP:OR criticism that would require sourcing from reliable sources, not an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Especially since you're cherry-picking studies pushing a WP:FRINGE theory, that attempt at removal and violating WP:NPOV is still an issue.
At the end of the day, both sources in question give WP:MEDRS commentary with no sources disputing those. Short communications are essentially mini-reviews that still undergo peer-review and are expected to have high-impact on the field to have such focus, unlike op-eds, etc. KoA (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:OR makes clear that “This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources”. Determining whether a given source describes correlation or causation is reading comprehension, not research.
I have alerted you in the past to your misuse/overuse of WP:FRINGE which again does not apply here. Gruère and Sengupta 2011 is a widely cited paper in this area, and as noted in my edit summary is referenced by Smyth. Gruère and Sengupta 2011 is also in line with every pubmed-indexed paper focused on farmer suicides in India and Bt Cotton. De Tavernier 2017 ( doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0052-z) Merriott 2016 (doi: 10.1016/j.jegh.2016.03.003) Sheridan 2009 (doi: 10.1038/nbt0109-9), and Gilbert 2013 (doi: 10.1038/497024a) all dismiss a causal connection between Bt Cotton and an increase in farmers’ suicides, countering some activist narratives, and none describe a causal connection between Bt Adoption and a decrease in suicides. Smyth is the outlier here.
Wikipedia was largely built by anonymous editors assessing the merits and limitations of scholarly publications including WP:MEDRS sources; this process covers removing sources that offer less information or less analysis than other, better sources. If you are uncomfortable with that you might find Citizendium more to your liking.Dialectric (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
We've also discussed your "alerts" parts of avoiding WP:FRINGE, not to mention misusing MEDRS sources, so no need to bring that up on article talk pages.
At the end of the day, if you disagree with the journal article, write to the journal editor or get your own publication. All of the articles you mention are prior to 2020, so of course they're not going to mention Smyth. If you find MEDRS sources that disagree, then that can be discussed, but at this point, there isn't really anything to dispute. KoA (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Smyth, Stuart J. (April 2020). "The human health benefits from GM crops". Plant Biotechnology Journal. 18 (4): 887–888. doi:10.1111/pbi.13261.
  2. ^ Gruère, G.; Sengupta, D. (2011). "Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment". Journal of Development Studies. 47 (2): 316–337. doi:10.1080/00220388.2010.492863. PMID 21506303. S2CID 20145281.

100 studies that find GMOs are harmful

I have no idea if any or all of these studies are any good. I am not an editor of this article, and don't intend to be. I am just posting the link in case others are interested in the studies. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. However, the source linked is an advocacy website, so I think it has to be taken with a lot of grains of recombinant salt. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, any such change in page content would require a major community-wide RfC or something similar. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Article evaluation

(This is part of an Wiki Edu Assignment)

The article has a long and in depth lead section, and the rest of the article covers a lot of different topic matters around genetically modified crops. Overall, the article is fairly neutral, however there is an imbalance of information in certain topic areas, that seem to be because there is a lack of research in those areas as well. The article is also naturally focused on the motivations and impacts of the developed nations that created GMOs and there is less information on developing nations. In particular, parts of the Traits section and the Farming Practices section could be improved by adding more information about the impacts of those traits or how those traits have affected farming practices. Throughout the article, it is well cited, clear, and has a few images and graphs. --Kimjammer (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_7&oldid=1226459871"