Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Genetically modified food. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

How on earth did these sections even get in here? Some reorganization is needed.

Some people above seem to be interested in focusing on relevant material, so... what are these?

(from the TOC, when the evil Template:toclimit is removed)

   3.1.3.1 Milled
   3.1.3.2 Protein isolate
   3.1.3.3 Protein concentrate
   3.1.3.4 Flour
   3.1.3.5 Textured protein

Yes, we actually have a section on how soy flour is made. I'm not sure anybody noticed, but it doesn't say anything about GMOs - doesn't say, for example, whether any GM components of soy are concentrated in flour or removed by processing to flour. Why we have it at all is a mystery to me.

I think that we actually should go much further in reorganization - list all the GM crops according to what the modifications are (or perhaps why they were made), rather than whether you would classify the crop as a fruit or a vegetable (which as we should all know is not particularly scientific in the first place). So for example the papaya should not sit under a heading for fruit, but for pathogen-derived resistance (we should make that point somewhere).

I also want to see toclimit exterminated with prejudice - I don't think I've ever seen it used in a positive way, because its main effect is to conceal bad organization in an article, whether in terms of what is under what or what could be in a different article. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these meta issues, Wnt. (I was so shocked by the POV at the beginning of the article, I hadn't read much farther or noticed any of this.) This needs a lot of work. petrarchan47 คุ ก 02:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of subsections that don't even mention GMOs would be a straightforward and hopefully uncontroversial change. I support the removal of the toclimit, but I've never heard of it before this mention. More significant reorganization of the article is worth discussing, but I suggest waiting until the conclusion of the current RFC to go into this.Dialectric (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

to be clear, that soy section starts out saying how much soy is GM (it is a lot). The section then describes the various kinds of products that are made from soy, and what kinds of food they are used in. So the answer is that all of that is GMO. the soy protein extender found in a lot of fast food hamburger - GMO. etc etc. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

responding to wnt above, the way this is organized is meant to go from clearly recognizable thing that has the recombinant DNA and protein in it ("hey this whole papaya in my hand - this is GMO") to processed foods that still have cellular matter (protein/DNA) in them (flour or various soy protein products) to highly processed foods that have vanishingly small traces of protein/DNA (oils, starches, sugars). Then to foods made with recombinant proteins (cheese etc) or animals whose flesh grows from eating GMOs.. etc. So from most "pure" GMO thing to the farthest removed. This could be organized differently for sure, but the idea is to help people understand what food is actually from a GMO and how. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the sources need to connect GMO to the crops. TFD (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, Wnt, Petrarchan47 and Dialectric that this material is problematic. It sounds to me more like a free advertisement for companies like Glidden Company that produce/invented the products. I see no reason to wait to eliminate material that is not directly connected to GMO and needlessly confuses or distracts readers and replace it with straightforward sentences that clearly show the connection of GMO to the products. David Tornheim (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking through the related soy articles, and they are somewhat disorganized. Each of the soy derivative products here has enough sourcing for its own page. If the pages were created, this section could be reduced to 2-3 sentences, and the information not directly related to GMOs could be moved to the relevant page. Dialectric (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no reason to wait to introduce better organization and improvements. If the ownership issues that have been observed at this article continue to stifle the editing process and halt progress, they will need to be addressed in a more serious manner. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There is WP:NODEADLINE and no rationale provided for changing a structure that has worked well for several years now to keep content in WP:SYNC and instead structuring things in a way that invites thicketing. Please provide a way to structure the content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Worked well" is an opinion that I don't believe has much weight or support, and I have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary. One need only read this talk page and its archives to realize that this article receives quite a bit of (guideline based) criticism. I disagree wholly that we should address the entire slew of GMO related articles rather than to discuss this one, on its talk page, as is the norm. SYNC is not a prevailing guideline here, and it is being misrepresented. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Worked well" is an opinion I don't share. I've included a suggestion for reorganization below. --Tsavage (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I started at Draft:Genetically modified food before. Realizing this and being in and out, I'm afraid I haven't finished the changes I was thinking of, but maybe that's a good place for others to trial some bold changes. Wnt (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for reorganizing this article and related GM topics

Here are rough suggestions for this article and related articles.

Article

Assumptions:

A high-level article like Genetically modified food should contain a minimum of technical language and explanation, and concentrate on a plain English summary of the basics, most importantly, including what are the actual GM foods on the market and on the horizon, how have they been modified, and how safe are they.

Currently, the article is listy, with many brief paragraphs, and also full of dates, procedural and technical explanations, even multiple molecular diagrams. This sort of detail belongs in more specific articles, since those already exist (otherwise, only in a much longer version of this article, AFTER the basics have been covered). Information here should be summary, high level, in straightforward, nontechnical language.

Here is a top level content outline:

1.0 History - extremely brief, focusing on milestones (mooshed version)

2.0 Methods - brief non-technical description of techniques, with in-context comparison to conventional methods and mention of substantial equivalence (mooshed version)

3.0 Markets - where sold, how big is the market, that sort of thing

4.0 Foods - the core section, listing the categories of GM food (produce, animals, GM-fed livestock, etc), and what actual GM foods are available (whole foods, not multi-ingredient foods); a sortable-by-column table as in Genetically modified crops would probably be the most useful; also, consideration of whole GM foods vs GM as an ingredient. (mooshed version)

5.0 Safety - the no-inherent-greater-risk stuff and substantial equivalence, and the no-harm track record so far; mention of environmental impact (probably mainly contamination focus, impact on food supply through crossbreeding in the wild, etc); and the regulatory framework (broadly, perhaps just a general description and comparison of US, EU, China, other large regions)

6.0 Research & development - current trends, future products, also how research is conducted (academia, industry-funding, etc, where, what sort)

7.0 Controversies - a simple round-up of the big issues, most or all of which have already been explained in previous sections; here is where a bit more detail can be included explaining from pro- and anti- sides. (Controversy sections may not be the best writing form, but they have become a standard and IMO useful Wikipedia feature; if kept focused on the actual debates, not so much substance of the arguments on each side, it can be brief and useful; again, detail in the subarticle)

Much of the material is already assembled, and there are certainly enough interested editors, if the RfC and surrounding discussions are any indication. It only takes a handful of editors. Also, a significant amount of this already exists in more or less finished form in the "mooshed" version of the article, before the last reorganization.

Full support for the ideas expressed here. I'm going to focus on this article as opposed to the suite, for now. In general, the writing is very bad in the current version, there are many words used to say little to nothing in some areas, and in others the writing probably does verge on TOOTECHNICAL, and for that reason says very little. After reading the beginning "History" section, I feel less clear about what GMOs are than before reading it. I do think input from a wider group could remedy all of this without tremendous effort by referring to the 2012 version. petrarchan47 คุ ก 03:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The articles are in WP:SYNC and going forward without some new structure in place would be disruptive. Input on a new structure is of course welcome.Jytdog (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless you can quote guidelines that support your above contention that working on this article is somehow different from working on any other because of SYNC, I ask you to stop mentioning it to me. I am not incredibly convinced the guidelines are truly what's ruling this article, not with the ridiculous use of a controversy section to defend against any opposition as opposed to describing the controversy. We have heard you - SYNC is your idea of a prevailing guideline. But WP considers NPOV the prevailing guideline and I'm not going to start taking your word as gospel when it is in conflict with the community's. petrarchan47 คุ ก 17:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please deal with how to organize content across the articles. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No. This article is not written well, and it needs work. Please stop telling me what to do. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have also never heard of a "structure" being required prior to the editing of an article. While I can see that consistency between article contents is advantageous it seems logical that any logically presented proposal should be able to be presented at any appropriate point within the encyclopedia. If there are points of objection that actually relate to the edit then these can also be brought into a consensus (Wikipedia goal centred) debate. Greg Kaye 12:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Having these two streams is useful when making decisions on organization and content. For one, the writing style and content is naturally indicated, with the Technical more detailed and specific, while the Social is non-technical, with high-level information, that allows the reader to go from broad overview, to as specific as they want through wikilinks and main article references to more technically detailed coverage.

I didn't attempt to fit all existing article by name into this outline, it's just a quick suggestion note. This or something similar is a good approach to the overall topic, and would also satisfy WP:SUMMARY in a logical way. --Tsavage (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

that is interesting. a few questions

you list GM food as "social" not technical. but what food is modified and how is technical. (like that cheese made using GM rennet doesn't have any GM elements in it to speak of; ditto corn oil, corn starch, lecithin. But you will find tons of websites listing them on par with things like cornmeal, like this crazy thing, that puts sugar in the same bucket as GM salmon. It is technical.
you list "environment" in the GM foods article. But food doesn't have an environmental impact - crops do. Please have a look at Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Environment and let me know where that content would go.
what is ":2. Genetic engineering/modification of plants (Genetically modified crops); Genetic modification of animals; Genetic engineering of microorganisms; etc." under "technical"? Is that the Genetically modified organism article that already exists or is that something else?

That's enough to start.. thanks for making a proposal. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Technical is "A broad scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food.[18 citations]" Social is "Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.[2][3]" Global warming. I can understand how some editors won't see the difference, and that is a problem when writing about complicated issues for the general reader. It's about how things are presented, and what information is aggressively summarized (it takes some skill to be succinct yet comprehensive and accurate). I will have to reply directly to your points later. --Tsavage (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I don't understand the distinction you are making. All of WP should be understandable to the average person. Are you saying some parts of the current suite of articles are too WP:TECHNICAL? Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, it's only in part WP:TECHNICAL, it's mostly about appropriate focus, emphasis, choice of language. For example the current "Relation to food" section: the title is already a little confusing, instead of just "Foods" or something straightforward that says, "Here are the actual GM foods." Then, the approx. 3,000 word (brief article length) text spends by my estimation 30-60% of the text, depending on what you select, in detailing aspects of "food" that from a general food discussion level are secondary and obscure, like protein isolate, lecithin, and so forth, and in providing unnecessary detail in other areas, like describing the manufacturing process for corn starch. A general reader wants to see which foods are genetically modified and how, as a starting point - that should be handled clearly and unambiguously, first. In a high-level overview "social" article, secondary stuff can summarized in a sentence or paragraph, with wikilinks to appropriate articles like soy protein. There are different kinds of undue weight, other than evidence-based weight, that are not inconsistent with each other: this is editorial weight for an intended audience.

From an editing perspective, an article that does not set things out in a readable, accessible way, not only fails to communicate with readers, but also serves, intentionally or not, to obfuscate specific information that might affect reader opinion, like a form of hiding important info in pages of fine print, and this latter aspect is what some editors react strongly against, potentially making editing contentious. --Tsavage (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, I agree with the ideas expressed above with regard to separating social (easily accessible to target readers, containing information found is RS on the subject - for instance the percentage of Americans who support labeling, etc.) and technical. petrarchan47 คุ ก 18:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Most food you find in grocery stores in the developed world is processed to some extent and food ingredients used in processed foods are often from GMOs. Per the scientific consensus none of it is actually riskier than ingredients from organic or conventional sources, but for those consumers who want to be informed, we should discuss food ingredients and explain how highly refined ingredients like lecithin or sugar that have essentially no DNA or protein differ from textured protein from soy, or papaya. I am very open to explaining this better, but we need to explain this to provide people with information - the purpose of WP. Food ingredients are not well covered by WP; that does not mean they are obscure or unimportant. this presentation is not something I would cite in WP but it gives some insight into the food processing chain and the volume/money involved in creating the food that people buy and eat every day - this is mainstream, important information. Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Most food you find in grocery stores in the developed world is processed to some extent and food ingredients used in processed foods are often from GMOs. Highly refined ingredients like lecithin or sugar have essentially no DNA or protein, unlike textured protein from soy, or papaya. brief explanation, etc" Absolutely. There are your words (example only!!!), with the cautious consensus stuff removed, turned into a simple, high-level, info-dense couple of sentences (details of the safety issue would be dealt with elsewhere in the article - let readers put it all together naturally, that's how we learn). There may be argument over the exact content and wording, but if an editor is committed to maintaining a high quality article, and hangs in there during grueling editing debates, they shouldn't allow clear, accessible language to degenerate into bloodless factual bullet points, massive numbers of citations, and so forth, just to establish detente. Fight for quality! :) (My intention is not to lecture anyone, this is just my common sense, explained, and you did ask!) --Tsavage (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And if I tried to add that content to an article you - and i mean you - would be all over me for SYN. There is no way that i will ever add anything like to a WP article. and i cannot make head or tail of your approach to SYN. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother doing something simple like: what percentage of our food is genetically modified, before writing that last reply? If you know me so well, do you think I didn't? That whole statement seems quite easily sourcable, down to the "essentially no DNA or protein," from the first few SE results. I'm not sure where SYNTH enters into it, especially in an article on a controversial topic, we do source everything, don't we? You seem to be having a hard time understanding basic accessibility and readability, which would explain why you don't see the terrible state the article is currently in - apparently, this is common among engineers and scientists.--Tsavage (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I was taught a while back that because WP articles are written for laypeople, editors that are laypeople themselves are actually preferred, or at least should have a hand in crafting our articles. Scientists aren't necessarily known for being the best communicators, and I think the fact that the article is written and guarded by professionals in the bioengineering field may have resulted in a version of the article that is less readable to a layperson. I don't expect anyone in the field to understand my point, but what matters is the wider community's view. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

you are both personalizing this and making assumptions about who i am and what i do; neither have any place in WP. Please discuss content, not contributor, Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

you know, you're right. i mistakenly thought you had admitted to working in biotech, but i see you merely stated that you work at a university and are interested in biotechnology...and the public perception of [it]. i am not referencing you in particular, Jytdog. i'm sure many have worked on this page in the last few years. but it is a fact that the article seems to have been written by those in the field, because it reads that way. it doesn't read as if written by or for the layperson, or as if it was meant to convey abundant, accessible information. nothing personal. petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

comment on content, not contributor. Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

My comment here wasn't entirely literal, I'm not indicting all scientists and engineers as bad communicators, but it is germane to the content editing issue, here and in all science/medicine-related content, where the skeptic/debunk, anti-FRINGE approach can run kinda wild. We can't be attacking personalities, but we do discuss editing behavior, especially when it forms a problematic pattern. This division between "scientists" and "lay-folk" is not at all helpful, and seems to be largely a specialist's ingrained attitude, not the result of superior cognitive ability or a greater understanding of...stuff. I recently ran into some material on this problem from a communications teacher, which came down to:

From the science, subtract the bullet points and jargon, and share only what's relevant to the audience.

The anti-FRINGE, skeptic/debunk attitude in its various manifestations seems to cause a lot disharmony around certain articles, including bullying, gutting of articles, and overall disruption and lowering of collaboration and article quality from the target audience's perspective. It seems to rely exactly on too much bullet-point style facts without useful context, literalness, and...jargon (e.g. multiple molecular charts in a general article on food), as well as contentious editing when challenged. Ignoring the behavior while sticking to "content" results in us going round and round as this page and archives indicate. How much time in the RfC has been spent working on good wording, and how much on defending one snippet of arbitrary jargon? --Tsavage (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)--Tsavage (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: "There is no way that i will ever add anything like to a WP article" I'm still curious as to your reply regarding actually sourcing the EXAMPLE I presented, edited from your words. Did you think I meant that should be added unsourced, or is your comment about the actual writing, or information, or what? --Tsavage (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote there, was my own summary of what I understand from the gobs of reading I have done on this topic, "shooting from the hip" as it were. I don't edit that way. When I go to add content, I read first, then summarize what can be directly supported, and cite the sources for the content. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm being told that I can't discuss this article without addressing the entire suite. I'm also being told to disregard that there are self professed scientists on this page, and that perhaps the less than accessible writing in the current version is related to that fact.

It was Sarah SV who told me years ago that since WP is written for laypeople, editors who aren't professionals in the topic at hand are preferred, since (in this case) we are essentially translating complex topics for readers. She also made some comments about the target audience, and their assumed intelligence level, because knowing that helps shape the writing. Perhaps she will drop by here and expand on this, or correct me if I've misremembered.

The distinction between scientists and others has been made on this talk page and I feel it's worth acknowledging. It helps explain the problem I have with the current article and why the 2012 version is preferable (with updates, of course). I am not referring to any particular editor, but it is important to note that the content of the article has an industry-insider feel, especially when it exists alongside the curious misuse of the controversy section, and the fact that I have not been permitted (WP:OWN) to mention public perception, or the USDAs new GMO labeling program in this article. Frankly, I've never had my ability to discuss or edit an article so stifled and I am not quite sure what to do. petrarchan47 คุ ก 18:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: I am not quite sure what to do It's time-consuming and frustrating, but I've been learning over the past four-five months. Not giving in to the wearing down tactics can be kinda draining, but hanging in on topics like this seems to be the main effective response right now, remaining civil, replying consistently, not becoming the...downtrodden. I'm sure there are many editors aware of the, let's say, overzealous anti-FRINGE/EBM approach that can kill readability and suppress progressive editing, there's so far no "reasonable, common sense editing for the general reader" banner to rally under, only anti-FRINGE and being called FRINGE. It's ridiculous to have so many editors spending so much time arguing over one little phrase, with barely a hint of discussion of any actual editing, when the article is in such poor shape.

@Jytdog: What I wrote there, was my own summary of what I understand from the gobs of reading I have done on this topic, "shooting from the hip" as it were. I don't edit that way. What's wrong with editing that way? In overview situations where you're familiar with the topic, why not figure out what the essential message is in simple, straightforward, conversational terms, then source it. The result is both readable and verifiable. "Scientific evidence to date has not shown GM food to be harmful: there are no cases of illness from eating GM food, and no indication that genetic modification is any riskier than conventional breeding techniques." That would be me shooting from the hip, without having researched more than what I've read during this RfC. Is it all wrong? Can it be verified? Is it giving undue weight to anti-GMO views, should it be...peppier and more positive? Is it more informative than "broad scientific consensus that ..." which sounds like something a political or company spokesman would say? IMO, that's the kind of editorial discussion we should be having. --Tsavage (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, your points are well taken, and thank you for the time. I agree with your comments about shooting from the hip, and adding sourcing. Arguably, one can wax poetic on a subject precisely because they have read tons of RS out of some natural interest in the subject. That is pretty much how I've edited the few topics in which I might be considered well-versed. In fact, as I write a sentence, I can picture the very articles from which the info comes, and it's easy to find them again and add the required sourcing.

Interestingly, your version of the safety statement sounds much like the 2012 version of the same statement in this article, which I would argue says that the presentation was considered by the community to be an appropriate summation of RS.

Regarding my question about where to go from here, as I find issues with the article, would it be disruptive to begin adding them here, or are we at that stage yet? In other words, is there a game plan for addressing the issues some are observing? Thanks, petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a game plan, I'm feeling it out as we go. This page, including RfC and other discussions, seems good, becaause there are a number of editors involved on both "sides", and a lot of fact-based two-way debate, it's not just ranting from one side or another. I have a couple of other, similar situations pending, where editing is being blocked and bad content inserted, but with much less general editor interest, and I'm observing the whole thing. In my bit of experience, this semi-organized "anti-FRINGE/torch pseudoscience" behavior, with tons of wikilawyering (referring to an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines; running to noticeboards), and loose group-support behavior, is entirely new to me. I've been involved in contentious editing before, but it was all pretty much common sense arguing, not this quasi-legal, intense approach. Project Medicine seems to figure a lot in this, with its own kinda breakaway guidance. Anyhow, if anyone considers this line of discussion off-topic, I disagree, I think it very much speaks to, particularly, the current RfC and this article's improvement, given how discussion has gone so far. --Tsavage (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage: I agree 100% with your observations above. Thanks for your well written summary of the problem. David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I first ran into the phenomenon you describe after finding "March Against Monsanto" in the delete bin, and decided it would be a fun article to try and save. That turned out to be a mistake. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, About the language you quoted there, "Scientific evidence to date has not shown GM food to be harmful" - if you added that to this article I would change it to include the "currently marketed" limitation. That is exactly the kind of generalization that is unsupportable and that anti-GMO advocates think our articles actually say (and they don't). There have been GM crops in development that were killed b/c they turned out to be potentially harmful food sources (e.g. brazil nut protein engineered into soy) and I can imagine many harmful GM foods. It is not valid to say so generally, "Scientific evidence to date has not shown GM food to be harmful". You also write there, "In overview situations where you're familiar with the topic, why not figure out what the essential message is in simple, straightforward, conversational terms, then source it." You see how that is really dangerous right? Anti-GMO advocates come to these pages all the time, having read Jeffery Smith et al and believing themselves to be "familiar with the topic" and they do prooftexting, just like you describe there.Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the statement "Scientific evidence to date has not shown GM food to be harmful" is incorrect, and that the Brazil nut example is evidence. This illustrates the problem with the lede's of these articles, particularly Genetically modified food controversies which leaves one with the opposite impression, suggesting that any concerns about safety of GMO products are unwarranted (by a misinformed public), not supported by science, and additionally that there is very good regulation and that only extremist "opponents of GMO...say there are unanswered questions", suggesting that anyone who knows the science knows that all important questions have been answered and there is no reason to have any concerns about GMO foods--after all there have been "no reported ill effects". This impression is not NPOV. IMHO, the lede's are the most problematic because people have short attention spans. David Tornheim (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP stands with the science, not with the FRINGE, David. That is what NPOV and particularly PSCI make very clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine, good points. When I wrote that, I don't think my fingers broke stride from whatever preceded that, it was straight out of my train of thought, and it's here on a Talk page. How one goes about improving that, considering the points you've made and exactly what they mean, and adjusting accordingly as necessary, is the step where we either wind up with a tortured mess or a readable, verifiable, summary. If you rephrase your criticisms, that even changes the perspective, for example, instead of jumping to the imperfect "currently marketed," as a conclusion to a problem you didn't even explicitly state, why not: "But has the evidence shown that ALL GM food is not harmful?" Perhaps, for that point alone, "Scientific evidence to date has not shown GM food available to consumers to be harmful..." - a quick alteration, and more qualifications are then suggested, and still the issue of support, but that's a start of the process. :) --Tsavage (talk)

yes content definitely iterates, that is normal and good. but the editing process needs to always start and end with sourcing. not with preconceived ideas. that is why these articles are so, so hard to edit. and why having a community of editors working who have read and who read the relevant reliable literature on the science, regulation, agriculture, food technology, and sociology is really important in these articles. There are so many - so many - bad sources, and so many sources that are OK in some things but go completely off the rails in others. Look at this source that comes up (or at least did for me) in the "percentage" google search you linked to above. It is generally great, but their answer to the question "Q: What's the federal government's stand on genetically engineered foods?" is wrong (or summarized at such a a high level that it becomes wrong) The FDA never "ruled that genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to conventionally produced foods." Never! A more accurate description is here - that source turned up in the same google search. (briefly, way back at the start of the biotech era, the FDA said that the genetic engineering process doesn't itself create a substantial difference in a food crop - they said that you have to look at the resulting product (not the process) (- and even what i just wrote there is a bit too general, and if you press on it i would have to nuance it, but it is enough for now). So it is case by case - not a general statement about all possible GM food. The sources need to be carefully considered case by case too. And it takes some expertise to do that.

Starting out well-versed in the reliable literature, is different than arriving at WP with strongly preconceived ideas. This is some of what Kingofaces was talking about above that you objected to. I am not by any means saying that only experts can edit. That would be crazy and wrong. Lfstevens came to these articles a few months ago in the course of their copyediting work and seemed to have little foreknowledge or preconceived ideas, and went over them with a fine-toothed copyediting comb, and did a great job tightening and clarifying them. But editors like them on this topic are rare. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You are most gracious and way too kind. Lfstevens (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to disagree with in your first paragraph above, but you've gone into abstraction, about the number of bad sources and so forth. As for the concrete stuff, literall stuff, I did look at several of the sources on that search I linked, including USA Today. IMO, major newspapers are for specific technical information much like Wikipedia: a useful starting point. If they cited an FDA ruling, with specific reference to date, title, or ideally with a link to document at the FDA, great, but as presented, you'd naturally want to look that up at the source, and at least in a reliable source that clearly identifies the ruling. That's common sense, and not difficult to do: this is the Internet. It took a couple of minutes to find, for US stuff, a useful FDA: Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants, and an even more interesting legal report from the Library of Congress, Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms, summarizing "enacted laws on the cultivation and sale of GMOs, as well as public opinion on GM products" for 21 countries, including the US. Not sure if these sources have been used here.

How about: "Scientific evidence to date has not shown GM food available to consumers to be harmful; some GM foods under development were found to have negative properties, like the _____ which ______, and were withdrawn before reaching market." Still readable, interesting, there's a narrative line... Problems? Undue weight to the negative? Inaccurate portrayal of the development process? "Available to consumers" not precise enough? This is just an EXAMPLE, with one isolated sentence, here we'd be developing a paragraph, including the rest of my original (example) sentence: "there are no cases of illness from eating GM food, and no indication that genetic modification is any riskier than conventional breeding techniques."

This is not trying to source a preconceived notion, it is creating READABLE copy that is also easily verifiable and factual. It doesn't matter where you start, or what the process is, as long as the result is what it should be. From a slightly different angle: "To date, genetically modified foods available on the market have not proven to be harmful to human health." There's lots of options. --Tsavage (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage: Thank you for bringing our attention to the source Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms. What is clear from this report and a careful read of Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms is that regulation varies substantially depending on which country/continent is involved, with Europe, Russia and China being among the strictest and the U.S. and Canada being fairly lax and more industry friendly. But our Wikipedia articles do not articulate this simple truth when GMO regulation is summarized. This basic reality is not mentioned at all in the lede paragraphs of Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms, while paragraph two of the article has the same two pro-industry lines saying that GMO's are safe, when the article is supposed to be about regulation. The lede of Genetically modified food controversies gives the misleading impression that regulation of GMO everywhere is the same, with the summary sentence:

The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.

I tried to challenge the lack of WP:NPOV with this misleading sentence here, but gave up because of heavy resistance to correcting the problem. The Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Regulation section focuses almost entirely on labeling and then on lawsuits and controversy rather than laying about the basic rules that differ between countries. Once again, I agree these articles need substantial work and an effort to provide basic information that is WP:NPOV. David Tornheim (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Issues with NPOV

This is related to questions about the GMO article organization and content. Since February 2015, I have asserted problems with lack of NPOV in the GMO articles, which I hope can be addressed during this re-organization. I have just asserted a specific example of lack of NPOV in Genetically modified food controversies: here. David Tornheim (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You "gave up" on the substantial equivalence thing because you had not read the sources nor dealt with what the article actually says. When you realized that our article doesn't call it a "policy" and read the sources you acknowledged that the content about substantial equivalence was correct and dropped your objections to it: "The line may indeed be technically correct". Please do not misrepresent what happened. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Regulation

Focusing on this article, a mention in the lead section that genetically modified foods are government regulated need not be construed as a negative POV issue, but as an important fact for consumers. I personally would be more likely to trust and eat a new food knowing that my government had checked into its safety. This could be added in the following way:

"Governments around the world have developed a variety regulations to ensure the safety of genetically modified food.(citation - see below) There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops, and approved under these regulations, poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[4][5][6][7][8][9]. "

To substantiate this, one could cite "Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods' by Harry Kuiper in The Plant Journal, which not only talks about the principle of equivalent safety to existing food, but also summarizes the regulations in several countries, and has a table on page 506 which compares them. If this isn't suitable (it's rather old) I'm sure there are other equivalent articles that could be chosen.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Error??

This page contradicts what is said here "In February 2015 Arctic Apples were approved by the USDA,[32] becoming the first genetically modified apple approved for sale in the United States.[33] Gene silencing is used to reduce the expression of polyphenol oxidase (PPO), thus preventing the fruit from browning.[34]"

My contention is with the statement that the artic apples are the first GMO apple for sale in the U.S. when the honeycrisp apple has been sold in america for awhile now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent of the nine (talk • contribs) 14:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Honeycrisp indeed came first, but I'm curious why are you thinking Honeycrisp is relevant here? It was produced as a standard hybrid cross. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Honeycrisp is a GMO right? It was approved for sale before the artic apple right? Therefor the statement "becoming the first genetically modified apple approved for sale in the United States" is false. Or am I missing something here? Agent of the nine (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Honeycrisp is not a GMO, which is why I'm curious as to why you were thinking it might be. If there's some language you read elsewhere on Wikipedia that was misleading, it would be good to know about it. If it's from elsewhere, it's still good to be aware of it in case others make the same mistake. Also, if you're not familiar with talk page discussions, remember to WP:THREAD comments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I stand corrected. My bad =/ Agent of the nine (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-reason for removing Hatting

@User: ‎Kingofaces43 Why did you remove the hatting I placed on your table of statistics and subsequent discussion?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I could list a few, but the primary and most simplest reason is that your involvement in this page and moreso an RfC about saftey/health effects of GMOs violates your broadly construed topic ban on health related topics imposed by Beeblebrox. You were strongly cautioned by Adjwilley and Short Brigade Harvester Boris on your talk page about skirting your topic ban in previous instances. This conversation isn't appropriate for an article talk page though. I for one don't plan to have much internet access this weekend, so I'm not going to file an ANI at this time at least, but I'll leave it up to other editors here to do so if it continues to be a problem and they feel so inclined. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I dont believe DrChrissy has violated that ban, this page is not 100% about health. They did not respond to any health related questions. They only involved themselves in an area dealing with editor participation on the talk page. But I do think this page holds the possibility of breaking that ban. AlbinoFerret 14:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This page is about a foodstuff, i.e. Genetically modified food. It is no more about the health of humans than are French fries, Ketchup, Pickled onions and Foie gras. It is not even specifically about food for humans. I have recently been heavily editing Dog meat and observing my topic ban by avoiding any comment or reference whatsoever to human health. There have been no complaints or concerned voices there. @User talk:Kingofaces43 You stated my posting was to an RfC about saftey/health effects. In fact, the title is "The scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food" (my emphasis). There are risks of GMOs other than human health risks, such as monocultures, reduced species diversity, contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply to animals, effects of GMOs on the environment and nature. @User talk:Kingofaces43 - I thank you for not posting what would have been an ill-advised ANI - this will save many editors much wasted time, however, I feel you still owe the project a valid reason why you removed my hatting.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the primary reason was the violation of the topic ban by becoming involved in a conversation on a human health topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, this article is about the genetic modification of food. It is not a human medical article and therefore it's Talk page is not a human medical article. This thread is about unspecified "risk" and is therefore not human medical content at the outset. I have not made any edit in relation to other edits discussing human medical content. I have not violated my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

^I agree. This article on GMO Food (and articles dedicated to GMO's in general) is not a medical topic. The only GMO article specifically being dedicated to medical use of GMO I am aware of is Growth hormone treatment. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS covers content about health. Food safety is a health topic. Both RFCs are focused on content about food safety, thus on health, thus on a MEDRS topic. Drchrissy cannot be involved in anything related to MEDRS. His comments and actions are one step removed from MEDRS-matters per se - the actions and comments are on (step 1) the relevance of editor statistics to the fairness of an RfC (step 2) on health issues. That is dancing close to the line of his topic ban. Why he does that, I have no idea, since the topic ban is indefinite, and he can appeal it 6 months from when it started. BATTLEGROUND behavior at the very edge of his topic ban is the kind of thing that will be brought up at any appeal he makes, and will tank his appeal. But whatever. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to let the closing admin sort out whether the un-hatted section is relevant or not. (From a quick read if I were closing I probably wouldn't give it much weight because the analysis fails to discriminate between single purpose accounts and engaged subject experts.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment as my hope was just for the closer to use it however they will (or won't). If the closer does want to figure out who's an SPA or an expert editor though, the list should help subset out which editors to look at further for additional scrutiny between the two. Can't do everything under the sun from the get-go, so it's hopefully a good starting point if someone decides to use it since it's intended as a tool rather than something to argue one direction or another. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)