Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Genetically modified food controversies. 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 8

Canvassing

David Tornheim has been canvassing with regard to this article. I left a warning for him here and put the recruiting template at the top of this Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Jtydog became aware of this message almost immediately (before 2 or 3 of the the people I contacted made any response), but only waited until now to raise this objection, making good on the threat that things would get "ugly" if I did not remove reference to this article on my talk page, because it showed Pro-GMO "hero" Pamela Ronald in a less that positive light. I will respond later to why I contacted the four people.David Tornheim (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No, actually I watch WhatamIdoing's Talk page and I saw the Talkback you left on her talk page at 09:20, 15 February 2015 which led me to the discussion on Gandy's page and the rest of your posts. I thought about what to do about the canvassing a bit, then decided to provide the notice to you and post here. Simple. You should not make assumptions about other people, and you especially should not put them in edit notes, where you cannot go back and fix them. And your behavior is WP:CANVASSing - it doesn't matter why you did it. The behavior is out of bounds. Please stop. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Response to Alleged Canvassing

For about a week I ceased all communication with any user about GMO to show I do not take such allegations of Canvassing lightly. I did not and do not believe it was canvassing, but I understand how it may give the appearance of canvassing, and I have done my best to address concerns raised by Jytdog by not speaking to anyone about GMO during that week. The effect has been to chill communication about GMO that might have been productive. I am hoping we can resume more healthy communication and drop various accusations and focus on improving this and other GMO articles. I will assume Jytdog in "good faith" made the allegation, and I would like that he and others will assume "good faith" in the trying to understanding the reasons I contacted the four users, which I will explain here. And then we can move forward. In particular, I have major concerns that the article in many places, especially in the lead, lacks NPOV and that those who have tried to address it appear to have been be so exasperated by drama, new users have been accused of breaking the rules when they raised the issue, etc., that they left the page, or left Wikipedia entirely. That's not healthy and I hope we can make for more healthy communication here that keep users from leaving these pages frustrated and angry.

<t>Based on the content of the article, I suspected (and others have too) that there have been COI edits. However, until there is solid evidence--which is very difficult to obtain because of Wikipedia's anonymity and privacy rules (an issue raised by Doc James--I am not going to accuse anyone of COI. I am all ears on how to address corruption of content and slant from COI edits and paid editors whose objective is to defend and insert their employer POV and not to improve the article. My purpose in contacting the users was twofold: (1) To get advice on how to proceed without immediately stepping on toes and reigniting past drama and disputes (2) To avoid running into trouble, drama, accusations, etc. with anyone who might have COI or be a paid PR person, who might see me as a threat to their PR agenda slant and free advertising that they so eagerly want to be in the article instead of a balanced quality article that accurately and fairly describes concerns raised by GMO critics like Jeffrey Smith in GMO Roulette (if you have not seen this film, just watch 5 minutes of the 17 minute trailer, please). I did not want to make the same mistakes that others have made when addressing NPOV issues and COI concerns. I think that should be obvious from the messages I sent to them. Unfortunately, by doing this outreach, I ended up being accused of canvassing. Regardless, I have stopped the behavior in question, and am now moving forward to address the NPOV concerns. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, your reasoning is not relevant. The behavior was canvassing. It is not ambiguous. You have been warned. If you continue to canvass, I will bring you to ANI and I am confident that you will be blocked for it; this is one of clearest cases I have ever seen. If you have concerns about this article, this is the place to raise them. That is the point of the guideline. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, per the talk page guidelines, this page is not a discussion forum on the general topic. Please use this page to discuss specific issues with the content of this article. And please discuss content, not contributors. This is all Wikipedia 101 stuff. If you are not familiar with the talk page guidelines, please read them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Networked gene" Reply

In response to groupuscule's comment just above, I checked out the piece. I found this important concept:

"The Central Dogma [of molecular biology] views genes as discrete packets of information arranged like beads strung on a thread of DNA2 and states that “each gene in living organisms, from humans to bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein.”

That claim has a cite. Then there's this:

"Directly contrary to the Central Dogma, in the past year numerous scientific discoveries involving the network effects of junk DNA, hybrid mRNA, SNPs and epigenetics have created a new model of a Networked Gene. Instead of viewing DNA as just a string of biological code, scientists have a new understanding that DNA is a highly complex operating system where a gene which expresses itself one way in a donor organism may not express itself the same way when dropped into an entirely different organism...."

That's the interesting bit, but is uncited. The food example is the allergenic GM peas. In that case, in its original organism the gene did not produce allergenic proteins, but did after insertion into the target organism. The article then talks about the "FDA's presumption" that GMOs are substantially equivalent (SE) and advocates eliminating the SE concept. This WP article by contrast cites claims that "Regulators check that GM foods are SE..." Thus it appears that groupuscule's author is incorrect. Lfstevens (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Flawed FDA Risk Assessments

Eat at Your Own Risk: Flawed FDA Risk Assessments Strengthen Arguments for Labeling GMOs, 25 February 2015, by Alex James, Truthout. -- IjonTichy (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Truthout isn't a reliable source. Is there a good source for this information to review? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

sorry for the capital letters, I don't have time to copyedit:

HOLES IN THE BIOTECH SAFETY NET - FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods, Center for Science in the Public Interest

Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered food, Friends of the Earth and Salk Institute for Biological Studies

IjonTichy (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:PRIMARY source that like others, has been hyped in the media. As an encyclopedia we wait for secondary sources in the relevant scientific fields that discuss this. Responses to it in the mainstream or alternative media or by activist groups are not the kind of reliable secondary sources we use. Let's all keep an eye out for secondary sources that discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Contamination" vs. "Mixed"

The last sentence of the lead contains the wording "environment and nature" unless there is a major difference between these two words and the effect of genetic modification affects the two in different ways I suggest changing to "natural environment". I also have concerns over the beginning of the same sentence, "Concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply", this particular concern really needs to be attributed and the language toned down from the negative "contaminated" to the neutral "mixed". It requires attribution as it's very much a fringe concern; most people wouldn't care if corn was mixed with their corn, I mean I can think of a few factors which have an actual detectable impact on the chemical composition of corn that no one cares about. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I made the change. I imagine the first bit might have come from environment meaning farm fields and nature being uncultivated land, but I agree that's pretty ambiguous even then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and have reverted that edit. "Toning it down" only serves the purpose to marginalize the concerns raised by GMO critics. It is not a "fringe" concern. If you need a RS, that should be easy to find. David Tornheim (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that Thargor Orlando has changed the word "contaminated" back to the inappropriate word "mixed," saying in the comments, "Contaminating implies something more negative than necessary. Discuss this change on talk". diff. I await his/her explanation. The word contaminate is the more appropriate word. A search on the word contaminate/contamination comes up 28 times in the document. From the first page of substantive text (page 3 of the document):

1.0 Executive summary

1.1 The CIEH believes that the Defra consultation on the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops is fundamentally flawed in that the government should be proposing measures to prevent the contamination of non-GM and organic crops and not permitting GM contamination of these crops to become routine. [emphasis added].

The cited document is: here. This is a typical example of the NPOV problem where industry slant has taken over, making a legitimate concern sound meaningless. "Mixing" does not represent the views of the document accurately at all.David Tornheim (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the CIEH is a trade publication, and using "contamination" assumes a legitimate concern where none exists in the relevant area. The concerns in this case are not supported by the science in terms of genetically modified foods "contaminating" any supply, but the concern of GMOs mixing into the supply is a valid one, which is why we've opted to use mix. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando wrote: "The concerns in this case are not supported by the science." Who gets to decide that? It appears to me you are putting your opinions, analysis and interpretation into the document and its conclusions in violation of WP:NOR. That's not what the document says, so there is no justification for the watered down term "mixed" because you disagree with their opinions and or conclusions. I would appreciate it if you would revert the content back to reflect what is actually said in the article: "contamination". Yours, David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This article in the Guardian uses contamination to describe the unintended presence of experimental GMO wheat in fields, and a number of other reliable sources covering this news event use the term in a similar way.Dialectric (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In terms of "who gets to decide" for the science? The scientists do. I don't know how to explain it better at this point as to why "contaminate" is so inappropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

^This is not helpful and is not a proper defense of the language, and as I said is nothing more that WP:OR. If there is not further objection and a proper justification for the language, I intend to put the correct word "contaminating" back in the sentence.David Tornheim (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

please don't be hasty. this is a discussion about language in the lead, looking only at the lead, which is a bad way to go. There is a section on escape with a subsection on co-existence. need to take some time to review that, look at the lead, and make sure they match. ditto we need to find the place in the body where anti-GMO folk are described as discussing concerns about admixture. will look at that this evening. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The wording issue is still open. As Jytdog suggests, the usage in the larger page should be considered. The usage in reliable sources should be considered as well. A quick scan of sources shows that both 'inadvertent mixing' and 'contamination' are used in a number of articles. The issue of inadvertent mixing / contamination is economic as well as scientific. Countries have blocked grain shipments due to the presence of GMOs. This loss of revenue is certainly a legitimate concern.Dialectric (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Creating a FAQ

When it comes to fringe topics, there's often a lot of lack of knowledge from well intentioned editors or just fluffery and puffery when someone comes in to the article with ideas on the topic already that might be at odds with the science. Other articles that get a lot of such traffic such as Talk:Evolution, Talk:Global warming, etc. have frequently asked question sections. I've seen some users complain about this topic that people don't see past conversations easily on this topic because they get archived (we can't keep everything up forever). Should we think about having a FAQ section as well on the talk page? If so, what main questions should be addressed that come up often? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

good idea! i think a brief explanation of the scientific consensus statement - unpacking it a bit so each part is made clear (limited to currently marketed food; comparative to food from conventional organisms; and limited to health) - along with an explanation that scientific consensus is not the same as unanimity, and with a link to the RfC, would be helpful. My impression is that this statement is the thing that most folks get exercised over, and most times it is from not reacting to what it actually says. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I see a difference between a topic FAQ and an article FAQ. I see the latter as highly useful, if it's to document the conclusion(s) of past discussions. It makes them explicit and thus open to reconsideration. A suite of links to relevant WP policies that keep coming up would also be a win. Lfstevens (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think an article FAQ would be the main focus. However, part of that would mean having some important topics within such as explanations of how the relevant science works. In that case, it would be similar to an evolution page explaining what a scientific theory actually is because there is often so much misunderstanding and people saying it's just a theory. That should all be wrapped into the idea of an article FAQ though rather than going too far into a topic FAQ as you say though. I'll see if I can pull something together in awhile to see if any other ideas come up in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I made this back when the consensus statement was still being debated. Much of it is copied from the FAQs at other pages, but hopefully you could build on it. :-) Sunrise (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I might support a FAQ, if it were not as slanted as the article. Although I appreciate Sunrise's work, many of the statements in her proposed FAQ emphasize the GMO Proponents' position with little voice to the concerns of GMO critics. The purpose of the article, I believe, should be balanced and include the concerns of the critics on at least equal footing to the claims of the GMO Proponents. Just as is done with this article: Creation–evolution controversy. An excellent FAQ and way to handle the article in NPOV way might say this on the "scientific consensus" concern:

GMO Proponents claim there is a "broad scientific consensus" based on the Board of Directors official statements of two well respected organizations AAAS and AMA to that effect and numerous quotes from meta studies, the FAO and WHO and quotes from numerous other respected scientific organizations from around the globe in harmony with these statements. [more text fleshing this out]
GMO Critics dispute the claim there is a scientific consensus, saying that the positions of the AMA and AAAS are political, and that numerous scientist immediately objected to the Boards' statements, that the AMA position was created and used successfully as marketing to defeat the California labeling proposition under pressure from industry and influence from the President who had ties to industry. GMO Critics also say that the various quotes from numerous scientific organizations have been cherry-picked from individual authors who do not represent those organizations and that often the statements were rewritten in ways that are misleading, and leave out the other concerns that are in nearly all the documents that scientists are almost unanimous in their believe that GMO's have not be sufficiently studied and long term safety is still unknown.

I am aware I gave more space to the GMO Critics than the GMO Proponents. The amount of text for both should be equal. I just quickly wrote up what I know off the top of my head. David Tornheim (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is good. The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV, specifically the section called WP:UNDUE. Many people think NPOV means that we give some kind of "equal" voice to varying views on this, but that is not what NPOV is about. NPOV says that we read reliable sources (very important) and we summarize those sources, giving DUE WEIGHT as the sources do. Many of the questions about GMOs are science-based, and the scientific literature is what we examine to understand the topic and consider weight. Editors working here have done that, and the article reflects the weight of scientific sources. If you want to give more WEIGHT to the "GMO critic" view, you will need to show that their views have more weight in reliable sources. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any ostensibly neutral scientific organization (in shorthand "Scientists United", not "Scientists against GMOs") that makes the claims that you attribute to GMO Critcs? If this is individuals (negative) v organizations (positive) it's a tough row to hoe unless some RS specifically provides evidence that the claimed consensus is false. For example, "Pew polled scientists and found no/only weak evidence of the claimed consensus. In fact..." or maybe "WaPo reported today that 5 of the 20 AAAS votes in favor of claiming a consensus had received funds from Monsanto. Further, leaked emails reveal..." Lfstevens (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That FAQ looks pretty awesome. I'd probably try to condense a few things with a few tweaks so the focus is also on what conversations have happened in the article itself, but it looks like you've done the heavy lifting already. I'll make a few tweaks this week sometime and see what folks think. It's grant proposal / progress reporting season here, so I may either get to it when I have a bit of spare time, or during a fit of work procrastination. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I tinkered with Sunrise's FAQ a bit and cut it down to some main questions. Here's what it looks like right now.: To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is the article biased?

A1: Wikipedia’s official neutral point of view policy requires us to treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the relevant academic field. Some views about GM foods are not supported by the relevant field (biology), and the article needs to reflect this.

Q2: Are GM foods dangerous to human health?

A2: The scientific consensus is that GM foods currently on the market pose no more risk than their conventional counterparts. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. This conclusion has been reached by multiple independent reliable sources, including major scientific organizations and most regulatory agencies responsible for food safety.

However, it is not possible to make a blanket statement about future GM foods. As a result, GM foods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and foods currently on the market have gone through regulatory and testing procedures evaluating whether the products are substantially equivalent to non-GM products. The view that these existing products are dangerous to human health is currently a fringe position in the academic community.

The content in this Wikipedia article describing the scientific consensus, and the sourcing for it, was reviewed by the Wikipedia community in an open request for comment during July-August 2013. The statement and sourcing were found to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and inclusion of the statement has the consensus of the Wikipedia community. The RfC can be viewed here.

Q3: Aren't there studies that say current GM foods are dangerous to eat?

A3: There are a small number, but the overwhelming majority of studies have found no safety concerns. The exceptions do not invalidate the scientific consensus, because no scientific consensus is absolute. Among other things, it is normal for scientific experiments to occasionally return both false positives and false negatives.

If you have a study that you think should be included in the article, please make sure that it is peer-reviewed and has been discussed in medically reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, it is unlikely to have sufficient prominence to be discussed in the article. Note that information may have sufficient prominence for the Genetically modified food controversies article, but not for other GM-related articles, because the controversy article covers social aspects in greater depth. Additionally, statements which represent minority views should be placed in the context of the mainstream view. You are welcome to ask for assistance from more experienced editors on the talk page.

For the studies by Pusztai and Séralini, see Pusztai affair and Séralini affair.

Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?

A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. Because of Wikipedia’s position as a trusted reference work, evidence for health-related claims must also follow the higher standard of medical reliability. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page, but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of GM foods, but the article talk page is not such a forum.

The RfC is mentioned in there, but should we make it more prominent somewhere explaining what an RfC means in this context. Any other major points to include? This is just a framework that would seem to be good to start with for now to cover the common questions that come up that usually take some explaining, so thoughts are welcome on improving it. Right now it's relatively broad and not mentioning too much about article related history or how to guide new editors that are interested in editing this topic, so those areas could maybe have some consideration. Thoughts? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice!! I copyedited the Rfc bit. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I object on the grounds that both proposed FAQ's lacks NPOV as I mentioned earlier. David Tornheim (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems plenty in line with NPOV. We say where the consensus is and call out the fringe ideas that pop up often like we're supposed to. I'm not seeing anything that would turn the consensus previously reached in the article that would make the current content fail NPOV. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it captures the major points. I do think it's important to include that valid concerns such as pesticide resistance do exist, and that the article does discuss them - even if only to make a distinction between health-related and non-health-related claims. I would say that giving it a separate question would be too strong of an emphasis when it would be one out of five - I had a comment on this in my version of Q1, but looking back at it I'm not sure the wording was the best. Sunrise (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 said "seems plenty in line with NPOV." How is that possible when ever *single* part of the proposed FAQ is slanted to the GMO Proponent's perspective? There may have been an RfC on the disputed "scientific consensus" claim, the conclusion of which was that it did not give sufficient voice to GMO critics, so that the sentence continues to fail NPOV. That RfC certainly doesn't apply to the remainder of the article. There is no "consensus" that everything in the article is NPOV--to the contrary, many users have pointed out the problem with NPOV but this concern falls on deaf ears as any suggestion to add material supporting GMO critics views is summarily rejected. David Tornheim (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To be neutral (by NPOV's definition of it) we assign due weight by giving the mainstream view prominence, briefly mention minority views, and either don't mention at all or specifically call out fringe ideas. WP:VALID covers this pretty well where we don't give a false balance when there are proponents and opponents of something. When an idea has more weight, especially in scientific discourse, we reflect that here. That's basically what you're seeing in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just last week a correlation between glyphosate and NHL was introduced there - because it appeared in a review from a reliable source... Lfstevens (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A useful addition would be to discuss pesticides and their relationship to GMOs as described in WP.Lfstevens (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we'd put in there that either comes up often on the talk page or isn't addressed well in the article, so what were you thinking about as a potential question? I'd mainly like to see the FAQ just address questions and ideas that always keep coming up on the talk page for now to keep things concise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The broad claims I see coming up repeatedly are:

GMO Roundup tolerance is spreading to weeds.
GMOs have dramatically increased pesticide use.
Roundup damages human health. Lfstevens (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from now. I think those are rather pointed topics that are a bit less nebulous for readers than that of scientific consensus and could be simply answered in the article itself rather concisely. I guess I don't see them as that broad of claims, so I don't think they'd be too helpful in the FAQ since we can just state in the article for something like your second question that insecticide use went down, herbicide use went up, older pesticides were replaced, etc. That does establish a good baseline for what I'm thinking though. Things I'd be looking for in a FAQ would be even broader. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I support Lfstevens (talk)'s suggestions above. If it's not in the article, it should be. David Tornheim (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

With regard to NPOV and the scientific consensus, as I have said many times before and provided RS, GMO critics dispute the "scientific consensus". And it's not in your proposed FAQ. Almost everything proposed in the FAQ is Pro-GMO. That is not NPOV. Have you all even *read* anything from GMO critics? Or do you just immediately dismiss their claims because you believe anyone who criticizes GMO's are WP:Fringe, stupid and unscientific, including the scientists at ENSSR or Union of Concerned Scientists? David Tornheim (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been MIA for a while, so forgive me if I am behind the eight-ball. The only item I recall when I was active that would have justified a FAQ revolved around the scientific consensus. Is there any need to create answers to other questions? I have not looked on here for over a year now and don't fancy a troll back through the talk page so am willing to take your word on the situation. I say this because the more crowded a FAQ is the more likely the main points are to get lost. Also the top of this page is already rather overwhelming. AIRcorn (talk)

Discussion at Jimbo's Talk page about these articles

Thread is here, which grew directly out of David's canvassing of the OP, discussed above. David contributed this to the discussion there.

It is common courtesy here to alert editors working on an article when you discuss the article on one of the boards or other big fora here. I've done that for you, David. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Bias / NPOV -- Non-Neutral Point of View

I am going to put my concerns about NPOV here from what I have said before. I hope we can discuss NPOV here rather than the other sections, such as alleged Canvassing. David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have specific issues with this article's actual content, please do raise them here on the Talk page; that is what it is for. Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I will hold off on a more thorough analysis of some of the most major problems with NPOV while we discuss the "scientific consensus" issue, and "contamination" language (above), and FAQ, even though I have already prepared a draft on my issues with the "lede". I think there is plenty to discuss before I bring up that much more! Yours, David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In the "scientific consensus" section of this Talk page, Jytdog (talk) suggested that I read WP:Controversial articles. I did. It starts by saying:

"An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant."

Unfortunately, that is not the case for this article. Everything that I have read of this and of other GMO articles, the concerns of GMO critics are framed by Pro-GMO writers, not by the GMO critic's actual position. To see the contrast, simply look at a leading GMO critic's (Jeffrey M. Smith) documentary GMO Roulette. It's hard to believe this article is even about the same controversy! David Tornheim (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:CONTROVERSY is only an essay (see the note about policies and guidelines at the top). The particular part you quoted needs to read in the context of policies and guidelines. The first is WP:WEIGHT which basically says we don't mention everything someone thinks. Sometimes we'd only afford a view a single sentence if it's in the minority. When we get into WP:FRINGE material, we either don't mention it at all, or mention it with other sources calling it out as false, psuedoscientific, fringe, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As the article you cite states, Smith is not only self-taught, he's self-published and self-produced. Are you proposing his work as a source? Lfstevens (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. He presents a major view of GMO critics, not those who are GMO advocates. His education and publisher are irrelevant, right? David Tornheim (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

2 responses. We need to consider WEIGHT, which i will get to after we talk about other stuff. But first, sources are reliable for certain purposes. I am not sure there is much that Smith would be reliable for, but i want to ask: what content would you propose using him as a source for? thx Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead presents the opponents argument. Plus there is a section nesr the top of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Scientific Consensus"

I intend to argue that the statement about a "scientific consensus" is slanted and not NPOV. I am aware of the RfC on the issue found here. Regardless of whatever was agreed on, I would like a concise explanation of why that statement is there and how it is supported by RS and why GMO critics concerns about the claim have not been given any voice whatsoever. David Tornheim (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Two things:

First, to change that statement, you will need to bring reliable sources introduced since the RfC was done, that show that new science has been done that changed the scientific consensus.

Second, would you please clarify what you are after when you ask for "a concise explanation of why that statement is there and how it is supported by RS and why GMO critics concerns about the claim have not been given any voice whatsoever." Are you asking for that here, or are you saying that the article itself should say that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Beyond the RfC, the statement has three solid citations that support it. Note that they are not individual researches making claims, but AAAS and the EU. Are there equivalent bodies that reject the idea of a consensus? Are you claiming that the fact of the consensus is not notable? Lfstevens (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason I ask as I have is despite much reading about WP:RS, and many years of casual Wikipedia editing, I still don't really understand the vicissitudes of what makes a source "reliable" or not in whatever context it is used. I have seen discussion and disagreement on what sources were chosen and whether they made the case or not, and I would appreciate a "state-of-the-art" explanation for why the 3 sources chosen are sufficient to justify the sentence that is there -and- why the well known objections by GMO critics to the "scientific consensus" claim are absent. I say "well known" because a simple Google search of "GMO consensus" brings up approximately an equal number of pages stating there IS vs. there IS NOT a "scientific consensus". I believe that *all* of the prominent GMO critics such as ENSSR have made statements that there is no such "scientific consensus". This report is a typical example of the exceptionally well argued reasons that no such "scientific consensus" exists. If this page is about the GMO food controversy, why are the voices of the critics absent on this very important claim, the one the FAQ discussion says is the most often asked about? I am completely dumbfounded by the absence of the GMO critics voice on this issue, which is the major reason I became interested in working on this page to address the NPOV problems that many others have observed too. David Tornheim (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you consider Food & Water Watch to be a good enough source here? They might be a perfectly respectable non-profit, but how are we to conclude that this is an authoritative source? The report is unsigned; who was it written by? What are their qualifications? That's the challenge here. Guettarda (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Guettarda, that is an advocacy/activist group; not OK. We don't want to use sources for key statements from activist groups for any statement in WP's voice on key issues. They could be listed in the article as among the groups that oppose conventional ag including GM crops. David, please read WP:MEDRS - especially the section called "respect secondary sources" for a definition of the kind of sources that we are talking about as reliable on a controversial topic like this. (Note - ENSSR is also an activist group; they are somewhat like the US Union of Concerned Scientists) Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Guettarda (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I urge both of you to actually read the sources that are linked-to in the body of the article (only a subset are used in the lead), if you have not already. There are a couple of lower quality sources in there meant to explain the scientific consensus to non-scientists Please deal with what this article actually says and cites. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at ENSSR. They appear to be fairly fixated on GMOs and biotech safety. No other issues appear in their list of "recent activities".

Sep 10-11, 2014: Science in the Eye of the Storm (AStA TU Berlin, CRIIGEN, ENSSER, Federation of German Scientists, Stiftung Gekko, International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, Universities Allied for Essential Medicine, Technical University, Berlin Germany)Statement "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety"

Jun 26-27, 2013: Agroecology for Sustainable Food Systems in Europe: A Transformative Agenda (Centre for Agroecology and Food Security of the Coventry University, ENSSER, Free University of Brussels, Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, IFOAM EU, TP Organics; Brussels, Belgium)

May 28-29, 2013: Sustainable Diet and Food Security (Belgian Nutrition Society, The Nutrition Society (UK), Société Française de Nutrition; Lille, France)

Sep 28-29, 2012: Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety "GMO Risk Assessment, Independent Biosafety Research and Holistic Analysis" (ENSSER, Tara Foundation, TWN; Hyderabad)

Aug 31, 2012: The State of the GMO Planet (California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco)

May 16-18, 2012: Congress on Risks for Public Health & the Environment "Time for Convergence of European Technology Assessment and Risk Assessment" (ENSSER, EEA, HDO, UPM-ISTAS; Madrid)

March 2012: Angelika Hilbeck and Hartmut Meyer contribute to the debate on GM crops in the German weekly newspaper "Die Zeit"

March 24-25, 2011: "Sustainability and Holistic Assessment of Technologies and Biotechnologies" (University of Caen MRSH-CNRS; Risk Pole; CRIIGEN; ENSSER; Foundation for Citizen Sciences; GenØk; Society of Environmental Health in Western France; Caen)

October 09, 2010: Citizen Forum - Social Sustainability and Biological Safety (ENSSER, TWN & VDW; Nagoya)

October 07-09, 2010: Scientific Conference - Social Sustainability and Biological Safety "Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety" (ENSSER, TWN & VDW; Nagoya)

April 15-16, 2010: Symposium on Science & Society "Integrety of Science under Attack" (EEA & ENSSER; Copenhagen)

That said, I'd say the objections raised in the F&WW article are good points if valid. If a better source can be found for them, I'd say that the "consensus" claim could be reasonably challenged. That said, the "safety objections" appear to be "concerns" rather than "harms".

As I examine the ENSSR footnotes, this one looked like it might be appropriate relating to the "animal health" point, which is the only useful thing I saw that went beyond a "concern", although I could only see the abstract. [1] The validity of the piece is further brought into question by this repeated citation;) [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs)

scientists who are part of ENSSR have published - eg PMID 18989835. Scientific consensus has dissenters, for sure. That article rounds up every primary source that reported something bad and often (Seralini's 2007 paper is cited 6 times, for example), and ignores the many that have reported nothing, and contains quotes like "Member states should carefully scrutinize all applications, because companies try to hide information about the health impacts of GM." Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

one of the things i want to point out in all this - one of the pillars on which the scientific consensus rests (and you will learn this if you read the sources supporting the scientific consensus statement), is that there is no plausible mechanism by which food from GM plants could harm people. The Dona article lists the various theories that have been proposed, and none of them make such sense or have been verified to actually happen. This is one of the key things I remain curious about. If somebody publishes a paper that describes some plausible mechanism by which food from GM plants could hurt people, and that paper holds up, I am very sure the scientific consensus consensus would dissolve in that face of that. The other pillar is that no one has shown clear harm from GM food in a well-designed animal study. With all the passion and public interest around this issue, this remains the most surprising thing to me. Such studies are designable and do-able but what has been published to date has been roundly criticized as crappy science. I mentioned to David somewhere, that there is a project in Europe called the Grace Project, that has said they are actually re-doing the Seralini studies, but soundly this time, based on reports to date. I am looking forward to seeing what they publish, and hope it is actually rigorous science. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When will the anti-GMO folks produce an unimpeachable study that supports their fears? Lfstevens (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input, and thank you Jytdog for taking the time to read the FW&W article and to find the paper published by a scientist from ENSSR. I read the WP:MEDRS yesterday, but I will review it again. I am not certain yet certain it is the relevant WP:RS standard, and will explain later why. I was already familiar with the first two sources cited to the sentence even before I came to this GMO controversy page , because they are so heavily publicized by GMO Proponents, but am even more well versed in them now than ever before. I will comment ENSSR, FW&W and the other groups later.

"When will the anti-GMO folks produce an unimpeachable study that supports their fears?" That's easy to answer: That will happen concurrently with the announcement of the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission: "Come on! You didn't really expect us to do our job, look into the safety issues at Fukushima and force TEPCO to make appropriate modifications, did you? Honesty, what were you thinking? Did your parents not instruct you: 'buyer beware'? That said, our scientists have studies proving that all future power plants will be 'safe'. You have nothing to fear." :-) David Tornheim (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk about a strange comparison! The dangers of nuclear power are supremely well-documented. Although, despite the three big accidents, a lot fewer people have died from nuclear power than from conventional fuels. Just sayin' Lfstevens (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

^Answered on your talk page. David Tornheim (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Responded there. Lfstevens (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As long-term participants in this discussion well know, there is copious evidence of scientific dissensus on this topic. Some evidence for this dissensus can be found on this page here. This latter page also explains in excruciating detail why the currently used sources are inadequate. (In short, because the doctrine of "substantial equivalence" they propound originates with politicians, not through scientific verification.)

For one well-credentialed example, check out this law review from biotechnology and law expert Katharine Van Tassel, who argues at length against the doctrine that genetically engineered foods currently on the market are as safe as conventionally grown food. "... the FDA can no longer claim that the donor product and the donee product are bioequivalent. Because they are not bioequivalent, the FDA will be hard pressed to continue in its position that common experience with the donor product can be used as proxy, or indirect, evidence that the donee product is equally safe." groupuscule (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I intend to use the article described above. I saw no objection to it. We all agree that this is a WP:RS, correct? David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

there are many articles discussed above... which one do you mean? Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Originally, I meant just:

This law review article which groupuscule (talk) discussed above

However, since you asked any of these others demonstrate both that there is no broad 'scientific consensus' on GMO safety -and- that GMO critics vigorously contest such a claim (neither of which is mention in the lede as it should for NPOV):

You have a bunch of advocacy sites there. Please read WP:Controversial articles. You will notice that there is not a single source in this whole long article from Monsanto, or BIO, etc. Source advocating any side of this are not helpful. About the law school article; that is a WP:PRIMARY source - and I am not aware of any regulatory agency that has said that they agree with the conclusions of this article, namely that they have been "regluating in ignorance." Just above, you and I had a discussion that "substantial equivalence" is still used - a good thirty years later - as a foundational principle by regulators around the world. That law article does not represent a mainstream view. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"You will notice that there is not a single source in this whole long article from Monsanto, or BIO, etc." Not True This is sited in footnote 321: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/india-pink-bollworm.aspx

Since the law school article is a WP:PRIMARY source, then I assume all 3 of the footnotes citations (footnotes 1-3), should be stricken as well as the "scientific consensus" claim on the grounds that they too are all primary sources? David Tornheim (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

wow 474 sources and there was one. I will take care of that, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Just looked at it; the sentence is " In November 2009, Monsanto scientists found that the pink bollworm had become resistant to first generation Bt cotton in parts of Gujarat, India—that generation expresses one Bt gene, Cry1Ac. This was the first instance of Bt resistance confirmed by Monsanto." I struggle to see why you would object to Monsanto ackowledging that there was resistance. So I didn't remove it. Let me know if you object to it remaining. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

about striking 3 sources. David, this is not how WP works. First off, there is a whole slew of sources supporting the scientific consensus, so I am not sure what 3 you are talking about. Second, the way this place works, is that you read as many reliable, independent sources as you can, and you summarize what they have to say. You look at what the mainstream institutions have to say as well. You take all that in. And you summarize it. And there is a scientific consensus, per the statement in their article. We all know there are activists who dissent, and their voices are in the article. But we represent them for what they are; and they are not the scientific mainstream. You are aware that ENSSER for example, is given a voice in this article, right? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

And let me add, that the scientific consensus statement and its sourcing were examined in an RfC and upheld by the community. What new science showing that GMOs are dangerous has emerged to change the actual scientific outlook? Tha is real question; I am not aware of any and I am interested if you are. I am aware of the PR campaign by anti-GMO groups saying that that there isn't a consensus, but that is not science, that is PR. WP doesn't follow PR - it follows the science. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You asked which 3 sources I am talking about that are all WP:PRIMARY: Footnotes 1-3, which are used to support the sentence this entire section is about:

"While there is concern among the public that eating genetically modified food may be harmful, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."

You go on to say, "there is a whole slew of sources supporting the scientific consensus". That may be the case, but none are cited. Are readers (and users who are trying to understand the justification and sources for the statement) expected to wade through the talk pages and do searches on Noticeboards to find the secondary sources to justify this disputed and "controversial" claim? Most readers who are not Wikipedia "users" don't even know there are talk pages, much less noticeboards, or what an RfC is. As far as I can tell the sentence is little more that WP:OR.David Tornheim (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You are looking at the statement in the lead. The statement in the body is supported by a slew of sources. The statement in the lead used to have the same sourcing as the body, but in this series of difs back in Sept 2013 which was discussed on Talk mostly in this section now in Archives and in this section in the Archives, the number of cites for the consensus was reduced in the lead. I'm open to discussing adding them all back. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

With regard to readers finding the RfC, a) RfCs are a means by which the sausage gets made like everything in Talk; it is not something we would cite in the article. b) there is discussion above about setting up an FAQ for the Talk page for readers who want to see how the sausage was made; I agree very much that an FAQ would be very helpful and said so above. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

proposal, to mirror Global warming article

You know, it occurred to me go look at the global warming article. Please see Global_warming#Discourse_about_global_warming, especially Global_warming#Scientific_discussion. This might be a useful model for us to follow; the situation is very parallel. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That is undoubtedly a good article, but it is not the global warming equivalent of this one. That would be Global warming controversy. In what ways do you see this article changing to more closely mirror those? AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

FAQ continued

Just a note that I've linked the FAQ to this talk page. I condensed it down from the previous version that's sat for awhile per our previous conversation [3]. There could be more tinkering to do, but since we had general consensus that we should put it up, this seems like a good starting point. There could be more to condense, but this seems to cover the questions that come up really often. If someone wants changes to the FAQ, probably best to discuss them here first so we can establish consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

new paper

Another editor kindly brought the following to my attention and so I am bringing it here. This article states that "Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature." Vandana Shiva as a co-author, and authors from ENNSR (who have been claiming this for a while and are already mentioned in our article as saying this), with Seralini as reference 1. Hm! As I discussed above, I think we need to build some well-sourced content defining the mainstream view, significant minority views, and FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

i read it now. it repeats what ENSSR said already in 2013 and what this mysteriously unauthored document from Food and Water Watch says, from Sept 2014. The paper is a "discussion" paper - see here for what that means in the journal; it is an editorial. And per MEDRS that is not a reliable source. I suggest we add this, next to the earlier ENSSER statement. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Fringe proponents trying to claim lack of scientific consensus in publications when there actually is consensus has been pretty well documented in climate change denialism. I'm sure this has has come up at those articles as well, so it might be worthwhile to see how they've tackled this parallel situation. I'll be interested to check out the actual article in a bit, but I'm not sure how it should be mentioned if at all quite yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on scientific consensus on GMO safety elsewhere

FYI. The claim of "scientific consensus" on GMO safety is being discussed here and was briefly discussed here. David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience/fringe

I have been thinking about this for a while, and I think we need to develop content that explicitly discusses the pseudoscience/fringeness of certain anti-GMO claims for inclusion in the article. Here are some such claims. Need to find RS that name them as "pseudoscience":

www.naturalnews.com/031473_GMOs_pathogens.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Huber's "electron microscope pathogens"]
GMOs cause allergies, cancer, ~~and~~ or other health problems, or that the risks are really really high per Seralini, Jeffrey Smith and others
- starter source is here
possibly, the claims of Jeffey Smith/Genetic Roulette in general
- starter source is here

More to come on this. What prompted this is use of "fringe" in the proposed FAQ. We need to solidify the backing for that.

As part of that work, I think we need to also delineate what are "substantial minority views" per NPOV.

An example might be that of, say Domingo, who could perhaps be described as the chief and most credible voice among those who say that there is some risk that GMO's may cause allergies, cancers, and other health problems. (e.g. the 2011 review we cite in the article).

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (nuance via redaction marks Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)) (and more Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

Response:

If you watch the beginning of Genetic Roulette, Jeffrey Smith does not say that GMO's cause allergies, leaky bowl syndrome. No one in the documentary says that. They say those symptoms have increased in the U.S. coincident to the expanded use of GMO's in U.S., which defies the GMO Proponents claims--millions of people have eaten the GMO's and nothing has happened. We don't know that nothing has happened. We know new problems have arisen without clear causes. Since GMO's are not heavily regulated or tested in the U.S. as they are in Europe, the cause of the increase in such allergic reactions could be from the increased consumption of GMO products that are inadequately tested before widespread release. Perhaps Smith says elsewhere that it is proven to be a cause, but I have not seen that. Please cite an RS that shows that is what Smith claims. I don't believe it.

The term "coincident" is telling. Lots of things have become widespread during the period of GMO adoption. Smartphones, etc. Our diets have changed in many ways. Why don't we think that any/all of such changes are the cause of increases in the maladies you cite? It's because correlation is not causation. If there are studies that show that in geographies that do not consume GMOs but are otherwise similar to the US who are not experiencing increases in these diseases, you begin to have a leg to stand on. More interestingly, what is the biological mechanism through which GMOs might have such an effect? Again, sources... Lfstevens (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

^Exactly. This confirms what I say. We don't know what causes those problems. We can't rule out GMO's, Smartphones, etc., if they are not sufficiently studied. Of all the many papers and reviews I have read on GMO's I can't think of any that said GMO's are sufficiently studied--they nearly all say more study is required, including papers, statements and reviews from the orgs listed as supposedly supporting the "scientific consensus". To say that scientists believe GMO's are sufficiently studied is more like a "fringe" view IMHO. But for some reason the fact that scientists call for more study is not present in the lede, and instead the GMO proponents PR statement on the fake "scientific consensus" is. Anyway, Critics like Smith call for more study following the Precautionary Principle as is followed in the E.U. and other countries. The critics views (and mainstream scientists views) should be properly expressed in the controversy article if it is going to be NPOV rather than dismissed as "fringe". Although I disagree that Smith is "fringe", other controversy articles like on Creation-Evolution and Global Warming give voice to both sides, including the "fringe" side, not just one side. These GMO articles need work to be come NPOV. David Tornheim (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, sources. And again, the lede is not the place for minority views. Just curious. Would you be happy with a caveat like "although some scientists call for additional safety studies"? That seems to be what you're saying. Lfstevens (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The article already says: "Consensus among scientists and regulators pointed to the need for improved testing technologies and protocols" Scientists across the spectrum would love more studies. We (humanity) are always looking for better ways to evaluate toxicity. Always, in all fields. Jytdog (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Seralini does not say that GMO's cause cancer. That is a deliberate misinterpretation of his work by GMO Proponents to unfairly discredit his work, just like other methods such as saying he had too few rats and used rats that are likely to get cancer--the same kind of rats and same number of rats that are used in the Monsanto study--which is never mentioned by Seralini's critics who were sued by Seralini and lost in a German court. Neither is the fact that Monsanto used the same rats and number of rats mentioned in the Seralini affair Wikipedia article (all it says is a "study funded by and conducted in consultation with ENSSER also found that EFSA applied double standards.") The Seralini Affair Wiki article focuses almost all of its energy into bashing Seralini despite that the paper was republished. Talk about an NPOV problem.

David Tornheim (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Please discuss content and sources, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

for fuck's sake please actually sources i provided. here i will quote for you: "Oz then introduced Jeffrey Smith, the author of “Genetic Roulette,” who says that engineered foods may cause many serious diseases, including colitis, asthma, and cancer."Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Hm, maybe he doesn't say "cause". Will have to look at that more. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

yeah, this will probably have to be a degree thing; maybe Smith is more careful not to come out and say "cause" than i gave him credit for. edited above per that. Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

altho Smith's FRINGE pal Mercola does articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/15/genetic-roulette-gmo-documentary.aspx ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} come out and say it] about Smith: "In his documentary, Jeffrey Smith makes a convincing argument that one of the primary forces driving these illnesses is America's changing food supply. And one of the most profound changes is genetically engineered food. Proving GE food is causing Americans to be sick is a tall order, but the evidence presented in this film is very compelling and should not be ignored." (emphasis added) that goes way beyond "may" to "cause" -- that is Smith's fringe-y drumbeat right there. this will take some more digging. and i will not source anything to mercola in WP. Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

this is better: "Never-Before-Seen-Evidence points to genetically engineered foods as a major contributor to rising disease rates in the US population, especially among children. Gastrointestinal disorders, allergies, inflammatory diseases, and infertility are just some of the problems implicated in humans, pets, livestock, and lab animals that eat genetically modified soybeans and corn." from http://geneticroulettemovie.com/ there we go. "evidence... points to genetically engineered foods as a major contributor to rising disease rates" is the FRINGE perspective. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should use examples in the FAQ to describe fringe. Better to just link to WP:Fringe#Reliable sources or similar. I feel it would be counter-productive to add to much to the FAQ answers. AIRcorn (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC on consensus statement of relative safety of currently marketed GM food

See here Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible issues in the Herbicides subsection

In the Herbicides subsection of this article, it says

"The development of glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) plants has changed the herbicide use profile away from more environmentally persistent herbicides with higher toxicity, such as atrazine, metribuzin and alachlor, and reduced the volume and danger of herbicide runoff.However, Benbrook concluded that the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds had increased herbicide use. Benbrook's study cites a 23% increase (in herbicide kg/hectare) in use on herbicide-resistant soybeans from 1996-2006, a 33% increase in use on herbicide-resistant cotton from 1996-2010, and a 16% decrease in use on herbicide-resistant corn from 1996-2010."

One, it just says "Beenbrook", which seems odd, given that he hasn't been mentioned before in the article. I think his full name should be used, or it might be confusing to readers. Also, what exactly is it that makes this particular scientist notable enough to be mentioned here? Is his research one of many fining similar conclusions? If so, then why mention him, as mentioning every scientist who has done such research would take much too long. On the other extreme, if his research is a complete outlier, then it may be giving weight to a fringe position. I need to read up on this, definitely... Oh, and I'm not trying to remove mention of him necessarily, his research may be particularly notable, especially if there are independent media reports about it that could be cited. Also, I am still a bit fuzzy on when citing a primary source is ok, and when it is not, and citing his research paper is a primary source. Anyone have any ideas on this? Thanks. SarrCat ∑;3 20:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens fixed it here, i think. thanks! we generally steer clear of primary sources everywhere.... always best to use secondary sources everywhere, in my view. way too easy to cherrypick primary sources that say what you bring to the table... which is why i avoid them like the plague. for most really encyclopedia-worthy ideas in the sciences, there are reviews available, generally... Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The study was widely covered in the media, but has received some criticism for being inaccurate and misrepresenting data, see e.g 1, 2, 3. It was also published in the journal that re-published the famous Séralini paper (see Séralini affair), so I think at the very least there should be some notes about the fact that the study may be inaccurate the article. I would assume there are more studies on this too that should be mentioned? Øln (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Added some info about this. I was thinking about including responses from anti-gm groups to the Brookes study as well, but I didn't find anyone covering the mentioned one, (only older ones, both Brookes and Benbrook have done several studies with newer ones covering additional years), so I didn't see an easy way to include that without violating WP:SYN. Øln (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I added "Chuck" to Benbrook, hope that makes the mention flow better.Tinyds (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC of interest

Editors here might find this RfC of interest too, Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#RfC_Is_including_a_quotation_which_describes_GM_food_as_.27poison.27_acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 08:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Allergencity

I removed this sentence because it is vague, unsourced and does not add to what follows: “A well-known risk of genetic modification is the introduction of an allergen.” Well-known in what sense and among whom? What degree of risk? The opinions of those who consider there is a risk of allergy is well summarised in what follows. Pelarmian (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Bias -- in selective quotations of Waltz article

As an example of bias in the GMO articles, consider this paragraph:

Scientific publishing on the safety and effects of GM foods is controversial. One of the first incidents occurred in 1999, when Nature published a paper on potential toxic effects of Bt maize on butterflies. The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations; however by 2001 multiple follow-up studies had concluded that "the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields." and had "brought that particular question to a close."[89] Concerned scientists began to patrol the scientific literature and react strongly, both publicly and privately, to discredit conclusions they view as flawed, in order to prevent unjustified public outcry and regulatory action.[89] A 2013 Scientific American article noted that a "tiny minority" of biologists have published concerns about GM food, and said that scientists who support the use of GMOs in food production are often overly dismissive of them.[90]
[89]Waltz, Emily (2009). "GM crops: Battlefield". Nature. 461 (7260): 27–32. doi:10.1038/461027a. PMID 19727179.

The article cited [89] reads quite differently than the finessed version above that selectively takes the Pro-GMO position that makes it sound like the publication of the Monarch Butterfly study was a big hullabaloo about nothing, and that protective measures were being put in place to prevent a repeat. But the article has plenty of other material that gives a very different impression that is left out of that paragraph:

The article suggests the author of the study questioning the safety of the maize had too much scrutiny and that this scrutiny, not too little as the Wikipedia article suggests. And additionally quotes suggest that this stifles research. None of this is reflected in the article's paragraph that cites the article. The WP:NPOV rules require that:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

This was not done in this paragraph of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

How is it possible to have too much scrutiny of research? Inapt wording aside, I see no reason not to include something to reflect that some authors feel that some of the pro-GMO criticism is unprofessional. Lfstevens (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NB: I redacted the too-long quote from Nature Biotechnology.

I don't agree with your description of the passage you quote from the article. The Nature Biotech article makes it very clear that the author of the original monarch/BT paper got caught in a political firestorm. a) anti-GMO activists made way more out of her paper than any original research paper can bear, and as a result three things happened: b) other scientists looked at it pretty hard, and some of them were very harsh; b) the government spent a ton of money to do follow-up studies that showed that her original findings didn't hold up (that is not so much "scrutiny" as it is necessary followup due to public concern fanned by activists) - so yes the anti-GMO activists who started the fires were wrong; and c) some pro-GMO scientists started to become vigilante-like going forward, patrolling to put out other fires like that before they could happen or while they were still small. Our content reflects that pretty accurately, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on the placement of GMO safety consensus - should it be located in the Controversy section?

Here is the RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sections with unclear relationship to topic

There are several sections of this article with no clear connection to Genetically modified food controversies, and no clear controversial element. To start with, the 'Environment - Secondary pests' details a specific issue with Bt cotton pests, and might better be placed in the Bt Cotton article. The refs show that some pests increase. This finding does not appear to be controversial. What is the controversy here - that more pesticides have to be used, that the bt sites serve as a refuge for pests that affect non-GM farmers, or something else? How is this section at all related to food? Cottonseed oil? Dialectric (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We've talked a few times about the best title for this article here - you can check the archives - GM food controversies is not the greatest title. as has been discussed probably a zillion times in wall of texts at the GM food article, there is a whole nest of issues that are brought up in controversies over "GMOs" that are often discussed in one breath and that range from environmental issues (pretty narrowly about agriculture which pertain to GM crops - but many of these are really about industrial agriculture broadly speaknig) to food safety issues (pretty narrowly GM Food) to things like scientific publishing, economic issues, and regulatory issues that have to do with both. Naming this "GMO controversies" would be another option that but that is not apt either, as there are GMOs that those who raise controversies rarely discuss - things like transgenic bacteria/yeast/animals created in the course of research and never leave the lab.

the specific thing you bring up is one of the environmental criticisms of GM crops - the risk of them promoting the growth of populations of 2ndary pests. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Seralini critiques

A series of commentaries: [4]. Seems the study is every bit as shoddy as it always appeared. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Jon Entine and his Genetic Literacy Project is WP:RS and WP:NPOV with regard to GMO issues? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Broad scientific consensus vs near unanimity regarding safety

Personally I don't think "broad" is strong enough. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/06/why-people-are-so-scared-of-gmos-according-to-someone-who-has-studied-the-fear-since-the-start/ supports this claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofa King Insane (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The cited (Wonkblog) reporter opines since the scientific community is more or less in agreement that GMO crops are no more harmful than traditional crops, it is less clear what is the purpose of benefits of a label. I.e., he is subtly rooting for non-transparent science--not really what the genuine worldwide "scientific community" stands for, eh? Bjenks (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"When Chipotle announced earlier this year that it would no longer serve food made with genetically modified organisms because of safety concerns, customers rejoiced. But there was one big problem: Just as more Americans grow wary of GMOs, the scientific community is moving in the opposite direction. There is now near unanimity among scientists that GMOs are safe to eat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association have all said that GMOs are fine for consumption" from the 1st paragraph. This is also not an opinion piece AFAICT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofa King Insane (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you have comments about changing this article, please make them. Otherwise, please do not use this article talk page to make general arguments about GMOs. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.

The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of this previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here . There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:

Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording

I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:

... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.

With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new sentence in the article and for discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food that I believe is more WP:NPOV than the original that failed to achieve consensus at the recent RfC. Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:

I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

House bill on labelling

In this dif the following content was added to the GM Food article: "On July 23, 2015, The U.S. House of Representatives Passed Anti-GMO Labeling Law." sourced to this. When I reverted it my edit note said: "labeling is discussed in the Controversies article. will add there if info verifies". I looked at the source. This is a bill that passed the house; nothing similar has passed the Senate and the house bill is meaningless unless that happens and the president signs it, so in my view this is not worth mentioning yet. Just wanted to make a note of this. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Perspective: GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health

Perspective: GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health, by Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., New England J Med 2015; 373:693-695, August 20, 2015, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1505660. IjonTichy (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Editorial piece. Benbrook is a well known advocate for organic. This doesn't bring anything new to this article. Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies herbicides as carcinogenic and you say nothing new? Also you remove the valid addition at GMF article. You seem to have some sort of NPOV when there is valid reliable sourced news on adverse health effects. The Lancet study was removed by Jtdog here. Notice that i will report at ANI if you keep removing it again. prokaryotes (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree with Prokaryotes. The material enhances and properly expands the article. Jus da fax 11:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Which material? The diff prokaryotes provided isn't from this article and shouldn't be discussed here but at Talk:Genetically_modified_food. SmartSE (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Prorkaryotes you are dramatically overstating the meaning and the impact of the IARC classification. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog your affords to downplay the findings are noted.prokaryotes (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not downplaying anything. Per WP:NPOV we look at all the best sources. Are you aware of the German review of glyphosate on behalf of the EU that was published recently in full as well? Are you aware that the full IARC monograph has not published yet, so the scientific community has not been able to understand the reasoning of the IARC's reclassification? Do you understand how IARC classifications are actually used in the real world? Those are real questions, not rhetorical. Please do answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum Jytdog, i look at facts, and the fact is a published peer reviewed study in what appears to be one of the most significant journals out there. prokaryotes (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What "study" are you referring to now? And please do answer my questions above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Advocacy groups" and other article changes

I see we have a problem in the editing of the article. Although recent similar discussions in related articles have yielded nothing but walls of text, we may as well attempt to work this latest dust-up out here on the Talk page. Who wants to go first? Jus da fax 20:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As long there is a group of editors who don't respect WIkipedia's neutral rules, we will likely have these kind of issues. We should write especially in a neutral way on an article about a controversy. Thus, framing consumer organisations as pure advocacy groups is tunnel vision. By that definition Monsanto is also an advocacy group.prokaryotes (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Greenpeace is named as an advocacy group in the advocacy group article. The other two fit the plain meaning of the term. What is your issue with this, exactly, prokaryotes? As we name it in the Monsanto article, Monsanto is a "publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation." Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Look you cannot frame an organisation because you think it fits, on the other hand if you do this why leave out all the other organisations or companies? These names are linked for a reason, and if we use some explanation, we should use the terms from those article ledes. Greenpeace is not just an advocacy group, yes it advocates for stuff but it is also a campaigner etc. prokaryotes (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused by the removal of the term. I don't think anyone here can credibly doubt that those entities are advocacy groups. Certainly if our objective is to inform the reader of this encyclopedia, describing what those organizations are would be helpful. Yobol (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, you wrote, "Greenpeace is not just an advocacy group, yes it advocates for stuff but it is also a campaigner etc." How is campaigning not part of advocacy? Real question - I don't understand. Would you also please read advocacy group? It really is, what Greenpeace is - it is why they exist. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

My own feelings about such matters have been expressed elsewhere, and would come as no surprise, so let's just cut to the nut. How do editors here think we can avoid page protection on yet another article of this type? Is there a dispute resolution process you would respect and agree to? Jusdafax 21:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like an RfC would be the next step, though that particular wording has been in the article since 2010 and should be restored as the clear consensus version while we sort out whether to keep it in a RfC. Yobol (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  - I'm not so sure yet another text wall is the answer. I'll start another section regarding this. Jus da fax 22:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

please don't waste the community's time with yet another RfC about something trivial. How about we actually try to talk with each other? This is what I have meant, when I have asked prokaryotes to slow down and talk. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

We should figure out where to take this dispute (and all related disputes)

Since I'm a bit selfish of my time, and a fine holiday weekend is starting up here in the U.S.A., let's figure out where to take this dispute so the article can be improved peacefully. Looking at the recent history at similar articles, including a couple articles being locked down, it seems to me we should bring in new eyes. I also think we should rule out ANI and ArbCom for the moment. Let's talk about how, and where, to do this fairly and in a manner acceptable to all parties. Thanks. Jus da fax 22:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a problem with Wikipedia and neutrality. This needs attention of ARB.prokaryotes (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree ArbCom seems likely in the long run, but my question remains, is there any other process that hasn't been tried that might be useful? Jus da fax 22:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:DR would seem to be the process to review. A well publicized RfC is still the best bet to get outside eyes in my view, as I do not see that the other options stated are very likely to get outside views on the matter (unfortunately, the content noticeboards tend to have few outside watchers/participants). Yobol (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

When i click through the DR process it reads not like something which could resolve this. Thus, ANI appears as the next logical step. prokaryotes (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the DR process seems unhelpful on review, nor do I recall anything positive being said about it. Let's try thinking outside the box before going to ANI or ArbCom. What else is there that has not been tried? Jus da fax 22:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

laying it on the line here. The mountain of bad faith that several of you bring to this (that I am a boil that must be lanced"... really? You intend to try to actually work with me in good faith? really?) makes it difficult to work anything out. Additionally, there is more to DR than edit warring, yelling at me and insulting me on talk pages, and launching RfCs. There is for example, mediation. To do mediation, you have to actually intend to try to work something out. Jusdafax, I have pointed you to this before, but please actually read WP:DR. There are yet other processes there. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I am, frankly, saddened by your response, Jytdog. You have taken a comment on my Talk page wildly out of context, and reframed it as a personal attack on you. How in all fairness can I see that as anything but gamesmanship? You have been warned at ANI previously, and yet here we are. You have confessed recently to anger issues. I suggest you work on those, since your comment above reveals obsessive page stalking and WP:BATTLE mentality. The question remains, how do we improve the article peacefully? The DR process appears convoluted, and may not work on issues of this scope, but I am willing to discuss it, if you can control yourself and stop framing every single comment as if you are in a war. It's just some pixels, ultimately, and as you have obviously read on my Talk page, when I feel sickened by "dramah" I just walk away. Seriously, how many thousand edits have you made to these articles? You act as if this is life or death. For heavens sake, it's time to lighten up. Jus da fax 23:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do explain what boil you were talking about lancing. Please. I will not respond to the rest for now. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)