Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 13 September 2013

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified food controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified food controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Genetics Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Agriculture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please help to evaluate the statement: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food." groupuscule (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Framing Statement: Commenters, please note that (1) this does not say "all GM food is safe" (it is limited to currently marketed food that has passed the regulatory bar - it says nothing about crops that have been removed from the market (like Starlink) nor about theoretical foods that might for example cause allergic reactions) and (2) it is relative to conventional food, which is not 100% safe. Also, commenters please note that this statement is limited to the safety of eating GM food - it says nothing about the safety of pesticides or herbicides per se; it says nothing about environmental issues with GM crops; it says nothing about patents or other economic issues; it says nothing about whether monoculture/big ag is a good thing or a bad thing; it says nothing about whether current regulatory systems are adequate; it says nothing about labelling. One of the very hard issues in the extensive discussions we have had on this page has been that people objecting to this statement have discussed other issues. Thanks for your help, all. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC) (note - originally included my vote with the framing statement. Edited to make the framing statement neutral, as was the RfC. Moved my "vote" to a separate comment. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

• Solidly supported by the science, hotly contested politically. This is the heart of the problem; there are a lot of people who are worried about food from GM crops, and questions of whether it should be allowed on the market and/or labelled are hot political questions. The statement above reflects the scientific consensus on whether it is safe enough to eat GM food, and is well supported by sources in the article.Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC) (note - Moved my "vote" to this comment, out of the framing statement. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

• The politicization of the GMO issue has clearly affected "the science", as well as institutions which represent "the science". This is a source of complaints about the AAAS report and others. groupuscule (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The link is to a userspace page. See below for discussion. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's not at all what the RfC is about: it's whether "there is broad scientific consensus," not whether the scientific consensus should exist in the opinions of individual Wikipedians or is based on shady dealings or is unduly influenced by conflicts of interest. When reliable sources are published stating that the current, overwhelming scientific consensus is illusory and has been shaped by fraudsters who are secretly or openly paid off by biotech companies, we can certainly address that in the article. But it still doesn't change that the current, broad consensus is verifiable. SpectraValor (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• As someone coming here from the RfC and new to the page, I agree 100% with everything that Jytdog just said. Looking narrowly at the question as written and as Jytdog has framed it, the science claiming a lack of safety is WP:FRINGE. However, as a political or social view, it is probably the mainstream view that GMOs are risky. And it is clearly possible to create a GMO that would, scientifically, not be safe to eat. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Jyt is far too kind to the other side on this issue, but he's also correct on the basic point: the statement is accurate according to the science, and hotly contested by people holding a fringe viewpoint on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, there is no "stalemate" on the matter, as the requester suggested, just personal opinions versus Misplaced Pages policies. The reliable sources are about as close to unanimous as you can get in science. When the WHO and the American Medical Association and many others change their positions, there will be something to evaluate in an RfC. Today, it is a waste of everyone's time. SpectraValor (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• The statement in question accurately represents the scientific consensus as it exists in WP:reliable sources. This issue has been thoroughly debated in talk and no evidence has been presented that the statement is inaccurate in any way in regards to the scientific field. BlackHades (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Statement supported exactly per Jytdog, above, IMO and by some knowledge of this literature. The point about this being risk through consumption I would say is particularly important. Also, probably also worth confirming that this is GM food that has already been cleared by, e.g., the FDA (i.e. "approved for market"); the stuff that doesn't clear such reviews is probably notably more risky. FYI: Nature (journal) has had some recent review articles on exactly this topic which will bear this out (e.g., ~2-3 months ago?), though I'm sure a number of people on this page already know that. DanHobley (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: that Nature review is here: . You may need to have a Nature subscription/institutional access; I'm inside a uni network right now, so it's hard to check. Anyone looking to substantiate claims of current scientific consensus would do a lot worse than to work from this. Note it doesn't actually address human health risks specifically however. It's more environmentally focussed. It also occurs to me that the statement could be made even more robust by explicit recognition that some authors have questioned the existence of the consensus - e.g., by making it "There is broad—but not unanimous<refs>—scientific consensus that..." IMO main objections could be summarized by something like "Many objections are based around not evidence of risk, but testing methodologies which are argued to be inadequate to demonstrate risk in humans." DanHobley (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I would disagree with adding qualifications to the statement, since (as you probably know) consensus is never expected to be unanimous. :-) Emphasizing that disagreement exists, when that disagreement is not similarly emphasized in the highest-reliability sources we have, feels to me like undue weight. That said, the lead of the article does contain a summary of objections and more information could always be added there. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this. DanHobley (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Jytdog has summarised this perfectly. The scientific consensus is that current products on the market are safe. That's what the sources say, that's what we say, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Solidly supported by the science, yes, by scientist depending on funding by the big agricultural firms. So I put some question marks at their results. Nothing known about the long term effects too. So I oppose the statement, as too many parts have question marks or unanswered questions. The Banner talk 10:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Banner, thanks for commenting. Nice to see you here. Quick response. You have made an interesting point. The scientific consensus is that the shorter-period studies that are used in current tox testing are sufficient for understanding the chronic risks. Scientists like Seralini who are not part of the consensus, and others, advocate very strongly that longer term studies are necessary. This position is outside the current scientific consensus. I have heard from folks in the EU GRACE project that the EU is going to put out an RFP to do a 2 year feeding study properly; if that RFP goes out and if the study results are robust and surprising, that study could move the scientific consensus. But right now, the scientific consensus is that the shorter term studies are sufficient. Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I showed up here after a feedback-request. At a minimum the statement There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food should be amended to At present, after performing only short term research, the disputed scientific consensus is that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. It should be made clear that the mentioned consensus is disputed and the the scientific data used can be biased and selective. Plus that further research, especially long term, is necessary. The Banner talk 11:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:The Banner regarding wording. The "broad scientific consensus" may be that it is safe "in regards to current testing practices" but the broad scientific consensus is also that testing practices need to be not only more rigorous but to a lessor extent also independent of the biotech companies. The current wording implies that sufficient and independent testing is actually done before release. Wayne (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We are going off track here. Current regulatory standards are based on the current scientific consensus. Advocating for higher regulatory standards is an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and is not what wikipedia is for. Please let's stay on topic. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording proposed by The Banner and supported by Wayne is not supported by reliable sources. There is simply no basis for a change to the lead, and I would argue that if anything parts of the article give too much weight to fringe positions and widely discredited studies. SpectraValor (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is remarkable how often unwelcome research results are hammered down as "fringe". Also quite remarkeble is that fact that in an article about "controversies", you can say that the "broad scientific consensus" is a controversy in itself! The Banner talk 21:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A fringe position is not defined by whether it is welcome or unwelcome to one constituency or another, but by the extent of support in the WP:RS. The most reliable sources available, issued by some of the most respected scientific and health groups in the world, support the statement in the RfC language, as Arc de Ciel, Jytdog, and others have pointed out. SpectraValor (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the alternative wording suggested by The Banner, as pushing a POV, and, in making an assessment based on the editor's evaluation of funding of the research, as being original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose alternative wording as it is not supported by reliable sources. We are to report what reliable sources state, not discuss why reliable sources are saying what they say. The reasons why are irrelevant as far as wikipedia and we are not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. BlackHades (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please read this report, which explains in some detail why I disagree with the current statement. The first section of the report describes problems with sources given in support of the statement; the second section describes some other sources which indicate serious disagreements in the scientific community. Both sections address the statement as it is currently written, comparing genetically modified foods which are currently on the market to their conventional counterparts. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your userpage musings are not a "report," and carry no weight. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thargor is right, that's not a report, it's merely an assemblage of your opinions seasoned with hand-picked excerpts from different sources. Calling it a "report" adds unnecessary importance to it. On a related note, why aren't you discussing the following sentence: "No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food", which is backed up by overwhelming evidence. BeŻet (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• The "no reports of ill effects" statement is also questionable. See, for example, allergic reactions to Starlink corn. (Some have argued that the allergic reactions were not due to the genetic modification process; whether or not this is true, these would be a clear instance of reported ill effects.) It is also very difficult to determine whether genetically modified foods are causing "ill effects" because they permeate the food supply and are generally unlabeled. groupuscule (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the lack of any obvious ill effects in the US population given market saturation by GM foods is yet more evidence against your point?? (There must be a formal reference somewhere that argues this) DanHobley (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• The RfC specifically refers to the statement about "food on the market derived from GM crops." Where is StarLink corn on the market as food? That's not all: investigation of the Starlink flap concluded that there was no evidence of allergic reactions to the stabilized protein. Groupuscule's statements are off topic but lend support to the statement about broad consensus. SpectraValor (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the statement is valid as per many of the above comments, per the high-reliability sources that support the statement (e.g. American Medical Association, Institute of Medicine, United States National Research Council, etc), and per numerous discussions across multiple talk pages. Of course I'm happy to continue discussion as long as it's based in policy, but many of the objections have not been. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• If anything GM food is probably safer than conventional food as it is more regulated. AIRcorn (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think so? In many countries companies are not required to mention it on food labels. Why do companies resist GMO-food labelling? Something to hide? Too much unknown about the effects and/or safety? The Banner talk 10:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the only reason companies are resisting labelling their food is because they are worried it will give them a market disadvantage. I doubt it has anything to do with actual saftey, just perceived safety. AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can people please frame their opposition to the statement based on wikipedia policy, rather than their own original research. Complaints about companies has no bearing on this RfC, which is about a specific statement related to the scientific consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed. Why GM companies resist GMO food labeling has no bearing on this RfC. What would the argument for changing the text in question be as in relates to wikipedia policies? BlackHades (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with that, too. I only started paying attention to this page when this RfC started, and I'm already concerned about the amount of WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka, for pete's sake. You are way off topic for the RfC. This section is not the place for writing about all GMO issues under the sun. It is a specific request for comments on the specific sentence provided, and nothing else. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I will comment briefly on the two links. The Lotter source is from a sociology journal, which is the wrong scientific field for discussions of food safety; the Earth Open Source statement is self-published and does not appear to be peer-reviewed. Also, saying "there is no reliable source for this information, but..." is a really bad sign. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka, please clarify the reasoning behind switching the two paragraphs. BlackHades (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that your statement is directly copied from this source. Please paraphrase the text. Also, as others may have mentioned, the statement seems a bit biased (see WP:Neutrality). As you explained under the RFC, perhaps add that statement and include what GMFs are less safer than in the article. You need to inform the reader of exactly how safe GMFs actually are, in relation to conventional foods, as all readers may not be aware of how safe conventional foods are. --JustBerry (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! 4 responses:

1) Please explain how the statement is biased, when it directly reflects a number of authoritative sources.

2) The statement ("There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.")is already paraphrased, and is not copied from that source, which has the three following statements: "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques"; "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." and "genetic modification technologies “are not per se more risky than…conventional plant breeding technologies."

3) There is no scientific basis for saying that any one currently marketed GM food is more or less risky than another currently marketed GM food - there is nothing to inform the reader with, on that score.

4) There is no scientific basis for saying that any one currently marketed GM food is more or less risky than another currently marketed conventional food - there is nothing to inform the reader with, on that score either.

Thanks again for commenting! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Statement is reasonable - I'm not really sure what this RfC is seeking to ask, but if the question is "should we keep the sentence", I think the answer is yes. As repeated many times above, the vast majority of scientific opinion on this matter points to the general safety of GMO. Given such, I don't see anything wrong with the statement in question. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Statement is accurately stated and well supported. We should of course not use this article to belittle or dismiss the social and political concerns surrounding the matter, but we must accurately convey the nature of the objections. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Clarification on my earlier comment: My reasons for citing this article are to support the position that the consensus statement have some sort of modification.

This does not attempt to report on scientific data itself, but rather on how the idea of consensus on safety may have been arrived at through pressures outside of the scientists themselves. It is therefore an appropriate source, as coming from a sociology journal.. I quote again just a small part of the relevant sections: "The biotechnology industry lobbied to have foods derived from genetically engineered plants classified as no different from food from conventionally bred plants. This was known as the policy, or doctrine, of ‘substantial equivalence’. There was resistance, however, from scientists within the FDA to the policy of non-regulation and substantial equivalence of transgenic foods. A 2004 paper (Freese and Schubert, 2004) showed that there were internal FDA memos documenting an overwhelming consensus among the agency’s scientists that transgenic crops can have unpre- dictable, hard-to-detect side-effects – allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. They had urged their superiors to require long-term studies. According to the authors of the paper, these communications were ignored."Catrinka Trabont (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious low-ranking journal from an unknown organisation by a freelance writer. The journal editors are sociologists, not scientists. Useless as a source. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So you accept neither analysis of the field from a qualified outsider nor literature reviews from within the field. Is your position that the only acceptable sources on this topic are non-peer-reviewed statements from institutional bodies such as the AAAS? Although you claim to emphasize the scientific over the political, the sources on which you rely tend towards the latter. groupuscule (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: the article I just cited: The International Journal of Sociology of Science and Food is published by the School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University (UK) and the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters and the Lifelong Learning Society, Florida Atlantic University (USA). It "...provides a forum for debates about international issues related to food and agriculture, and welcomes contributions from the social sciences, including sociology, science and technology studies, human geography, political science, and consumer, management and environmental studies...All articles published in this journal have undergone internal editorial scrutiny and external, triple-blind peer review." It is the official publication of the Research Committee on Sociology of Agriculture and Food (RC-40)of the International Sociological Association (ISA).

You might consider reading it. Catrinka Trabont (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that the first paragraph attempts to assert the existence of "a flood of evidence," I don't think you can claim it doesn't attempt to address scientific data. There seem to be similar appeals to scientific evidence or data in every other paragraph. You might consider reading it. ;-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying something about the anti-GM position. We support the scientific method, scientific review, the concept of consensus, and so on. What troubles us is that, in order for these processes to work, the researchers have to be free to discover and report results which fall in any direction. If the research is paid for solely by corporations which are selling the product in question, too much pressure exists in favor of accepting the product for the research to be "unbiased".

Since what research we have on GM foods so far, and the reporting on that research, has largely been paid for by the companies themselves, the idea that there is a scientific consensus supporting GM foods is therefore under dispute. Biological studies will not demonstrate this problem, although the way they were performed, reported, or paid for may be used as examples. We need to consult persons who track political trends, public relations trends, sociology. That is why this study is relevant to our discussion.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Statement is reasonable per the discussions above. That does not mean that large scale reliable sources with different opinions should not be mentioned, but WP:FRINGE should be kept in mind. Andrew 15:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Statement is accurate That does not mean of course that we may someday find something wrong with them, but the same applies to anything people eat. In fact cooking oil, one of the major GMO products, does not even have GMO molecules in it. Nor is there any theoretical reason why GMO would be more harmful than non-GMO. It is known however that virtually everything made with GMO or from animals fed GMO is bad for you, but that is another issue. TFD (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Although specific to crops modified for insect resistence, this quote is closer to the prevailing consensus than the current quote in the WP article.

  Scientists do not have full knowledge of the risks and benefits of any insect management strategies. Bt plants were deployed with the expectation that the risks would be lower than current or alternative technologies and that the benefits would be greater. Based on the data to date, these expectations seem valid. - DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145309

  Based on the many peer reviewed articles I've seen on GM safety this quote is probably the best that can be said for GM safety. Other objections to the definitive "broad scientific consensus" are found in many many others such as Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops (Trends in Biotechnology Volume 21, Issue 10, October 2003, Pages 439–444) which holds that Substantial Equivalence is "controversial" and hampers "the actual safety assessment" and Seeking clarity in the debate over the safety of GM foods (Nature Volume 402, December 1999, pages 575-576) holds that GM food regulation is "unsatisfactory" due to the "assumption" that "genetic engineering does not differ from conventional selective breeding." Wayne (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a brief comment, both of these sources are more than ten years old; "to date" here means "as of 2002." I'm not aware of whether there was a consensus at that time (there may have been), but even if there were not, more recent sources take precedence. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mixed support The statement of consensus is fine and supported after decades of work. What i don't like is the use of the word broad. It's on the verge of puffery, and at a stretch I could make an argument that we are making up the readers mind for them. Change or remove the word broad to infer less bias.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 09:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Source fidelity

I may not have said this as clearly before, but there are currently 6 sources cited to support the statement: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food". I'd like someone to go through each source and draw out the quote that they think supports this statement. Here's my first attempt:

1. (AAAS) is easy as the statement is largely drawn from this source: "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques"
2. (AMA): the results says "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. However, a small potential for adverse events exists, due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity" and goes on to say "the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that per-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement". The document does not contain 'consensus' anywhere.
3. (WHO): this document is undated with no author, which I think counts strongly against it. The only use of the word consensus is in this sentence: "On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer concerns, there is no consensus to date". It says specifically that "No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market" (a very different statement than relative risk) and also that "Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel" (no elaboration on how many such products currently remain on the international marketplace).
4. (NRC): a search for consensus shows 3 hits; these all point to titles of references. I'm pretty sure I added this source to the article a few years ago and my recollection of what I read from it does not support the statement. Note that it does say that a regulatory regime which is inconsistent between different methods of modification (including conventional) is unsupportable, but this is a very different statement.
5. EU Directorate-General: the word consensus is used a few times, but never corresponding to consensus about lack of health impacts. For example the conclusion states: "Consensus was reached that a rigorous science-based risk assessment of the environmental impact, and of the possible effects on human health of foods derived from GM crops only, is not sufficient to gain public support for the introduction of this new food production technology into society".
6. I won't go through these sources since the prior sources did not look promising for support.

Do I have contrary sources? Well, yes. I'm not going to list them all here. I haven't reviewed them super-closely, but I have a few in my notes. People have already pointed to recent literature reviews by Domingo, etc. There are several such articles published in high-quality, mainstream food toxicology journals. There are a few high-profile PhD geneticists on record as questioning the safety and emphasizing uncertainty (GM Science Review First Report from the UK also seems to emphasize uncertainty). Why these have been rejected as essentially not counting or fringe (e.g., equivalent to Richard Lindzen and Energy & Environment in the global warming world) is not entirely clear. I've already said a few times that I think it seems quite plausible to me that tweaked EPSP or Cry1Ac seem unlikely to cause problems. But there is more than just that Roundup Ready and Bt on the market, and I haven't seen a lot of discussion on the various other products. It also seems that the experts, when pressed, admit that they don't actually know all the details of what triggers allergenicity, and so just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. They can look for similarities, but they can't make absolute guarantees without in vivo testing, which doesn't occur in humans. Now, admittedly maybe any occurrence would be super-obvious and not multifactorial like most modern diseases. I don't really know, and haven't seen a good discussion. Of course, conventional food may also have obscure allergens or issues which is why the statement is OK, right? Well, the statement says the risk is 'equivalent'. What is the probability that a dozen currently-approved GMOs have identical health risks to their non-GMO equivalents? Well, do they even have non-GMO equivalents? I'm not sure they really do - I would be surprised if there were non-GMO equivalents to the GMOs which were isogenic except for that single modified trait. So it's really just a weird statement. I get that it is in the abstract, in a very general philosophical sense. I realize that the AAAS board made it (in a political context, and I'm not sure the board has any toxicologist members) but that doesn't mean it really makes sense. One of the methods in conventional breeding is mutagenesis, which the NRC lists on page 64 as having more unintended effects. II | (t - c) 06:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the concerns you are raising seem to me to deal with situations that lie outside of the very specific wording of the text we are considering, according to the "framing statement" at the top of this RfC. It's true that the sources deal with uncertainties about things that reside outside of the scope of the framing statement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are overly concerned with the word "consensus." Personally, I don't consider there to be much difference between saying "There is a broad scientific consensus that X is true" and simply "X is true," at least when talking about a scientific statement as we are here. To the extent that any of your comments can be addressed by making this change in the lead, I don't think they really apply. As a result, I don't think you can conclude that the sources are weak (or that the statement is "mainly drawn from the AAAS source").

I'm very short on time right now, but I will produce the quotes from the EU source since it is a lengthy document and I'm the one who originally added it.

• "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." (pg. 17)
• "These activities provide at least equal assurance of the safety of these foods compared to conventional counterparts, provided these GM products have been approved by the EU and the national food safety evaluation procedures." (pg. 133)

The quote you cited does not appear to be relevant to the statement on scientific consensus, as it addresses the issue of public acceptance rather than scientific acceptance. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• First off, the AAAS statement does not use the word consensus, and yet I noted that it does basically support the statement. So I'm actually setting a lower bar here to start with, and the EU quote that you presented meets that bar. So we have at least two sources which are very close to the statement. However, I do think it is important that the sources use consensus: Arc, there is a difference between these three statements: (1) "I don't consider there to be much difference", (2) "there is not much difference" and (3) "there is a consensus that there is not much difference". On Misplaced Pages you'll see a lot of people writing in the style of (2), but that doesn't mean they are saying (3). As you may have experienced in your career, writing (1) in formal papers is often discouraged (see Should I Use “I”? at UNC). That doesn't automatically mean that whenever a scientist writes something, they are saying that the statement is uncontroversial and that a consensus exists among their peers. To read that into a statement the word consensus would be classic original research as we need the statement to be "directly supported". In fact this type of question has come up periodically on Misplaced Pages, where editors try to construct a consensus by stacking together a lot of sources with certain declarative statements and ignoring the sources which don't support their statement. We have a section on it called WP:SYNTH. Now, based on the fact that you used (1), I suspect you recognize that there is room for disagreement here and I hope you'll consider this and read WP:OR carefully. II | (t - c) 16:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see SYNTH happening here. Given that the AAAS source seems to be relatively noncontroversial for our purposes here, I'd like to point to a further direct quote from that source:

"Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”"

There, within that single source, is a statement that, in its plain English meaning, is tantamount to "broad scientific consensus". There is no SYNTH or any other kind of original research in reading the source that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that with the quotation presented, the AAAS statement can be reasonably summarized as broad scientific consensus. So there is one source which I think reasonably supports the statement. The other sources are debatable and in my opinion pretty iffy. I'm not sure that the AAAS source is noncontroversial, and I'm not sure that they are accurately portraying what the cited organizations have said (and the AAAS release only has 2 citations), but I'd rather not get into that can of worms right now. II | (t - c) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I made my comment with respect to the word "consensus" specifically because of the issue which Tryptofish has now pointed out more directly. :-) It seems to me that your evaluation of the sources was largely based on searches for that specific word. I do consider its use here justified, but I will avoid commenting on this as it would involve starting a policy meta-discussion, and to me it's just not a very important part of the statement. Like I said, I see no problem with changing "There is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" to "Food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" and this seems like it would address most of your comments. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Specific use of the phrase "broad scientific consensus" does exist repeatedly in the sources listed so I'm not sure what the argument is here. BlackHades (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you point to this phrase? Also, Arc, we have only nailed down that 2 of the sources actually support that statement. The question then is why to use the statement that these 2 sources use rather than any alternative wording. II | (t - c) 05:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which 2 sources you're referring to, but here are some of the sources cited to the statement in question that mention scientific consensus:

"There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." --Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics 188 (1): 11–20.

"As the journal Nature editorialized in 1992, a broad scientific consensus holds that ‘the same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods. ... no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes."--Miller, Henry (2009). "A golden opportunity, squandered". Trends in biotechnology 27 (3): 129–130.

“The scientific consensus is that the food product in this survey, GM-corn-fed beef, is equivalent to the conventional beef product.”--Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas (2004). "Effects of information on consumers’ willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2 (2): 1–16.

“Many reviews by national and international science organizations, and reviews synthesizing the scientific knowledge on GM crops on human health show a wide consensus among the scientific community that currently available GM foods are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts and suitable for human consumption”--Bett, Charles; Ouma, James Okuro; Groote, Hugo De (August 2010). "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food". Food Policy 35 (4): 332–340.

I would say current statement in question, very accurately describes these sources. BlackHades (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

These sources are tossed at the end, among other sources. As you'll note from my analysis above, I stopped at the first 5, none of which appear to use scientific consensus. Among those you found above, #1 and $4 support the statement. #1 is Pamela Ronald alone (I can cite various peer-reviewed publications saying the opposite). In any case, if these are the sources then the others should be removed. Note that #2 and #3 are quite different - #2 is conceptual and does not discuss the current foods on the market (an empirical statement) while #3 is very far from the mark, since it discusses the safety of beef derived from cattle eating GM-corn. II | (t - c) 18:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do dislike the fact that there are so many citations bunched together as it does give the appearance of synthesis and in my experience is a red flag that original research is occuring. I would much rather spell out what the sources are saying. If we have general agreement that the AAAS one is the best (and as it covers the other organisations already as Tryptofish has pointed out) why not just use that one. At least in the lead, which should really just be repeating information sourced in the body anyway. The second paragraph describes the consensus already and uses many of the same sources so I would consider removing the buched cites from the statement there too. AIRcorn (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, although a hunch about a red flag does not actually mean that OR is occurring. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But why wave a red flag when it is not necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both comments. I would actually have removed most of the sources a while ago per CITEKILL if this weren't a topic of debate here. Perhaps at some point, we could put some in a separate talk page section where they can be easily referred to in future. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If it is decided to keep all the sources then I think a note would be the best way to present this information. As a bonus the citations would not disrupt the text. AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• The AAAS report, published in the weeks leading up to California's vote on GMO labeling, is unacceptable as a source. Though it may be the "best" at arguing for consensus on GMO safety, it is not of sufficiently high quality for our purposes here. It's not peer reviewed. It barely even gives evidence. It's a politicized statement issued by a small group of people, and has been described as such in other sources. The Council for Responsible Genetics issued a formal objection to it. Michele Simon wrote an article of substantial criticism, including the following:

Where did this handy list come from? The "No" campaign listed three of these four groups -- the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences -- in the official California voter guide as concluding GMO foods are safe. But in fact, the World Health Organization says that ongoing risk assessments are needed and that "GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Meanwhile, the American Medical Association favors pre-market safety testing, which the FDA does not require. How did a science organization miss all of that?

But back to the suspicious timing of the statement's release: Who, exactly, instigated it? The statement says it's from the AAAS board of directors. Who are they? The board chair, Nina Federoff has an impressive pedigree, including a stint as science adviser to Condoleezza Rice. Curiously, Federoff has been listed as a leading scientist on the "No on 37" website since June, where she is quoted as being "passionately opposed to labeling." Maybe her previous board membership with Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company helped drive that passion.

(Note that Simon identifies the very same pattern of questionable citations as we have seen invoked on Misplaced Pages itself.) There is no reason to believe that this statement reflects an actual consensus among scientists, nor have we heard a convincing argument for why it might. groupuscule (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Third party comment - Journalistic comment article by a lawyer and objections from an NGO do not have any effect on a claim of "scientific consensus". DanHobley (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean by this? How can one NGO's word be taken as absolute truth, and the criticism of another ignored? What about the many peer-reviewed journal articles which contradict the consensus claim? The AAAS report is a low-quality source, both by perennial Misplaced Pages standards and in the specific opinion of outside experts. Have you seen anyone provide a good analysis otherwise? groupuscule (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable to present those contrary sources as representing the contrary view. However, the statement that the AAAS statement is not peer-reviewed is simply not accurate. It's a summary of peer-reviewed findings, summarized by the peer-reviewers. The reason that it presents little original data is that it is a secondary source, summarizing the scientific literature. It really does represent the consensus of the scientific establishment. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

AAAS Board of Directors would be a very high quality source. An opinion piece by a lawyer speaking on the safety of GM food is not. BlackHades (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"It's a politicized statement issued by a small group of people, and ..." The AAAS is the largest scientific organisation in the world. They publishes one of the most highly respected general science journals in the world (the other being Nature). There statement represents the consensus position. Statements from an anti-GMO group are irrelevant, and I am surprised that you are quoting them and expecting us to give that any legitimacy (and they are misrepresenting the situation as you are still doing). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We didn't reach a consensus here

This discussion was dominated by people who had already seem to have formed an unshakeable opinion on the topic. Very few new people arrived to comment, no attempts were made to actually reach a consensus, and yet the discussion was closed after the minimum length of time suggested. I don't accept that a consensus was reached here, and I especially object to this conclusion being thrown around elsewhere, as though the (comparative) safety of GMO foods was now beyond dispute. The RFC should also not be a reason to reject changes to the article. (Though I would agree that the particular edit in question was not worded neutrally and requires sourcing.) groupuscule (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The correct procedures for challenging the close of an RfC are described at Misplaced Pages:Closure review. You are certainly free to pursue that, although I hope that you know that the fact that you disagree with the conclusion is not a valid reason to overturn a decision. Arguing about it here, on this talk page, is a waste of time. Until such time as a closure is overturned, you should be aware that edits that go against the present consensus may be regarded as disruptive, and that there is nothing wrong with citing the present consensus as a reason for an edit, as was done in the edit that you cited. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Groupuscule, as I did on your Talk page, I disagree with your summary of commentors. Restating and updating what I said there, here:

• New commentors: The Banner, Wayne, Bezet, DanHobley, JustBerry, NickCT, 2/0, Andrew327, TFD, Geremy Hebert are new or very infrequent on all GM pages
• New to this page: Spectravalor, and trypto are new to all GM articles (outside the March page where they had indeed been active).
• Relatively new: Thargor, Catrinka, you (groupuscule)
• Old-timers: me, arc de ciel, aircorn, wolfie (but infrequently), blackhades (been here a few months)

10 new voices to the GM pages, 2 new to this page, 3 relatively new voices, 5 relatively old timers. I think the RfC did its job! Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nor does that really matter, as a procedural issue. As far as I am aware, the RfC was published properly, kept open for the proper amount of time, and there was no canvassing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Taco bell GMO Recall

First section

Hi canoe

There was already content on the Starlink/Taco Bell incident. The current content already makes it clear, that Starlink was not approved for human consumption and the appearance of Starlink in the food supply was an "escape" as per the section title. The article is very long and we have worked hard to make it a more manageable length (please see the archives) - generally strong justification would be needed for repeating content; in the context of trying to keep the length manageable we need really strong justification. Please discuss, and let's hear from others, too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC) (edited my comment to "see the" in "Please see the archives" Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC))

"The article is very long..." Should we consider a split then? The GMO did not 'escape'; if you read the source it was stored in the same elevator as fit corn and they claim that that was not the corn they ordered. It was recalled for health reasons by the FDA so it belongs in the heath section not the environment section covered by EPAs. It was a big issue and to stuff it way down in the article seems like it is being swept under the rug. It was the first GMO recall, companies lost a lot of business, there was a lawsuit decided in favour of TB so perhaps it warrants it own article to keep this one small. If one article is too large for this controversy it will probably only get longer as it seems like it won't end soon. Reverting my edit of well sourced material that our readers should see about the subject seems very bad faith. I may tack this and other issues that I consider as 'censorship' onto the Arbcom discussion on it. --Canoe1967 (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for talking. However, I strongly object to your bringing 'bad faith' into this -- it is completely unnecessary. I have provided my reasoning for what I have said and am happy to keep discussing. Please don't inject incivility into what is already a difficult discussion. With respect to article length, again, if you see the discussion in the archives, we considered splits but decided against it. Happy to revisit that, in a new section, if you want to open that up. With respect to prominence ("shoving this way down in the article") there are many important issues discussed in the article and various editors have varying priorities... and the article is currently structured to have logical flow and to give appropriate weight to the various things discussed. It is not clear to me why you think this incident is more important than, say, the LibertyLink rice escape, or the emergence of roundup resistant weeds, or the potential contamination of the Mexican maize gene pool, or the role of IP rights and consolidation in the ag market. With respect to the content itself, as I wrote above, the product from the starlink GM crop was meant to be segregated from the human food supply, and the supply-chain did indeed lose control of starlink; this is similar to other incidents described in the Escape section. It is an interesting idea to move this in to the "health" section but I have a hard time seeing how you justify that. The CDC investigated the incident and was not able to determine any negative health effects from the escape. Btw, had you noticed that the topic was already covered when you added the new content? Thanks again for talking, and please do keep this civil and focused on the content. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't respond to your remarks about Arbcom. I don't agree that there is any censoring going on here... we welcome new content all the time. The issue with what you introduced is that it was duplicative. Happy to discuss on any board you wish to bring this to - there is nothing bad going on here and I would be very comfortable with any neutral party reviewing the history of this page or my edits in general. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem uncivil. I didn't know anything about the GMO controversy until the phone call a few days ago. I started editing new articles as I normally do and ran into very heated discussion about them. I came across the Starlink recall when looking into the controversy. It was the first recall and one article says it was the largest food recall ever. I found enough material to create Taco Bell GMO recall. I won't waste much time expanding it until it survives the inevitable AfD. AfDs are very helpful for expansion anyway because everyone has a new toy to play with.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for talking and for apologizing! I very much look forward to working with you, should you want to stick around. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, if I said I got a phone call to edit this article, I think certain people would jump on that as evidence of some great conspiracy. Where as here you seem quite eager to tell us how you were canvassed privately IRL to "fix" this article or whatever. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

hi wolfie, Canoe first mentioned the phone call in the MaM ANI, in this dif - the call was about that article, apparently. Seemed to be from a non-Misplaced Pages-editor, so I don't think it was canvassing. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not asked to edit the article. The caller thought the article was unbalanced and asked me if COI edits were coming from Monsanto. The details are on my talk page where they belong.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Duplicate material and undue weight attached to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We can avoid duplication if it is moved to the health section. I am not sure what you mean by undue weight.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask one more time which section it belongs in? This is from our readers' point of view as well as sources, guidelines, and policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So, you refuse to continue the conversation here, then open a Dispute Resolution as you did here, and then you come back here and try to start talking again? Frustrating. In any case, I look forward to you responding to my response above (this dif) - the ball is still in your court. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask one more time which section it belongs in? This is from our readers' point of view as well as sources, guidelines, and policy. I have yet to see a valid rationale. The dispute board may help decide which section it belongs in if we can't agree here. I feel our readers would expect to find a major health recall in the health section. It is controversial, notable, and the FDA was involved. If their trucks or chimneys were re-called then that may be environmental. A food was recalled because the food was not considered are safe for consumption by people, not the environment. I did see mention of possible other health related material in the environment section. Perhaps we should visit those as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In this article, the "health" section is focused on whether eating food from GMOs causes any harm. This is a point that people are incredibly passionate over and needs clear space to be discussed. Canoe is trying to say that the Starlink recall is a health issue and there is zero evidence that it is a health issue. If anything it is regulatory issue. One thing Canoe is mis-understanding here is that the FDA had anything to do with it. Starlink had a Bt variant in it, and at that time, the EPA regulated food safety aspects of a GM crop that produced a pesticide (FDA would do food safety for any non-pesticide-producing modification). (see here, pages 57-60). The EPA was unable to determine if this particular Bt was allergenic or not, so they only approved it for animal feed use. They did not ever positively declare that it was "unfit" for humans to eat. They simply never approved it for that use. There is a huge difference. If we find cyanide in Tylenol bottles, that is a regulatory issue and is obvioiusly a health issue. If we find starlink in a taco shell, that is definitely a regulatory issue and it ~might~ be a health issue - the problem was that EPA wasn't certain enough that there wouldn't be. Well we got our experiment in a terrible way. Turned out that the CDC was unable to trace any adverse event to the taco shells - there was no health issue. So there are no legit grounds to include the Starlink escape under the "health section". Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The study by the FDA did find health issues with the shells and does state they could have caused health problems. I think there was one claim of health effects but it was settled without disclosure. The EPA study you mention differs from the FDA one. Both were critized for their prior knowledge of the contamination. We can't use their studies as a source in this case since they may be biased. If the recall would not have happened then we may have had far more health problems reported. Since the recall averted them then it did protect health. I still think we aren't getting anywhere here with it as we are just repeating our selves. If you will agree to include my link in health as well as yours in environment then I could consider further discussion. If not then I will await the drama boards and Arbcom decisions. Until then I consider the article unbalanced by the POV of those that keep removing a health issue from the health section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the "study by the FDA" related to approval or lack thereof for Starlink. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link. It also mentions the PDA " raised the suspicions of EPA reviewers by exhibiting several other characteristics of allergens."--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I read it, and what I see, specifically about specific health effects, is: "The Centers for Disease Control investigated claims that 51 people had suffered allergic reactions shortly after eating corn products, but concluded that none of the reported symptoms could be attributed to the StarLink protein." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link "The FDA received approximately 34 reports of adverse reaction to corn products which may contain StarLink."--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I read that one too. The full quote is: "The FDA received approximately 34 reports of adverse reaction to corn products which may contain StarLink. Of the 34 reports, 20 were very unlikely a result of an allergenic reaction. The U.S. Center investigated 7 people who experienced symptoms that are consistent with an allergenic reaction. The people showed no reaction to the Cry9C protein. This does not mean people could not develop an allergic reaction in the future." I'm seeing speculation by the author of the website that there could eventually be health effects, but what I'm seeing about what the FDA concluded is that there was no evidence of effects resulting from the corn. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link. "STARLINK Corn and the Potential Risks Associated With Such Exposure,"--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The part directly related to health effects in humans is: "EPA did not authorize the use of STARLINK corn in human food because of unresolved questions about the allergenic potential of the Cry9C protein." Those are unresolved questions, resulting in caution, not findings of actual health effects. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link. Center for Disease Control mentioned.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It summarizes the investigations that went into what I quoted from the second source, above. It says what studies were done, but it doesn't say anything about the findings of those studies. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link This one is RS. Any study would be self-sourced and primary so we can use those anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"US regulators approved StarLink for use in animal feed, but banned it from the human food chain amid concern that it could cause allergic rashes and diarrhoea." Those are "concerns", but in the context of the sources above, I think those are hypotheticals rather than experimental findings. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't use studies and experimental findings anyway because they are primary documents. The secondary source above we can use and it does state health concerns. I have yet to find any environmental concerns with StarLink.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not one of those sources says that the FDA did any regulatory studies nor that it was involved at all in the approval or lack thereof. (the FDA never does regulatory studies in any case.. there is no way that you could have been right with respect to the question I asked about what you wrote.) In your first quote, you mischaracterize the source. It does not say that the "PDA" (I know you meant FDA ) "raised the suspicions of EPA reviewers by exhibiting several other characteristics of allergens." The full sentence and the one following it make it clear that the regulatory decision was 100% EPA: "In tests required for government approval to grow the crop, the Cry9C protein had been slower to break down under artificial digestibility tests than Cry1A(b) and had raised the suspicions of EPA reviewers by exhibiting several other characteristics of allergens. Because the issue of Cry9C allergenicity was unresolved, the EPA granted permission to grow the crop as long as it was not used for human food." Those tests are conducted by or on behalf of the sponsor of the application - in this case, Aventis. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I commented about each source one-by-one, but I ought to say what my overall take on them is. Nowhere do we have a statement in the sources that health effects in humans were attributed by scientists to the corn. There are reports of people telling the agencies that they, those people, had symptoms that they believed were caused by the corn, but the sources indicate in every case, that when the agencies followed through with examining the evidence, there were zero documented instances where humans got sick as a result of eating the corn. Sources talk about concerns that, maybe, health issues will show up later, but WP:CRYSTAL. At this point, we actually have a lot of sourcing to indicate that this does not belong in the health section. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

They don't need to get sick to create a health issue. The health issue was notable because it was the first GMO recall and largest recall of its type in history. The secondary sources call it a health issue because of the allergens contained in the corn. The studies said the allergens were in the corn. The government said don't feed the crappy corn to people. What part of health+GMO does not make sense here and what part of GMO+envirnment does? The reason no other health issues arose may be because sick people didn't know corn caused it, not enough unhealthy corn was eaten, etc. If the recall hadn't happened then we could have had a huge Lakeside Packers E. coli fiasco. I see that one isn't even mentioned in the article. In the Taco recall the contamination was caught earlier by a watchdog group because the government ignored the earlier reports it was happening. With Lakeside they waited for lots of people to get sick before recalling. I don't know which safeguards failed. Google Lakeside E. coli for details. I agree that 99.9999% of GMO is safe but when the bits that aren't cause very notable health GMO recalls our readers should be aware of those.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, you have tried to argue that it is health issue because the FDA was involved in testing, that the FDA called it "unfit", and that the FDA did the recall. None of those are true. No one was harmed, as the sources say, so that cannot be a reason. Please say clearly and concisely, what is your argument for saying this belongs under "health"? To be clear, the reason why the escape stuff has its current location in the article, is explained in part in the lead to that subsection: "Escape of GM crops", namely: "Related to gene flow, but separate, is the issue of GM crops escaping field tests, or GM crops that are approved for a given purpose, escaping into supply chains for other purposes. This is of great concern to farmers whose crop is exported to countries that have not approved harvests from GM crops." The primary harm from the escapes - be they in the field, or in the supply chain, has been economic damage to farmers and companies. You keep coming at this, Canoe, like we are trying to hide something, but as I mentioned at the start of this section, there is a ton of material here, and in organizing it, I and others tried to make a logical flow. Do you see at all, how the supply chain incidents fit with things like the recent discovery of GM wheat in Washington? There was at one point a section on "Food supply chain purity" or something like that, and if I remember right the supply chain content was there and was later consolidated with the field escapes, because they make sense together and are helpful for readers to see together. Really there is no bad intent here, it is just a matter of trying to organize things well. I would be open to re-instating the supply chain section.... but then we would lose the overview that the reader gets in the current "escape" section. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to be answering my concerns about the readers so I will repeat them:

They don't need to get sick to create a health issue. The health issue was notable because it was the first GMO recall and largest recall of its type in history. The secondary sources call it a health issue because of the allergens contained in the corn. The studies said the allergens were in the corn. The government said don't feed the crappy corn to people. What part of health+GMO does not make sense here and what part of GMO+envirnment does? The reason no other health issues arose may be because sick people didn't know corn caused it, not enough unhealthy corn was eaten, etc. If the recall hadn't happened then we could have had a huge Lakeside Packers E. coli fiasco. I see that one isn't even mentioned in the article. In the Taco recall the contamination was caught earlier by a watchdog group because the government ignored the earlier reports it was happening. With Lakeside they waited for lots of people to get sick before recalling. I don't know which safeguards failed. Google Lakeside E. coli for details. I agree that 99.9999% of GMO is safe but when the bits that aren't cause very notable health GMO recalls our readers should be aware of those.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

wow you actually just copy-pasted your response. wow. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you actually didn't respond reasonably to it the second time either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. I am copying what you wrote, and responding to each part.Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: "They don't need to get sick to create a health issue."Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Response: If no one got sick, what is the health issue?Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If the recall hadn't have happened there was a risk of people getting sick.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: "The health issue was notable because it was the first GMO recall and largest recall of its type in history."

Response: No one is disputing that the event is notable. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, but you are disputing whether it was notable due to health or the environment.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: "The secondary sources call it a health issue because of the allergens contained in the corn. The studies said the allergens were in the corn. "Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Response: This is not true. The issue was a concern that the Bt protein ~might~ be allergenic because of its slow breakdown. This is probably our key point of difference.. will say more on this in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: "The government said don't feed the crappy corn to people."Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Response: A very rough paraphrase... but yes, EPA's decision was to not approve Starlink for human consumption because of uncertainties about allergenic response to Bt.Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I read those as health concerns, and not environmental ones. Wrong section again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: What part of health+GMO does not make sense here and what part of GMO+envirnment does?

Response: My sense is that this is a rhetorical question.... I have been trying to explain why it doesn't belong under "health" and why it is, where it is.

Canoe:The reason no other health issues arose may be because sick people didn't know corn caused it, not enough unhealthy corn was eaten, etc. If the recall hadn't happened then we could have had a huge...

Response: This appears to be speculation by you.... WP:CRYSTAL Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Same speculation as any recall. If we recall it then we can guarantee no sickness, not ~might~ get sick if we don't recall.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: ...Lakeside Packers E. coli fiasco. I see that one isn't even mentioned in the article. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Response: The Lakeside Packers article is pretty sketchy, but what it talks about is a settlement over a cow with mad cow disease which is a prion disease and has nothing to do with bacteria; it has nothing to do with genetic modification either, so I don't know why it would be mentioned in this article. Please explain. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: In the Taco recall the contamination was caught earlier by a watchdog group because the government ignored the earlier reports it was happening.

Response: yep this is true. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: With Lakeside they waited for lots of people to get sick before recalling. I don't know which safeguards failed. Google Lakeside E. coli for details.

Response: OK, I googled as you suggested and found a bunch of things about lakes. I googled "Lakeside meat E. coli" and found this which says: "On September 16, 2012 XL Foods Inc. (Edmonton, AB) recalled ground beef products supplied to distributors, retailers and food service establishments across Canada, due to possible contamination with E. coli O157:H7. Some of the meat was exported to the USA. According to a report from US Foods (a food service distributor based in the USA), the recall was initiated after USDA detected E. coli O157:H7 in a sample of the meat taken at as the shipment entered the US from Canada." So this was a (sadly) run of the mill E Coli contamination incident, which was caught by the USDA... how is this relevant to our discussion? Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong recall. 18 confirmed sick when XL Foods owned Lakeside. September, 2012.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So, neither the mad cow nor the e coli meat recalls relevant to this discussion, right? Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: I agree that 99.9999% of GMO is safe but when the bits that aren't cause very notable health GMO recalls our readers should be aware of those.Jytdog (talk)

Response: Happy that you generally agree on the safety of currently marketed food from GMOs! Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. But when the wrong bits get in the food chain then it becomes a health controversy, not an environmental one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so if I am getting you right at this point, in your comments above, you have argued that there actually was an allergen in Starlink.. and so of course the Starlink recall was a health issue. This would be similar to saying "there was cyanide found in Tylenol, so there was a health recall." I follow that logic. However, as I pointed out above, the issue was that there was concern that the Bt used in that corn, Cry9C, ~might~ be allergenic and so they did not approve Starlink for human consumption. The exact words of the EPA: "After reviewing the available data, EPA was unable to determine whether the Cry9C protein was a potential human allergen. All other information indicated that Cry9C would not pose any other types of risks to human health or the environment. Accordingly, in 1998, EPA registered StarLink™ for commercial use, provided that all grain derived from StarLink™ corn was directed to domestic animal feed or to industrial uses (e.g., biofuels)." (source) Do you see the difference between "might be an allergen" and "is an allergen"? Before we can make arguments, we need to agree on the facts. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Key phrase is ...any other types of risks to human health.... I read that as the allergens being the only risk and that risk being human health. Do you see any environmental risks listed? If not then it is not an environmental controversy. So why is it in the environmental controversy section? What is the controversy about this corn with the environment? Now I will go answer some of your other questions from your sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you please respond to my question? We have to agree on facts before we can move agreeing about judging or classifying what happened. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is or might be, nor does my opinion matter. We should go with what secondary sources say. There are probably primary sources that say both so it is moot what I agree to. 'Might be' is still enough to qualify as a health risk but if you want me to agree to that then I will; just to keep the discussion moving forward. I don't wish to dig up sources that say that it is just to argue a moot point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Facts matter. We are agreed, then, that Cry9C might be an allergen. What follows, is that there might be a health risk. Not that there is is a health risk. Example: there is a health risk from eating certain raw beans, as they contain Phytohaemagglutinin which is destroyed by cooking. If you eat one or two raw kidney beans you are unlikely to be come sick, but if you each a bunch, you are very likely to get sick or even die. If you cook them, you completely mitigate the risk. There is a big difference between something that is a health risk and something that might be. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That is like claiming that E. Coli is healthy as long as you cook your recalled beef. Are you saying that wasn't a health issue?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying. I don't see how you get there from what I wrote. I am trying to work with you, step by step here and I feel like you keep jumping to the end. I'd like to suggest that we put this conversation on pause, and consider together the "supply chain" section header I mentioned below. Let's see if we can agree on a third way. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I got there from your bean analogy. With the corn it is the same thing. If the recall did not happen then health was at risk. Since it did happen then health damage was limited to one case that was inconclusive. I don't see how supply chains can be controversial so they shouldn't belong as a stand alone section in an article on controversy. We could include one each in environment and health if you wish as sub-sections.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

I am at a loss here. You have ignored pretty much everything I have written. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I consider that a bad faith remark. I have not ignored any of it. I thought I responded well to it. Could you please clarify?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, here are unanswered questions: Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

1) " With respect to prominence ("shoving this way down in the article") there are many important issues discussed in the article and various editors have varying priorities... and the article is currently structured to have logical flow and to give appropriate weight to the various things discussed. It is not clear to me why you think this incident is more important than, say, the LibertyLink rice escape, or the emergence of roundup resistant weeds, or the potential contamination of the Mexican maize gene pool, or the role of IP rights and consolidation in the ag market." (14:43, 3 August 2013) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the prominence or amount of material. I disagree with the section it is in. The others you mentioned above may need moving to the health section as well if they were controversial in regards to health. I haven't looked at the sources yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what is frustrating. You complained that the content was "It was a big issue and to stuff it way down in the article seems like it is being swept under the rug." That is a question of prominence, to which I directly responded. Now you are shifting ground and saying your complaint is only about what section it is in. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of prominence. It is a matter of readers finding it where it should be. When I look in the film section of an actor I don't expect to find a TV show. Those are in the TV section. I still feel that most readers wouldn't look in the whole article if they just wanted to research the health controversies. I never thought to look in environmental controversies, why should they?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

2) "Btw, had you noticed that the topic was already covered when you added the new content?" (14:43, 3 August 2013) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked for it in the health section where our readers would expect to find it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you did not realize it was already covered. I am having a hard time with you projecting your failure to find it onto all readers. I told you that the article underwent a pretty dramatic condensation after a long discussion on Talk about whether to split this into subarticles or try to edit it down. We went for the latter and User:Aircorn did most of it in late November to early December of last year in this set of difs. You can see there, that formerly there was a section called "Purity of Foodchain" which was completely cut out. Nobody said anything. In May, I noticed it was gone and put the section back in this set of difs. And it has been stable there since May - you are the first to complain about its location. I hear you that you think it should be in another place, but as I said, I am not sure on what basis we can project your desire to see it there, to all readers. As I wrote (which you still have not responded to), I think there is benefit to readers in seeing all the ways that GMOs can get into the food supply unintentionally. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I was a health controversy about a GMO food. It should go in the health section of GMO food controversies. When readers want to read health controversies about GMO food then that is the section they should find it in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

3) In any case, I look forward to you responding to my response above (this dif) - the ball is still in your court. (19:57, 7 August 2013) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of that you have asked again here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

4) You continually claimed that FDA was involved, from actually testing the taco shells to doing the recall. You used that as an argument that this is a "health" issue. I showed you that it was EPA, not FDA. You have not acknowledged that that FDA was not involved at all. (several places) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The source says the FDA was involved, so I go with sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Again this is frustrating. You said a) the FDA did testing; b) the FDA did the recall; and c) that the FDA said Starlink was unfit. None of those were true. The only thing the sources you brought say, is that some reports of adverse reactions were reported to the FDA (this source says that) and they did nothing except pass that on to the CDC for investigation, and that the FDA got involved temporarily by issuing testing guidelines, which your source shows them withdrawing after the EPA provided a definitive one. Neither the Colordo State source nor The Guardian report mentions the FDA. The FDA was about as uninvolved as it could be. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Taco Bell said "We are fully cooperating with the FDA." or words to that effect. They did the recall and did not mention any other agencies involved. We need to go with what the sources say. The degree of involvement will be hard to source. Did the FDA have 100 men at each Taco Bell or none? How do you quantify a degree of involvement without a comparison of all sorts of data. Inspectors on the ground, document reading/writing, or cost of investigation, etc. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

5) I showed that you took a quote out of context, making the FDA its subject (you actually wrote "PDA") and you did not acknowledge the mistake (I have explicitly acknowledged some mistake I made while we are talking). Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

6) You ignored everything I wrote on 01:31, 8 August 2013, and simply recopied your text above. I wrote things there about how the content got where it is, and offered another suggestion for where to put this. You didn't respond to that at all, saying something like "I see how that happened, I see how it makes sense for the reader to put mixing in the field together with mixing in the supply chain, but I still think this escape needs to be in health". You just ignored it. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources refer to it as a health issue. We go with sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Argh. You are still not dealing with anything I wrote there. I provided more explanation in 2) above. But it seems kind of pointless. I am out of time for today. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You provided an explanation that doesn't follow what the sources say.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

7) You brought up this Lakeside thing and I didn't see how it fit with anything GM related and you said nothing. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither did your bean analogy. It was just another analogy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There is other stuff, but overall what is going on here, is that I respond to you and you just ignore what I write and bring up new arguments. This is not a conversation, as you are not responding to me. I want to work toward consensus but you seem unwilling to compromise. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources say it was a health related. It should go in the health section. We go with sources. You keep insisting it doesn't belong there. None of the sources use the term 'escape'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I know for a fact that I explained very clearly in this discussion section that the sources go against calling it "health". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, you have about worn me about. Let me step back. You have been basically repeating your claim that "the recall is a health issue" (which I heard the first time!) and shifting your arguments for the position as I have addressed the the arguments you have brought for your claim. I have offered a compromise and you have not acknowledged it. much less responded to it. It appears that you are simply driving toward the article being exactly as you want it to be, even though there are three of us saying we don't see it the same way. Are you willing to compromise? Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

3:1 may be fine for your version of the article but the only problem is the sources have it as a health issue. We don't count votes here. We count sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Health: Action by Kraft is the first involving genetically altered food. The grain contains a pest repellent." My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "All other information indicated that Cry9C would not pose any other types of risks to human health or the environment." My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "7. Has Health Canada put in place an independent and scientific monitoring of the short and long term human health effects of the Cry9C protein contained in the StarLink corn which illegally entered to the Canadian food chain? If yes, what is the dollars amount spent on this by Health Canada and how many person-day are allocated on these programs and have been spent or will be spent? If not, are there any plan to do so, when and how much resources will be spent?" My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "While the health effects of StarLink are still unsettled, many worry that the government remains unprepared to deal with unexpected health problems from genetically engineered crops, especially those now being field-tested to mass-produce medicines, vaccines or industrial chemicals." My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• StarLink health study by the CDC.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "This was important for legal compliance, public health, and economic reasons.. My bold and no mention of environment.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I've read all of the discussion above, and it seems to me that the center of the disagreement is where Canoe says that "They don't need to get sick to create a health issue." Canoe is arguing that it is a health issue because there had been a potential for a health issue, whereas other editors, including me, believe that there is a difference between a "health issue" and a "potential health issue". It's true that the sources indicate that the Cry9C protein is a potential allergen, but the sources also indicate that, in 100% of the people examined, there were either no symptoms of allergy, or the people who had allergic reactions showed negative allergy tests to Cry9C, which means that they were allergic to something other than the corn. I think that there is a useful guideline at WP:MEDASSESS, particularly the paragraph talking about "speculative proposals". What I take from it is that Misplaced Pages does not present the possibility of a speculative health concern as though it were an actual health concern. The Taco Bell incident is unambiguously an incident in which a GMO crop "escaped" in the sense of winding up in a place in the food supply where it should not have been, but all the sources that we have indicate that it did not result in any real health effects in humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the way Misplaced Pages should be written for our readers. If the sources include it as a 'health related controversy' then so should we. In a GMO definitions article it may be included in 'escape'. In an article about the public, corporate, science, and government controversies this is definitively a health related controversy. The public uproar over the incident, the government with its prior knowledge seeming not to act, corporations not monitoring/testing in regards to manufacturing/sales, and science not ensuring that somebody informed the corn farmers/elevator operators how to handle their creations and prevent them from escaping into the food chain where they would become a health concern. The escape was the cause of the recall and all the controversies were the effect. I believe GMO is fine but if the previous issues are not dealt with it will remain controversial to most others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I hear what you are saying, but I think that this issue also gets back to what I just said on your user talk page. When it's a "controversy", we have to think carefully about something being "related". It's true that this is a controversy. It's true that the sources we have been discussing here can be described, in part, as being "related to" health. But, in the end, the sources end up concluding that there was not a health problem for anybody. So what we are left with is reliable sourcing that some people have thought that there were health problems, and there was a controversy about it, and the most reliable science sources ended up concluding that the health problems did not actually happen. Therefore, when some people first thought that there had been health problems, that turned out to be sort of like the "rumor-of-the-day", but we have to give our coverage to the mainstream, reliable, scholarly analysis. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Above, I explained why the Starlink incident content came to be located where it is in the article. I also suggested another place we could put it. (two topics, which I will copy and split out here for separate commenting):Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear, the reason why the escape stuff has its current location in the article, is explained in part in the lead to that subsection: "Escape of GM crops", namely: "Related to gene flow, but separate, is the issue of GM crops escaping field tests, or GM crops that are approved for a given purpose, escaping into supply chains for other purposes. This is of great concern to farmers whose crop is exported to countries that have not approved harvests from GM crops." The primary harm from the escapes - be they in the field, or in the supply chain, has been economic damage to farmers and companies.... Do you see at all, how the supply chain incidents fit with things like the recent discovery of GM wheat in Washington?Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• There was at one point a section on "Food supply chain purity" or something like that, and if I remember right the supply chain content was there and was later consolidated with the field escapes, because they make sense together and are helpful for readers to see together (these are the two ways that GM crop can get intermixed with conventional - in the field, and post-harvest in the supply chain). Really there is no bad intent here, it is just a matter of trying to organize things well. I would be open to re-instating the supply chain section....Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with that is any food supply chain material would need to go in the health section. This is an article about controversies and that would be a health controversy. It is also prescriptive and not descriptive. See Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._descriptive. Misplaced Pages should be descriptive in keeping with MOS:HEAD which says we should use WP:COMMONNAME (description). This is about what our readers should expect with section titles and material in them. Editors may believe prescriptive names like 'escape' are more correct but the common name would be something like 'contamination'. Misplaced Pages normally goes with the secondary source description and not the primary source prescription. We could discuss re-formatting the article but it will probably be easier to just correct the section headings. I haven't looked into whether secondary sources use escape or something like contamination. We may end up calling it either Escape (contamination), Contamination (escape), Escape contamination, or Escape and contamination. Misplaced Pages:RD/L may help decide the section title as well as with which is most descriptive. With the Taco Bell recall all the secondary sources use 'health' and 'contanimation' not 'environment' and 'escape'. To our readers 'environment' refers to things like GHG or hybrid and 'escape' is a Steve McQueen or Sean Connery movie depending on their age. We should be prescribing our views onto them but describing their world to them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since it is now mentioned in both sections can we remove the POV tag. AIRcorn (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Aircorn. In case anyone didn't notice, I added it to the Allergens section, in a manner that accurately reflects the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't controversial for being allergenic. It was controversial for the way it was handled. From the manufacturer right up to the misleading statements after the fact by the government and others. I think one source says it was a cause of the EU laws later. It could probably go in the lead of the health section but actually belongs in the lead of the whole article. The article lead is too full now, but if I trim all the fluff or move it I will probably just be reverted again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversial is thrown around too easily by the media. A recall is a good thing. It means someone has accepted a mistake has happened and taken responsibility for it. Even better no one got harmed and no one was likely to be harmed. This is minor controversy in regards to GMO's. Pusztai is probably the biggest, followed by Séralini. The monarch butterfly and escape of genes into Maize populations in Mexico are also much bigger than this. It does not belong in the lead and probably gets a better mention now than it deserves. AIRcorn (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversial may be 'thrown around too easily by the media', but when it is we provide that material to our readers. Most of the 'spin' in this article is not even controversial. I will remove some material that is not sourced as controversial and we will see if my edit is reverted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, potentially reducing the risk of food allergies. A hypo-allergenic strain of soybean was tested in 2003 and shown to lack the major allergen that is found in the beans. A similar approach has been tried in ryegrass, which produces pollen that is a major cause of hay fever: here a fertile GM grass was produced that lacked the main pollen allergen, demonstrating that the production of hypoallergenic grass is also possible. Is not controversial. Why was it called edit warring when I removed it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's wrap up

Spent a lot of time thinking about this today. I think there is a reasonable argument to include the Starlink recall under the allergenicity section of the Health section, since it was concern about possible allergenicity that led to the EPA not approving Starlink for food use, and the unapproved appearance in the food supply led the companies to recall it. So I worked up a rigorous text on that with good sources and I just added it. I cut down the discussion under Escape since it was redundant. To be honest, my emotional reaction to Canoe's... mm aggression, in discussions prevented me from thinking through this clearly. I do think it makes sense here. Canoe. sugar gets you farther, faster, than vinegar. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Have to disagree with the way it is presented. WP:Due applies and this controversy deserves no more space than Pusztai or the Monarch Butterfly. They each get a paragraph so I have reduced it accordingly. I also don't think it deserves its own heading and with all the sub headings it is hard to differentiate at that level. We could expand some of the other controversies, but that would go against the consensus to trim the article reached previously. Also there is a sub article which can contain most of the details, I am going to copy what I removed there now. AIRcorn (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with the trims and de-subsectioning. thanks. i am copying it to the genetically modified maize article too, which also has a section on this and may be more appropriate for the scientific-y stuff.Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Added everything else to Taco Bell GMO Recall, hopefully it is attributed sufficiently. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

References

References

1. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/23/news/mn-25314
2. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm
3. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/pet_034a_e_28736.html
4. http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/ge_corn_starlink.cfm
5. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/
6. http://rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-RPT-StarLink.pdf

Relationship of Substantial Equivalence to Scientific Consensus on GE Food Safety

Mention of the importance of SE is currently absent from the lead yet its significance is detailed in multiple reliable sources. The bulk of the testing that took place prior to consensus being reached centered on SE. Currently, case by case assessment continues, and other safety testing methods exist, but, historically speaking, and in terms of the science that led to the consensus on GE food safety, SE played a significant role. To reflect this fact, the consensus statement should perhaps be properly contextualised in the lead. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Some source examples (there are reams of them):

• Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods American Medical Association (2012): "Before bioengineered foods reach the market, producers perform safety assessments to evaluate potential toxicity. The safety assessments are based on the concept of 'substantial equivalence' which involves a thorough comparison of the new transgenic crop with its conventionally bred counterpart that is generally accepted as safe based on a history of human consumption."

• Green Issues and Debates (SAGE 2011:245):"In 1992, the FDA adopted a policy whereby GE foods were presumed 'generally recognized as safe'. Similarly, the FAO and the WHO subscribed to the concept of substantial equivalence, which regards GE food products to be as safe as their conventional counterparts...Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have improved with the global consensus forwarded by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. These principles dictate a pre-market assessment, performed on a case-by-case basis, which includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects."

• Safety assessment of genetically modified food crops (2011): "Previous studies employed for assessing the safety of chemical additives used in food industry, involved testing single chemical components. But this is not feasible for testing GM foods. Therefore, an alternative approach was required for the safety assessment of GM foods. First food safety assessment report described comparative approach and has laid the basis for later safety evaluation strategies. This led to the development of the concept of substantial equivalence."

• A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010):"An overview of the main conclusions of the working groups is provided below: Safety Testing of Transgenic Foods (Working Group 1) The safety evaluation of foods derived from GM crops is carried out in a comparative manner, i.e. differences between the GM crop and the novel or differently conventionally grown crop are identified and investigated with respect to their impact on human or animal health (Concept of Substantial Equivalence, see Fig 2.). The basic idea behind this approach is that conventional foods have a long history of safe use."

• Assuring the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods: the importance of an holistic,integrative approach (2002): "The concept of SE continues to be recognised by scientific and regulatory experts as the most appropriate foundation for the assessment of the safety of foods from crops developed via biotechnology (FAO/WHO, 2000). Substantial equivalence achieves a central public health objective, which is the assurance that no undeclared or unexpected alterations in dietary nutrients, antinutrients, toxins or allergens are introduced into the food or feed supply."

• World Health Organisation Strategy on Food Safety: "The principle of "substantial equivalence" formulated by OECD in 1993 turned out to be a key element of the safety assessment procedure. This concept is used to identify similarities and differences between the GM food and a comparator with a history of safe use which subsequently guides the safety assessment process. A major purpose of the expert consultations convened by WHO/FAO was to develop recommendations and guidance for the practical application of this approach...The concept of “substantial equivalence", one of the key elements, proved to be suitable for the safety assessment of the first generation of genetically modified crops. Foods consisting of or containing GMO belong to the best analyzed foods we know. So far there are no documented reports on adverse effects on humans resulting from the consumption of a food produced by means of application of recombinant DNA techniques." Semitransgenic _talk. 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to have jumped from making personal attacks above to requesting an RfC with personal attacks still present. Perhaps you might try the approach of discussing your suggested edit rather than attacking everyone who disagrees? Being mention in the sources != being mentioned in the lead. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• errr..personal attacks? in this section? where exactly? An RfC is a perfectly legitimate method of resolving content disputes, not sure what your problem is with this. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but calling edits "stubborn and nonsensical resistance" is a personal attack. You have made no serious attempts to discuss your proposal and started this RfC after only minimal discussion. You've already indicated that you are synthesising the statements to the statement of consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a clearly-worded RfC. Editors not familiar with the discussions may not understand the dispute. The edit seems POV to me because it is implicitly criticizing the methodology of scientists who assume substantial equivalence (SE). If we want to include criticism of the methodology then we need to identify who has made it and the reception their criticism has received. TFD (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

not sure where you are seeing an "implicit criticism". Stating the importance of SE to the scientific method (as detailed in the sources above) can hardly be considered a criticism, it's a statement of fact. Scientific consensus did not arrive out of thin air, but the current paragraph construction seems to imply that a bunch of scientists simply sat down one day and arrived at this consensus. Some context would be nice here that's all I'm suggesting. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think this could be included in this paragraph as long as other tests are also mentioned. I think the main objection is that it reads like substantial equivelence is the only/main reason the consensus exists. FWIW I think a good addition to this paragraph would be a short (sentence) summary of the divided public opinion regarding GMO safety to put the scientific one in context. AIRcorn (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would think the other way around. The scientific consensus should be used to put the public opinion in context. On systemic bias, also, when stating the public opinion don't forget that includes the rest of the world. Opinion in the US is only a small fraction of the world. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what way round it is as either way it equates to the same thing (i.e. giving both sides). A major reason that the controversy exists is because the public opinion does not always match the scientific opinion. We present the scientific consensus in the lead, but as it stands we do not show why this consensus needs to presented (i.e. that it many memners of the public don't agree with it). AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

not only do we not show why it's there, there is nothing about the role of SE, the context is absent . Semitransgenic _talk. 18:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question What is the argument against including both of these well-sourced facts in the same sentence? And is there any scientific evidence indicating that GM products are harmful in any way? Isn't this just a question of public opinion -- which is easily manipulated by fear-mongering on the part of such groups as Greenpeace -- and the resulting political reaction? GoodeOldeboy (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

not the same sentence, the same paragraph, current argument against is WP:SYN, but it is not synthesis when the sources attest to what is stated. Also, this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not people think GM products are harmful, that's a different topic entirely. See my last comment above. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a single one of these sources mentions the scientific consensus. What you are doing is trying to say is that the regulators use 'substantial equivalence' for approval (but as far as I can see, the EU doesn't use that: "All GMOs, along with irradiated food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive, case-by-case, science based food evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)."), therefore the scientific consensus depends on substantial equivalence. Which is a non-sequitur, but also a synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

nonsense, SE played a significant role, to continue to refute this fact is to willfully ignore the history of the matter. Case by case assessment continues, other methods exist, and new methods will be required, but, the bulk of the testing that took place prior to consensus being reached centered on SE. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That just isn't what the sources say. Hence your desire for SYNTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? again you are incorrect. For example:

"The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is committed to protecting and enhancing human, animal, and environmental health through the sound application of the fundamental principles of the science of toxicology. It is with this goal in mind that the SOT defines here its current consensus position on the safety of foods produced through biotechnology (genetic engineering)...The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists...We support the use of the substantial equivalence concept as part of the safety assessment of biotechnology-derived foods. This process establishes whether the new plant or animal is significantly different from comparable, nonengineered plants or animals used to produce food that is generally considered to be safe for consumers...Studies of this type have established that the level of safety to consumers of current genetically engineered foods is likely to be equivalent to that of traditional foods." Semitransgenic _talk. 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes no mention of the scientific consensus, it's about the Society of Toxicology. It also says what I have already said:"The guiding principle in the evaluation of BD foods by regulatory agencies in Europe and the U.S. is that their human and environmental safety is most effectively considered, relative to comparable products and processes currently in use. From this arises the concept of “substantial equivalence.” ... The examination of substantial equivalence, therefore, may be only the starting point of the safety assessment." You are implying that the crops are not tested, such as with mice, despite them being the “... the most extensively tested crops ever.” (AAAS) IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

no such implication is made anywhere, in anything I have written. Your "argument" continues to be baseless, comparative assessment guides the process, it is more than a simple starting point, source after source clearly states how significant SE is to the science associated with GE food safety testing, and this is the very same science that is referenced when scientific consensus is discussed, to ignore this very plain correlation ridiculous. How many sources do you need?

Source: "Safety assessment is structured, step-wise, and based on a comparative approach. The substantial equivalence concept according to the principles outlined in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) consensus documents encompasses a comparison of biochemical composition with a non-GE line considered to be safe."

Source: "Included in the comparison are the agronomic and morphological characteristics and the chemical composition of key nutrients and toxins or anti-nutrients present in the crop. There are several steps in this process: the characterisation of the organism (and the donor organism for transferred genes); description of the genetic modification (inserted gene, method of insertion and stability and expression of the resulting inserted gene); and the effects of the modification on the composition and morphology of the crop. On the basis of the assessment of substantial equivalence, the further toxicological assessment of the hazard from the novel food can be determined."

Source"The comparative safety assessment paradigm that is used by regulators to guide the safety assessment process is called the substantial equivalence paradigm...what the substantial equivalence paradigm actually asserts is that components that are identical between two crop varieties pose the same risk, and that any differences in risk between two varieties are restricted to components that are present in different amounts. Substantial equivalence does not require that two varieties be identical, indeed, if two varieties of any crop are identical they are not distinct varieties. Safety assessors use the substantial equivalence (or comparative assessment) paradigm as a guide to differences whose safety must be evaluated."

Source: " If there are no significant differences between the GM crop and the comparator or if there are differences that will, with reasonable certainty, not adversely affect health, the GM product is considered ‘as safe as’ its counterpart. This approach also applies to GM crops with more complex metabolic modifications, where no single parent crop might be a suitable comparator, but where single widely consumed substances, food constituents, ingredients, or other whole foods that are deemed safe under representative conditions of use may serve as comparators...the concept of substantial equivalence is widely accepted by international and national agencies as the best available guidance for the safety assessment of new GM crops...As with all scientific concepts, the concept of substantial equivalence is evolving and, together with guidelines, making its application more systematic. The assessment helps to determine whether the GM crop is ‘as safe as’ its conventional counterpart."

Source:"The overall safety evaluation is conducted under the concept known as substantial equivalence which is enshrined in all international crop biotechnology guidelines. This provides the framework for a comparative approach to identify the similarities and differences between the GM product and its comparator which has a known history of safe use. By building a detailed profile on each step in the transformation process, from parent to new crop, and by thoroughly evaluating the significance from a safety perspective, of any differences that may be detected, a very comprehensive matrix of information is constructed which enables the conclusion as to whether the GM crop, derived food or feed is as safe as its traditional counterpart. Using this approach in the evaluation of more than 50 GM crops which have been approved worldwide, the conclusion has been that foods and feeds derived from genetically modified crops are as safe and nutritious as those derived from traditional crops." Semitransgenic _talk. 19:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is trying to make a direct link between substantial equivalence and the broad scientific consensus on the safety of GM food on the market when the sources listed do not make such a direct link. Substantial equivalence is a procedure for the assessment on the safety of GM food. It is an important procedure. It is however, not the only procedure, and it is not the sole basis for the existing scientific consensus. The objection is making substantial equivalence appear as though it is the only/main reason the consensus exists, as previously mentioned by Aircorn. BlackHades (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

as stated above, case by case assessment continues, other methods exist, and new methods will be required, but, the bulk of the testing that took place prior to consensus being reached centered on SE. However, none of this is discussed in the lead. The consensus statement is not properly contextualized in the lead. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to say what the sources don't. The sources just don't say the scientific consensus relies on substantial equivalence. They just don't. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

multiple sources state that SE played a significant role in the scientific assessment of GE food safety, it is impossible to reach a scientific consensus unless there are enough studies to cite, the vast majority of those studies featured SE based methodologies. That's the fact of the matter. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You are making an inference and I do not agree with it. Substantial equivalence alone is not used for the consensus position. Studies of the possible effects of GMOs are also performed, it is not purely analysis of the components. It is used by health agencies to assess risk, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

you disagree, because in your opinion, there is no relationship worth commenting on; this despite the fact that we see multiple sources very explicitly commenting on the central significance of SE to the science of GE food safety testing. There is a clear relationship between SE and the question of scientific consensus, and this is indisputable, insisting otherwise is illogical. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I see no problem with including a mention of substantial equivalence in the lead as long as the SYNTH issue (being discussed in previous comments) is resolved. I think a bit more detail in the second paragraph would be useful myself. Also, it may be a good idea to read WP:RFC for advice on constructing a neutral RfC question. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Better. :-) Still, the question really shouldn't contain arguments in favor of a position - it should be something like "Should the article include X?" - and you could split out your argument into a separate comment instead. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to go on wikibreak, so I just wanted to point out that if you make further changes you or someone else should probably record that somewhere on the page - that will help in the interpretation of the final result. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your advise, I will try restructuring all of this shortly. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The categories of this RfC are rather odd: "Religion and philosophy", "Economy, trade, and companies", "Politics, government, and law". From what I can see it is purely a science question, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• A new version of the broad scientific consensus paragraph in the lead for consideration. AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"The starting point for assessing the safety of all GM food is to evaluate its substantial equivalence to the non-modified version. Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis. Despite concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity or gene transfer to humans from GM food, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health. Although labelling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized."

it's an improvement on what we currently have. One other thing worth noting here is that we have a string of cites trailing the scientific consensus statement that do not explicitly mention "broad scientific consensus." Only the cites that clearly discuss this matter should be referenced here; citing just a couple that explicitly mention it is better than a long string of peripheral references. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree and mentioned something along those lines in the recent RFC. No one really disagreed and it was brought up as something that could be discussed further in the closing statement. I think the AAAS is enough on its own in the lead. I also think it probably is in the body too, but would rather concentrate on the lead first. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, as there are no objections we should perhaps proceed and amend the text accordingly. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am leaving a note here in case this proposal has been missed in the ensuing edits. If there are no objections to this change I will initiate it in the next few days (unless Semitransgenic (talk · contribs) beats me to it). AIRcorn (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Useless Fluff

Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, potentially reducing the risk of food allergies. A hypo-allergenic strain of soybean was tested in 2003 and shown to lack the major allergen that is found in the beans. A similar approach has been tried in ryegrass, which produces pollen that is a major cause of hay fever: here a fertile GM grass was produced that lacked the main pollen allergen, demonstrating that the production of hypoallergenic grass is also possible. Is not controversial. Why was it called edit warring when I removed it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You deleted it here and that deletion was reverted here. For you to add it back without bringing it to Talk first is slow motion edit warring. Perhaps you forgot that you deleted it before. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you roughly highlight why you think this is useless? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me to belong on the page, because it is clearly about the subject matter and it fits per WP:BALANCE. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no controversy that GMO can be created to remove allergens. It is just useless fluff to praise the benefits of GMO. It belongs in Usefulness of GMO foods. I haven't looked at the whole article. I probably won't bother because any other promotional fluff will just be added back if I remove it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

1) The abstract of the first article cited: "Allergenic reactions to proteins expressed in GM crops has been one of the prominent concerns among biotechnology critics and a concern of regulatory agencies. Soybeans like many plants have intrinsic allergens that present problems for sensitive people. Current GM crops, including soybean, have not been shown to add any additional allergenic risk beyond the intrinsic risks already present. Biotechnology can be used to characterize and eliminate allergens naturally present in crops. Biotechnology has been used to remove a major allergen in soybean demonstrating that genetic modification can be used to reduce allergenicity of food and feed. This provides a model for further use of GM approaches to eliminate allergens." 2) The lede of the article used to say that the controversy is about the relative advantages and disadvantages of food from GMOs (it did, until you deleted the word "relative"). The way the article is currently constructed is based on the idea in that was in the lede, that there is a whole slew of both advantages and disadvantages to GMOs, and different people weigh them differently. So the article describes advantages and disadvantages. I think you are perhaps equating "controversy" with "what some people hate" and they don't mean the same thing.Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no controversy about the advantages though. The advantages were probably just added to the lead and the rest of the article as Monsanto promotional fluff. They belong in a Monsanto promotional fluff article. Most of them aren't sourced as being controversies so they shouldn't be included.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I correct to summarise that you want to remove anything remotely positive? Controversy isn't the same thing as criticism or critical aspects only. Have a look at Global warming controversy perhaps. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The source created the soybeans himself. That is not a very good source to use. Just self-promotional fluff.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

His boss is a suit at Monsanto. Very biased source indeed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Funded by Monsanto. This gets more horrid by the minute.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are you showing me these links? What does this have to do with anything? It's not "self-promotional fluff", it's a peer reviewed paper about work which has been done. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

According to scientificamerican.com any studies not approved by Monsanto are impossible without facing legal action. How can we possibly balance the science if it is illegal to do so?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Did you think <redacted BLP unsourced> magicked himself up some corn? I have no idea why you are linking me to this or what relevance it has to the topic at hand. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I found a link to a contract. I don't no if it has been doctored or not or how RS the site is. Scientific American reads it as ..."their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research." How can the research be NPOV in this case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As editors, we are to report what reliable sources say, not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. BlackHades (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Scientific American considered reliable?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for contracts to contain unenforceable or hardly enforceable provisions, which is probably the case here. Incidentally, with regard to the above discussion, the article should be balanced and it should be able to mention some positives as well as negatives. II | (t - c) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there controversy over the positives? If not then why not just paste all of the Monsanto sales brochures? It is a controversy article not a POV war with each side being allowed free advertising. Should we add a Green Peace and PETA section as well? They can add more negative to balance the Monsanto positives.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Probably the case here?" Do you have a source? Scientific American says the opposite. Has en:wp decided if it is RS?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about IRWolfie's comment and explaining why we have negative studies on GMO even if these contracts exist, such as Seralini's study. How did that occurr if there's veto power? It occurs because contracts aren't always enforceable, especially internationally. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have an extreme intimidation effect or results in litigation with inconsistent results based on the jurisdiction. This controversy is already discussed in the article (Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Scientific_publishing) and was reported on by a few organizations. II | (t - c) 23:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have sources?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

? Did you not read what he said? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you expect a response?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I'll admit I am speculating as to why there are negative studies despite this contractual veto. II | (t - c) 03:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

II, I went and read the paper. It is funny on this, but apparently they grew the seed into crop in Canada, and then imported the grain to France, where the studies were done. No mention of where they got the seed they planted! Funny. Tried to search for this but there is so much crap about the affair that it will take a long time to sort through. The paper says "The maize grown (MON-00603-6 commonly named NK603) was authorized for unconfined release into the environment and use as a livestock feed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Decision Document 2002-35). We confirm that the location is not privately-owned or protected in any way and that the field studies did not involve endangered or protected species. The GM maize was authorized for import into the European Union (CE 258/97 regulation).... The varieties of maize used in this study were the R-tolerant NK603 (Monsanto Corp., USA), and its nearest isogenic non-transgenic control. These two types of maize were grown under similar normal conditions, in the same location, spaced at a sufficient distance to avoid cross-contamination. The genetic nature, as well as the purity of the GM seeds and harvested material, was confirmed by qPCR analysis of DNA samples. One field of NK603 was treated with R at 3 L ha−1 (WeatherMAX, 540 g/L of glyphosate, EPA Reg. 524-537), and another field of NK603 was not treated with R. Corns were harvested when the moisture content was less than 30% and were dried at a temperature below 30 °C. From these three cultivations of maize, laboratory rat chow was made based on the standard diet A04 (Safe, France)." Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Is anyone still suggesting a change? I'm confused. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to with the OP. This is just one instance of material in the article that is not controversial. The article seems to be a huge coatrack of good things about GMO. I agree that there are many good things about it but they don't belong in an article about the controversies of GMO. I tried to remove it and it was reverted without discussion. This article should not be a huge ad for Monsanto and other GMO corporations. Just the facts Ma'am, and only the controversial ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry if you misunderstood me. I am just asking why we have material in this article that is not considered controversial. I think this is a good faith question.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That, my friend, is a good faith question!! Thank you. I can and will respond. Your question goes to the topic of the article. So, first of all, you have made the point more than once, and it is a good one, that the title is GM Food Controversies. I have struggled with that title myself, and will open a new section on that below... Anyway, within that, the first sentence says "The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of GM bla bla bla. " Right? "relative advantages and disadvantages." If it were 100% good, there would be no controversy; if it were 100% bad, there would be no controversy. The article is not called "The bad side of GM bla bla bla". And what I have tried to do in edits I have made here, is -- stating things on all sides with a NPOV, using the best sources I can find that would be acceptable to both sides, to say the pros and cons of the boatload of the various issues involved, giving due weight according to the best reliable sources. That is what I have tried to do, and others have too. And so the article is what it is today... still a work in progress, always needing people to come improve it, including places where i and others have f*cked up. So that is why the material is there. To be honest, I have wondered if it should stay, as currently the use of genetic engineering to take allergens out of food is entirely theoretical, not commercial. I didn't object to its removal when you did it, if I recall, because I have never loved that content. Thank you again for asking a real, straightfoward question. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I am really hoping you will respond to what I wrote here - please talk with me. Thanks. And Tippygoomba, what do you think about the validity of including this, when it is only theoretical? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your suggested change. If you have a problem with that, try a WP:RFC. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That is why we are discussing it. I am wondering why we have an article full of material that is not controversial.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You've only given a few sentences, the claim that "we have an article full of material that is not controversial" is too vague to address. That particular paragraph, in the view of the editors here, is on topic. You have not raised any policy objections and you belief that it does not belong is not shared by others. The implication you give "it's non-controversial so it doesn't belong" is a strawman, you've said nothing that warrants discussion. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by strawman. We don't need policy to tell us that television advertising doesn't belong in an article about unpopular television shows. If the shows are unpopular we don't spam the article with advertising to make it look better. Another section that should go is the religion one. They don't find it controversial then don't include it. We don't have a section about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny so why include religion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean strawman. In particular, your premise "things that are not controversial don't belong in the article" is false. Your analogy are unconvincing. I've removed the religion section. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So hard to keep up. I am opposed to this removal. There are a few issues with religion. The big one is probably the messing with nature fallacy, but there is also the issue of "unclean" food being mixed together (i.e. pig genes added to something making it unfit for some religious people). If anything this section should be expanded. AIRcorn (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the same argument I get for not including a health recall in the health section. Articles on controversies should only include controversies and not propaganda from Monsanto brochures.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of controversy seem to greatly differ from what everyone else considers the term to be. Controversy does not mean only negative views on the subject matter. Advantages of GM food are not in the article because they are "propaganda from Monsanto brochures". They're in the article because they are related to the subject matter, exists in reliable sources, are certainly part of the controversy, and requires weight per WP:DUE. BlackHades (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"In 2012, Dr. Flowerchild claims that GMO tomatoes attacked a woman and killed her. Later studies found that the woman fell down the stairs and her husband covered her in GMO tomatoes to gain fame and sell his fringe books to the gullible masses. GMO tomatoes are popular in 99% of restaurants because they taste better, cost less, and are healthier than most organic ones." Do you see how the last sentence is fluff that looks look it came from a brochure?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't in the article. It would be more useful to use examples that actually exist in the article. BlackHades (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Titling a section "useless fluff" is not the best way to go about getting a change. I personally am ambivalent about this paragraph as it does seem a little bit out of place (unlike this one that was also removed. I would not be opposed to its removal. AIRcorn (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive time

We should discuss this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes like to speed up archiving when a talk page is quiet for a long time, but for cases like here, I tend to think that's it's helpful not to archive too rapidly, because with very active discussion, it can be helpful to look back at previous talk without having to go to the archives. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, that was a really odd revert. The archive was changed from 15d to 30d because on going discussions were getting archived. Is there a reason why you want to change archive time to 1d? BlackHades (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If consensus is needed for an archive time then my !vote is for the 30 days. There are some interesting conversations ongoing here, why would we want to archive them before they are done. AIRcorn (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

article title?

Title is fine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Canoe has mentioned a couple of times in edit notes etc (for instance deleting content not related to food) that the article is called "Genetically modified food controversies". I have always struggled with this title a bit, and I think others have too, as the article's first paragraph which has been stable for a long time, reflects the broader topics involved in this: "The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food, genetically modified crops used to produce food and other goods, and other uses of genetically modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified (GM) food are: whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population." The controversy is much bigger than food per se. I have not messed with the title because it is fair to say that for many, "food" is kind of at the heart of the controversy.... but one could easily say as well that environmental issues are. Others emphasize regulatory regimes, economics, etc. I've been wanting to raise this to see if any better ideas pop. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages". Is that phrase sourced or should we find a more appropriate one that is? The controversy is over both the advantages and disadvantages so the whole phrase should be removed and replaced. The way is worded now it seems like there are no controversies over the advantages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

With respect to sourcing, it is my understanding that the scope of a wikipedia article is an editorial decision. With respect to rest of what you write, I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Jytdog (talk)

What about broadening it up and just calling it "Genetic Engineering Controversies". The medicine and research side of it is not terribly controversial beyond what is already mentioned here at the moment so I don't see it will make this article much longer than it already is. AIRcorn (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Or if it is "controversies" part that is the problem then we could call it a "debate". AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversy is a standard term used in wikipedia for articles of this type, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think "controversies" is indeed the right noun here. The question I am raising is "GM food" or something else? "genetic engineering" is interesting...I would be OK with that. Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Since this article is too large already then those others would probably need separate articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, do you have better ideas about titles? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the title. It is en:wp standard and readers should expect to find it under that title.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then Canoe, you won't be deleting more content because it is not directly relevant to "food" as you have in the past? thx. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't a controversy about GMO food then it shouldn't be in an article about GMO food controversies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening a new section to discuss Scope which is different from title. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What does "Tag Team deletion" mean?

It is obviously something to do with edit warring, and something I haven't come across before. I'm such a newbie. --Roxy the dog (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Tag team--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good of you, thank you. -- now can I ask that jytdog and yourself deal with this amicably? that would be nice too.--Roxy the dog (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Sourced an notable material should not be tag team removed without discussion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that articles like this one get a lot of reverts back and forth. If people don't agree in article-space then we should spend more time discussing problems on the talkpage. Would it be helpful if this article (and maybe some related ones) had a 1RR restriction? bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of my discussion questions go unanswered with the sourced and notable material tag-team removed from the articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You still have not replied to where I explained how the Starlink issue came to be where it is, what the rationale for that is, and offered a compromise. Not a peep. You seem to have no interest in compromising or really talking. You just keep repeating the same claims over and over, all of which have been responded to at one point or another. Jytdog (talk)

You have still not found a source that claims it was an environmental recall. All the sources say it was a health recall. We go with sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with that interpretation of recent edits, but nonetheless it still underlines the revert problem. Would it be helpful if this article (and maybe some related ones) had a 1RR restriction? bobrayner (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

<redacted>--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Those are pretty drastic claims. If you could provide diffs to support them, I'll happily start a case over at arbcom. If you don't have evidence, it might be a good idea to retract those claims. bobrayner (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed at numerous boards. Not much for results though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, why are you not following WP:BRD and instead are edit warring? Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is a health recall in the environmental section when all of the sources say it was a health issue and none state environmental? Why is notable sourced material removed without discussion? Why does an article about controversies contain so much fluff that is not controversial and biased to one side of the controversy? Why don't you answer my questions before I answer anymore of yours?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Bob that there seems to be too much reverting. About the tag-team thing, typically the "tag-team" phrase is used to denote editors who are intentionally acting together, often in order to get one editor with whom they disagree blocked for 3RR. It's very important to make a distinction between that, and what I suspect is really the case here: multiple editors in agreement, because that's what the consensus is, and one single editor who disagrees with that consensus. And I'll note that the "health" issue, and the sourcing for it, have indeed been discussed in great detail, with it becoming very clear that what the sources say is that no health effects were found. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The recall was still a health recall though as the sources say. None of them claim it was an environmental recall. This makes it a controversial health recall. The tag team is still the same few editors that revert most of my edits without answering many of my questions. Therefore no discussion and simply Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confused as to what WP:TAGTEAM is. Tag team is collaboration by a minority to circumvent consensus. You are confusing editor consensus, with a single dissenter (you), as WP:TAGTEAM. There is no evidence of collaboration here. No evidence that those you are constantly accusing are attempting to circumvent consensus. To the contrary, there is evidence that those you keep accusing as WP:TAGTEAM are the consensus. The constant accusations you consistently keep throwing is a very poor display of WP:AGF. You should either bring these accusations to the proper dispute venue or avoid making them. BlackHades (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The constant reverts without proper discussion and providing RS are bad faith. I think you are confused about the definition of tag team.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No you are confused. You keep referring to consensus based editing as WP:TAGTEAM. You are namely doing this:

"Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team"."

It would be highly advisable to stop doing this. BlackHades (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be the POV of a few editors and not what the sources state.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Content about Taco Bell recall in the regulatory section?

Hey all

There has been a slow motion edit war over whether the Starlink/Taco Bell Recall incident should be mentioned in the "Objectivety of Regulatory Bodies" subsection of the Regulatory section. Last version is here. It was first added on August 21; it was deleted soon thereafter, and has been added back and deleted 4 more times since then, and is currently deleted. Canoe added it originally and has been the sole un-deleter; 3 editors have deleted it (me twice) and while the content was present, two editors other than Canoe worked on improving the content. Seems about time we discussed this, yes? I will leave it to Canoe to open the discussion as to why it should be here, as per WP:BRD. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it should remain in the article while we discuss it. My removals of other material are added back without discussion. This should be the same case. Add the material back while we discuss it otherwise it is a bad faith position taken by editors that I feel wish to Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles using Misplaced Pages:Tag team.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS the version prior to the one that caused the dispute would be the one that stands during discussion. Which means your material should stay removed while it's being discussed. It also means your removals of other material should be restored while it's being discussed. BlackHades (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who worked on improving how the content was worded, and I thought that it needed those improvements. However, I would not have an objection to putting it back. I'm not really convinced that it was "spamming" up the page, and it does seem to me to include criticism of groups, where such criticisms belong on this page. Let me suggest putting something like it back, but in a significantly shorter form. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want actual controversies in a shorter form but all the non-controversial promotional fluff that I remove, which is then tag team replaced, to remain in longer form?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading that, I feel like saying I changed my mind and we can just leave it out. (You'll get farther, believe me, if you step back from framing things in adversarial terms, also like the ownership thing above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"We can just leave it out." That is what has been happening and caused by tag team edits by wp:owners. If you are bowing out of the discussion then I will give the others a chance to answer my questions before I add it back. If it is reverted without discussion then it may escalate back to the drama boards and eventually ArbCom.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I never said I was bowing out. I was giving you friendly advice about how not to find yourself in an escalated situation with "we". And I'll say it again: I think it might be a good compromise to put the deleted paragraph back, but to shorten it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am just fed up with this tag team reversion of material by those that own the article without responding to my questions. Feel free to add it back in its entirety and then we can discuss shortening it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is an overview of all the GM controversies. We have sub articles for some of the more important individual ones like Seralini and Pusztai and also one now for the Taco Bell GMO recall. This article links to those articles, which should contain more in depth information. Therefore we don't need to include minor details in this article. As to the edit itself it introduces a quote to this article that has little relevance to a section on regulatory objectivity (a member of an antiGM group saying that the EPA should be embarrassed is minor in the scheme of things), especially aghainst the Micheal Taylor concerns. It belongs in the Taco Bell article, but not in this one. I know it has been mentioned before, but I suggest you prepare an RFC if you think editors are owning this article and preventing you from adding content. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It was the first GMO recall in history and the largest food recall at the time. These are not "minor details". This material should be included.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is, or to my knowledge has, said not to mention it. We currently have a paragraph that says:

"In 2000, Aventis StarLink corn, which had been approved only as animal feed due to concerns about possible allergic reactions in humans, was found contaminating corn products in U.S. supermarkets and restaurants. This corn became the subject of the widely publicized Taco Bell GMO recall, when Taco Bell taco shells were found to contain the corn, resulting in sales of StarLink seed being discontinued. The registration for the Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Aid sent by the UN and the US to Central African nations was also found to be contaminated with StarLink corn and the aid was rejected. The US corn supply has been monitored for Starlink Bt proteins since 2001 and no positive samples have been found since 2004. In response, GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International set up the GM Contamination Register in 2005."

If you can reliably source that it is the first GMO recall (have there been others?) and largest food one at the time then that can be easily added to this paragraph. This dispute is over how to present the information and sprinkling it throughout the article (it is also now mentioned under health) is not the way to do it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong! Tag team wp:own is not the way to do it. The sources are in the recall article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think is wrong. If the sources are there then what is the issue with moving them here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not being 'sprinkled throughout' the article. The recall had various aspects of the controversies. Regulatory and corporate deception, a public health uproar not because of the possible allergens but because an unfit food was known to be consumed by the public, and it being the first GMO recall as well as some sources stating it was the largest at the time. If you don't wish it 'sprinkled' throughout then it could just have its own section in health since the main concern was health.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Article scope

Another general, stepping back and looking at the big picture question, somewhat related to the Title section I opened earlier.

And I start the same way as the Title discussion. The first paragraph says: "The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food, genetically modified crops used to produce food and other goods, and other uses of genetically modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified (GM) food are: whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population."

Broadly, the article has sections on Public Perception, Scientific publishing (dealing with the question of independent scientific research); Health (mainly focused on the issue of whether GM food is harmful to people or not); Environment, Economic issues, Regulation, and Other (which is a real hodge podge). In general, each of these sections deals with pros and cons, states the scientific consensus where it is exists, and states minority scientific positions, as well as we all popular (as in, among the people) positions.

This was the result of a pretty major revision a few months ago that was extensively discussed at that time. Here and again here.

Canoe has written things like "There is no controversy about the advantages though. The advantages were probably just added to the lead and the rest of the article as Monsanto promotional fluff. They belong in a Monsanto promotional fluff article." (this dif) So - is it reasonable that the article has cons and pros?

More broadly, are there ways the article could be organized better, or differently? Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't decide what the scope should be the sources do. If the phrase "dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages" isn't in any of the sources then it should be a combined paraphrase of sources. Can you provide a source that claims that the advantages are controversial? It should read "the public debate over the controversial aspects of GMO food".--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to look for a source, but Golden Rice is the best example off the top of my head where even something advantageous is considered controversial. The controversy goes both ways, take economics for example (some say it has provided no benefit to farmers, while others say it has provided lots of benefits). The same goes for the environment section. If we say that it is controversial because it has led to an increase in herbicides we should provide the counter that the herbicides that have increased are the least harmful ones (due weight to eachpoint of course). Health is a bit different as to my knowledge there are no GMOs marketed that are aimed at improving health yet. So the question is do we include potential health improving GMO foods (food containing vaccines, removed allergen and increased nutrients are all at various stages of developement). This is different to including counterclaims (which I think is essential), like if there is a claim that GMO's are harmful then the scientific consensus must be presented. I don't know, the potential benefits should be includedsomewhere, but maybe this is not the best article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, this is not the best article. Feel free to create Advantages and disadvantages of GMO food if editors wish to include spam from sales brochures.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Religion section

This little discussion between User:Canoe1967 and User:TippyGoomba (here and here that led to Tippy removing the religion section. Which was called to my attention by User:Aircorn's comment that he had missed this.

There was a discussion about expanding this a while back. And I can't find it now, but at one point there was a Feedback on the article asking for more detail on religous views. We should keep it. Let's discuss.... Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

<redacted after reading the above> --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (edit note - restored this which Canoe completely deleted - need to leave actual record, for the record. added strikethrough Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)) (edit note - I don't want to edit war over this further. "The above" was written at 01:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC). Canoe made an initial, dismissive remark after reading the above at 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC). As of the date of this note, an administrator is reviewing things, and Canoe went back and deleted his remark; i went back and undeleted it, and added a strikethrough. Canoe reverted. I reverted once one more with an edit note saying "not good to scrub the record like this. you said what you said. don't make those reviewing this have to do more work by digging into article history." Canoe reverted, and left the comment above here in Talk, which is misleading, since the redacted remark was originally written "after reading the above". The dif in which Canoe made the comment is here. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC))

That above discussion seems to indicate that Hebrews, Islam, and Rastafarians are against GMO. If so then why did the removed religious section not reflect this. It stated the opposite that no religions had issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

<redacted as corrected above> --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the best solution would be to merge it into public perception. Religous views probably deserve a small mention and that is the best place I can think to put it. AIRcorn (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a reasonable suggestion. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look later today and see what I come up with. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• <redacted as corrected above>User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

POV tag on health section

Today I removed the POV tag on the Health section as I thought the issues were resolved. User:Canoe1967, who had raised the initial issues and tagged it, reverted. Canoe, would you please state what issues are outstanding? Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The recalls and other incindents were not controversial because of the allergens. The allergens are a fact and not a controversy. We could just create a new section in that would cover all the issues. The recalls, cautionary reactions, aftermath, inspections, refusals/returns, and coroporate/government errors, etc. This may be easier than spreading the material all through the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As a matter purely of procedure (in other words, I'm not talking about the merits of the content issues), I strongly recommend allowing the template to remain until editors reach consensus that it can be removed. Even in situations where it's mostly one editor who has concerns about POV, I think that the right thing to do is to let the tag stay there as long as is necessary to get to consensus, and we aren't yet at that stage. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Tags are not meant to be badges of shame and this issue has been discussed to death. There are many articles here where not every editor is going to agree on neutrality. If the consensus is against a tag then it is against the tag one editor not withstanding. There are other options to pursue if talk page consensus is not to their agreement. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, can you please explain what those issues have to do with neutrality? Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Worse yet, i don't even understand what Canoe is trying to say. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The article is about controversies.
2. The sections classify the controversies.
3. Being a possible allergen is not a controversy, it is just not fully tested.
4. The Starlink incidents were not controversial for the allergens but for the lead up and aftermath.
5. Thus, wrong section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for spelling that out. If I understand correctly, the controversy in this case is about the fact that Starlink corn got into the food supply, where it was not supposed to have been; the reason that it was not supposed to have been there is because, by containing the Cry9C protein, it had the potential to have caused allergic reactions in the people who ate the food. It's true that, because it turned out that no one really got sick because of the corn, the controversy resides in what happened before (how the corn got there in the first place), and after (the investigations, recall, and so forth), but the controversy was about the possibility of people getting sick from eating the corn. In a strict biochemical sense, Cry9C is an allergen, because it is possible to raise antibodies directed at it; it just turned out not to have been an allergen that caused health problems in this case.

But, that said, what would you suggest as an alternative header title? My recollection is that you have been in favor of including this subject in the Health section of the page, so is there a different subcategory of Health where you would prefer to put it? PS: I see from your comment above that you would be in favor of a dedicated subsection for this. What would you propose to call it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Trypto, as an aside, I disagree with your statement that "In a strict biochemical sense, Cry9C is an allergen, because it is possible to raise antibodies directed at it" In a lab you can generate antibodies to any protein; doing so has nothing to do with whether the protein is an allergen (i.e. a significant number of people create antibodies against it after being exposed to it).

Canoe's objection goes back to his objection over the scope and definition of this article. We should not discuss scope here or we will never get that resolved. Canoe has not addressed the question, of why anything in the Health section is not neutral which is what the tag says. If Canoe cannot justify the tag itself, the tag should go. We can of course continue to discuss Scope under the relevant section above As there is no reason given for the tag, and no support (other than Canoe) for the presence of the tag, it should be removed. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm facepalming about that aside! You are quite correct. In what appears to have been a brain malfunction on my part, I confused allergen with antigen. Woops! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

:) darn brains.Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe does not say what section the Starlink matter should be, but if anything, he seems to be arguing that it should be in the environmental section, where we already have content about escape and mixing. Exactly where the material started out. Also, Canoe, you could, at minimum, have the decency to acknowledge that you spent a couple of weeks arguing that the Starlink material MUST be in the health section and that you have changed your mind. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that the issue is that he would like the Starlink paragraph to be given its own subsection within Health, instead of being a paragraph within the Allergens subsection. I made a BRD edit to put both Starlink and the other incidents that are in the Allergens section into a lower level subsection called Incidents, and Aircorn reverted me on WP:UNDUE grounds. I'm actually rather sympathetic to Aircorn's argument that highlighting the Starlink material in that way is UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• How long are we going to play this game. We have a paragraph dedicated to this incident and it is mentioned and linked under two separate sections. This is more space devoted to a single issue other than Seralini (which is arguably a few different issues). AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that some editors consider tags to be badges of shame, but I see them merely as indicating that someone still wants to discuss something. I'm sympathetic, however, to your impatience. I suggest giving Canoe an opportunity to reply to the questions to him here, and then evaluating whether we have consensus to remove the tag. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have submitted the article to Misplaced Pages:Peer review to get more input on the scope and format etc. Input from others should help resolve the multiple issues with scope, format, Taco Bell placement, and pro-GMO POV spam etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Seeking more opinions from more editors is always a helpful approach. The review page is at: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Genetically modified food controversies/archive1. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving "protests" section to public perception section

Today Canoe moved the protests section, into the public perception. I do not agree with this, and reverted it. Canoe reverted, and did not open a Talk section. So I am. Canoe would you please explain why the protests section should be in the Public perception section? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The second sentence in the public perception section states "There is widespread concern within the public about the risks of biotechnology,..." so that is where it belongs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This move seems reasonable to me. After a fashion, protests represent one component of public views (albeit the most active and motivated component). But I'll also observe that it's never a good sign when an edit summary of a revert edit includes a complaint about edit warring: . In other words, telling someone else not to edit war rings false when it is said while reverting them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with moving protests to the Public Perception section. Protestors - people who for example destroy test plots - are trying to move and shape public perception; they are not part of the public perception. If we include protests here, we should also include in this section a description of the efforts by supporters of GM to shape public perception and policy. I don't think that is wise - having this section focus on perceptions by the broad public, as described by polling and sociological studies, makes sense. Leave lobbyists on both sides in separate sections. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me suggest this. First, leave the Protests section in the position where it is on the page, higher up than it used to be, because this page is about controversies. But change it to its own section, instead of a subsection of the Public perceptions section, because it's different than the general public perception in the ways that Jytdog just described. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving IP section into regulatory section

Today Canoe moved the IP section into the regulatory section. I reverted this as this doesn't make sense to me. Canoe reverted my reversion and did not open a Talk section. So I am. Canoe would you please explain why this makes sense? ThanksJytdog (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Corporations say that they need product control in order to prevent seed piracy,...." from the IP section, thus it is regulatory.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is an unclear division between the Economics and Regulation sections of the page. For example, there is a section header about regulation in Europe in the Economics section. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale provided by Canoe. Patents are not part of the regulatory system. In the US, the USPTO is part of the Department of Commerce; wholly separate from the EPA and FDA. They have nothing to do with one another. You can have a patent on X and never get X approved for marketing. IP belongs in the economics section, because patents have to do with commerce and the marketplace.Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I went back and re-read it, and I think it would be best to move it back to the Economics section. It clearly is relevant to economics. I'd rather have the Regulation section focus on laws and regulatory bodies more narrowly, and have the Economics section be more broadly drawn. IP doesn't really have that much to do with regulations about whether GM organisms are allowed into food or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

IP has nothing to do with governmental regulations about how GM organisms may or may not be used. This goes to WP:COMPETENCE.Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I already moved it into the Economics section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

reorganization

The unilateral reorganization of this article without discussion is not a good thing. Again, at the end of my rope here.Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I made an edit just before your comment here, so I'm not sure if you were directing that at me, but if I made any mistakes, I'm happy to discuss them and fix them. Thanks for not edit warring about it. Please don't feel unhappy about any of this. Everything can be discussed and corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a bold edit and asking for discussion is not edit warring. I don't edit war. I have never been blocked for it and don't intend ever to get into that trouble. The issue is what User:Canoe1967 has done to the article today. No discussion. Calls standard BRD procedure "edit warring". End of my rope. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read again what I said. I said that you did not edit war, and thanked you for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, it is not your article and I wish you would stop inferring that it is. Your opinion is merely that. If you don't like changes then please discuss them instead of just reverting before discussion. That is not a good faith method.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not my article. It is Misplaced Pages's article, and we work collaboratively. We talk about things. That is the purpose of BRD. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a crock of BS Jytdog. You revert my edits with BRD as an excuse and then refuse to answer my questions in discussion. That is not good faith editing. You should leave my edits alone in the future and discuss what is wrong with them instead of selfishly reverting with no adequate responses in discussions--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please drop it, both of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the edits I made subsequently. You will see that I implemented some of the things that you had suggested in earlier talk. I also fixed some other things that I consider to have been problems created by the earlier reorganization edits, but mostly by trying to find "third ways" instead of reverting. If there is still anything that you think is misplaced, I'm happy to discuss and correct it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My issue is as much about process -- User:Canoe1967's inability to talk through an issue and reach a compromise - as substance. Thank you for mediating in any case. Looking at the aftermath, apparently Canoe decided today to eliminate the "other" section and moved its contents elsewhere in the article.Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "biological process" is now a major section -- this was a minor bit of content about how some people object to scientists and companies "playing god" with nature. It is not worth a section on its own. Have thought about deleting it but it is something you hear people talk about with respect to the controversy.Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional note - if we are all OK with getting rid of the "other" section, the 'biological process' bit could go into the Public Perception section, as we did with the religion bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed this. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• And somehow the 'horizontal gene flow from plants to animals' got into the "biological process" section and is no longer in the health section, where it was and where it belongs (it is one of health concerns people worry about). Has nothing to do with the "playing god" objection per se. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed this. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• the "industrial ag" section is now inside "economics" - one objection to the use of GM crops is that GM corps are wired into - and propagate - industrial ag (monoculture, use of chemicals, etc)... The "industrial ag" objection is a much broader issue than economic. Which is why it was in "other". But it is OK where it is now. Not optimal to me, but it is OK.Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• "litigation in the US" section needed a better home than "other". But it is bizarre next to the recaps of other countries' issues, as though this is all there is to say over about the US. Would probably be best under the regulation section as the litigation mentioned there is about regulation. We could just delete it too but it was part of the content that others had added so I have tried to retain it - it matters to somebody. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed this. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• "European trade disputes" are economic. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed this - actually consolidated with US litigation over regulation in new subsection "litigation and disputes over regulation". Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• enough for now.Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of those things are my fault, not Canoe's. I really wasn't sure what to make of the Biological processes, and I was the one who put the horizontal flow into it. I'd be fine with moving horizontal flow back, and figuring out a way to merge the rest of the biological processes part into other sections. It seems to me that health and environment are biological processes too. There is no "other" section any more. The sections that used to be in "other" got moved all over the place, and it made sense to me to group regional topics together. I don't object to finding better homes for the US and EU sections, but I'm not sure where that would leave Africa and India. I would oppose re-creating an "other" section, because it's too vaguely defined. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Made an effort to address this... Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the edits that you, and subsequently, Aircorn made about the section titles and placement. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing down GM wheat section

OK, I made a bold edit and Canoe just reverted so as per BRD I am opening a discussion. There was recently an escape of GM wheat. Content was added rather breathlessly on the chance that this would become a Big Deal. It turn out to be a small thing - normal trade has resumed, and the markets were not disrupted very much. So I edited this down to give it appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Right now it is bloated and doesn't deserve so much space as it is a small event. There you go. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think it is too large then I will create a stand alone article for it. All the material is relative and valuable to our readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are OK with it, would you please un-revert? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I'm leaning toward agreeing with you on this one, actually, but I am curious as to why you think the section, as you wrote it, is the appropriate weight for how the situation ended up. I think it needs to be longer than what Jytdog shrunk it to, but I can also see the point on the other end. Can you provide a rationale for the size of the section? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thargor. I think we need basically three sentences: one to say that the GM wheat was discovered; the second to give background (who owned it, field testing, regulatory status) and a third to say "turned out to be no big deal". What more should it say? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a fourth sentence expanding on the impacts - Japan and South Korea halting imports and the concerns of non-GMO growers. But I agree that the current paragraph gives too much weight to this incident. AIRcorn (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat like Thargor and Aircorn, I'd like to see a middle ground on the amount of text. There's one thing I feel pretty strongly about, though: "declared safe" in the first sentence should be reverted back to "approved". We've had this discussion before. Regulatory agencies approve products; they obviously determine in the course of approval that there is sufficient safety to justify approval, but that's not quite the same thing as stating with scientific certainty that there is zero possibility of some detail being unsafe. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am very OK with the 4th sentence, yes. And heck yes on the "approved." Will implement these two things. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of sourced material. Either it should all stay here or exist in its own article. I will let all of you choose the article title this time so we don't need another name change farce.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, the question is one of WP:UNDUE, as per the discussion above, where there is agreement that the section is too long. Would you please address that - questions of weight have nothing to do with whether the content is sourced or not. ThanksJytdog (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I just made an edit that undid Canoe's most recent edits, and I want to explain precisely why I did so.

1. : The edit summary indicates that Canoe (1) is reverting Jytdog's edit, and (2) is accusing Jytdog of edit warring. First of all, Jytdog was making an edit based on the discussion here, and I thank him for the fact that he was not edit warring, not at all. Secondly, if there is any issue of edit warring, then a revert edit would only be extending the edit war. That's what an edit war is: editors reverting one another. So that edit summary is truly illogical. Now as to the validity or not of Jytdog's edit, not only Jytdog, but Thargor Orlando, Aircorn, and I have commented in this talk section in favor of the kind of edit that Jytdog made. Only Canoe has expressed a dissenting opinion. So Jytdog's edit is, for now, the consensus, pending further discussion.
2. : The addition of a cite needed tag seems to me to be WP:POINTy. The sentence is defining the controversies on this page as being about whether or not GMOs are safe. It isn't claiming that they are safe. There is no need for a citation at that point, when the rest of the page goes into both sides of the issue.
3. : The edit summary describes the section header as "keeps getting lost", as though the edit was correcting an error in earlier edits. This is manifestly untrue. Editors have removed it, repeatedly, on WP:UNDUE grounds. One editor repeatedly putting it back is, indeed, edit warring.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish's rationale seems sound. There's seems to be a consensus here that the prior version suffers from WP:UNDUE issues. Canoe, your stance is clearly "all or nothing", but I'm not sure I understand why? I just know that that's what you want right now. Perhaps you'd persuade people if you explain your side a little more? Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is simple. I believe many of these Monsanto and GMO articles are being content controlled by a small group of editors to remove or hide negative material from our readers. This causes articles to not be neutral according to our Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. They use Misplaced Pages:GANG numbers to get their versions kept with few valid arguments in consensus discussions. If this continues I will email every environmental group I can find to contact every media outlet they can find to look into all of the edit histories etc. Jimbo is aware of this but I don't he has had time to look into the depth of it. The last statement I saw from him indicated it was just a content issue. I do hope he does take a deeper look into it before I start the above campaign as well as others I have that I can't mention due to policy violations for discussing them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Food and drink articles
• Mid-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class Agriculture articles
• Low-importance Agriculture articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles