Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 29 February 2016

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

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 Food and drink 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Agriculture 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about GMO conspiracy theories. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about GMO conspiracy theories at the Reference desk.

Is this Wiki article needed?

Can't this topic of conspiracy be added as a section at Genetically modified food controversies? 64.134.64.190 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Conceivably. I think this is slightly different though. In comparison Climate change controversy and climate change conspiracy theory. jps (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion

Editors may also be interested in Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#GMO conspiracy theories. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor's comments on identifying GMO conspiracy theories and theorists

A GMO conspiracy theories article could be interesting, with notable content, however, imo, we must be clear in defining what is a conspiracy theory, and then, in connecting people - named individuals - with support for conspiracy theories. Like the hot button term, controversy, conspiracy theory is easy to apply as a broad characterization; in this case, given the culturally pejorative connotation of the term, we need to be extremely specific. We should keep in mind that conspiracy theory, at its negative extreme, implies delusion and fanaticism.

For a Misplaced Pages article about GMO conspiracy theories, we need more than personal opinion, instead, a plainly written, evidence-based description of each such theory. Common sense suggests that a conspiracy theory must consist of a detailed hypothesis - "X is doing Y" - that has been well-identified in sources as such, and adherents who have been similarly identified. There is an important and quantifiable distinction between an opinion and a conspiracy theory — the existence of the latter needs to be reliably identifiable as a view held by the public or in mainstream scholarly circles.

• A single-author assertion concerning conspiracy theories should be given the same level of scrutiny as single-author assertions about any other subject — considering the (readily demonstrated) amateur and professional popularity of skeptic/debunk/myth-buster activities, an area in which conspiracy theories are considered, we should take particular care in deciding who is expert and independent (as in, presumably neutral and objective).

• When naming people, especially where their public and professional credibility are part of their work and livelihood, such as scientists, politicians, business leaders, advocates/activists, and media reporters and commentators, identifying a person as a conspiracy theorist, even by implication, could be damaging.

So far, the article names Vandana Shiva and Bill Maher, both quite high-profile figures. Are they each reliably connected with well-identified conspiracy theories, is that easily verifiable in the cited sources?

Perhaps most important, then, is that, relying again on common sense, the immediate takeaway impression given of anyone named in a conspiracy theory article who is not commenting on the phenomenon, is that they are involved in conspiracy theories, so it is necessary to be extremely clear that that is indeed the case. --Tsavage (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead says, "GMO conspiracy theories...have been identified by various commentators and skeptics including Michael Shermer, Mark Lynas, and Jon Entine." While Shermer established The Skeptics Society, Lynas says he was an anti-GMO anti-nuclear activist with no qualifications who has since become a pro-GMO pro-nuclear activist without obtaining any additional qualifications. Entine is a scholar of the U.S. conservative American Enterprise Institute, which promotes scepticism about climate change science. None of them are experts on conspiracy theorism.

Conspiracy theories are a study of social sciences not natural sciences, although social scientists may rely on natural science for some issues. In this article, the theory that Monsanto wants to destroy family farms is not something that geneticists would have any expertise in evaluating, they can only determine whether the claims made about the effects of GMO are accurate.

It is also a BLP violation to accuse persons of being conspiracists without reliable sources that say they are.

TFD (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

RS

This article is filled with blogs as purported RS. They need to go. So are articles by Pro-GMO advocate Jon Entine. I have deleted them from Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Conspiracy_theories. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I used the "primary sources" tag to refer to this section of the talk page about use of blogs. If you know of a better tag, please let me know what that would be. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed quite a bit of material that was grounded in blogs. Many of the other references do not seem much better. Anyone else care to delete material that has sources that are not RS? Or explain why the other sources are WP:RS? I'm not sure there is enough material here for an article. It seems like there might be enough material for a sentence or two in Genetically modified food controversies. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Regarding this edit: Please do not try to edit war the above non-WP:RS self-published content back into the article without both consensus -and- support that the sourcing does not violate our rules. I am not the only one who pointed out the problems with sourcing. I have already caught you lying about sources here. I did not take you to ArbCom over that serious misconduct. Please do not push it. If you prefer I engage you on your talk page rather than here, I am happy to move concerns about past behavior there. Please also be advised that this article is under discretionary sanctions per and 1RR per --David Tornheim (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Shermer Article

The Shermer piece, which I am not even certain is RS (as it appears to be commentary/opinion) refers to this book. That book might be WP:RS for conspiracy theories, since it is written by professors of political science. I do not know the best field for conspiracy theories, but political science or social sciences as The Four Deuces says above does seem about right. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC) (revised 00:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

I do not think that American Conspiracy Theories is very helpful for the article. As a review of the book says, "this is not a descriptive study of American conspiracy theories. Those looking to read the details regarding the theories surrounding the JFK assassination, the Roswell incident or the 9/11 attacks should search elsewhere." There does not seem to be sufficient detail to write much. The mention of GMOs is on pp. 146-148. At what point does rational, if incorrect, criticism of GMOs become irrational conspiracism? They say for example, conspiracists "believe that are a corporate plot, led by the giant multinational Monsanto, to profit off unhealthy food." High fructose corn syrup is an unhealthy food that some corporations profit from. But there is a difference between a dietician who says we should limit sugar and people who identify the Monsanto family as one of the key players in the international Jewish conspiracy of world domination. TFD (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I agree that is not WP:RS. The writers just make observations of random quotes of things they found on-line. There is nothing even remotely systematic in their analysis of people's various beliefs or attempts to distinguish truth-statements and facts (or provability) from purported conspiracy statements that we just "know" can't be true. It's more like a coffee table discussion about things they observed on-line and found baffling or ridiculous and assume the reader will immediately agree. And they basically admit they are not being systematic, making a "campy" statement like this: "Of course, everyone knows that artisanal producers of cheese and bacon also profit off of unhealthy food." I agree. Not WP:RS. I struck out that thought above.

By the way, how were you able to do that to quote from the book like that. I have seen many people zoom in on the right or relevant page of a book on-line, and I would like to be able to do that. Are almost all books available on Google like this? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issue with article in its current state

The article appears to be promoting the idea that GMO conspiracy theories exist to a significantly notable degree in the world, while failing to convincingly establish that as fact. Key problems:

• The premise of the article is not well-supported: the lead paragraph is based on a half-sentence from a magazine article, GMO conspiracy theories are embraced primarily by those on the left (who accuse, for example, Monsanto of conspiring to destroy small farmers), where it is not developed further.
• No practical definition of conspiracy theory is described for this subject, making it generally difficult for a reader to see the distinction between a conspiracy theory and simple conjecture, e.g. typically, rational, historically-based public concern about the activities of large corporations.
• Following on the previous point, the article presents not a single clearly described GMO conspiracy theory.

By not decisively establishing its subject, in sources and in text, this article also appears to be a non-neutral fork of the existing Genetically modified food controversies article, giving undue weight to a relatively minor aspect within the overall controversiality of GMOs.

I notice a previous POV tag was removed after three weeks, without explanation. While POV and other umbrella tags are at times left for unreasonably long periods (months, years), in this case, a POV tag is imo fully warranted, and should remain until properly addressed - in its current form, this article appears to be doing no more than promoting an unsupported general presumption that wild, crackpot speculation about GMOs is abundant. --Tsavage (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor removed many sources in defiance of the WP:PARITY statute which clearly establishes that sources which debunk fringe theories (such as conspiracy theories) are fine if they are done in similar venues. So we have multiple reliable sources attesting to the existence of the conspiracy theory. The practical definitions are outlined in detail in the sources and explained completely. The article is not about "a single clearly described GMO conspiracy theory", but rather it is about conspiracy theories which have developed surrounding the political controversies in regards to genetically modified foods. That is why the article is at a plural name. jps (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it is pretty clear that this page would benefit from improvement of its content and sourcing. Therefore, improving the page is more beneficial than being concerned over which tags should be added or removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Content verification: checking the sources

Here's a look at every claim in the article, with a review of each after verification was attempted in the cited sources. A main problem is that the article does not establish what a conspiracy theory is, therefore, anything in the vicinity of the phrase seems to be fair game for being considered a conspiracy theory.

• GMO conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories related to the production and sale of genetically modified crops and genetically modified food (referred to as genetically modified organisms or "GMOs" by activists) that have been identified by various commentators and skeptics including Michael Shermer, Mark Lynas, and Jon Entine.

Unsupported. 1. Shermer - only GMO CT mention is "GMO conspiracy theories are embraced primarily by those on the left (who accuse, for example, Monsanto of conspiring to destroy small farmers)"; 2: Lynas - only description, "Millions, possibly billions, of people have come to believe what is essentially a conspiracy theory, generating fear and misunderstanding about a whole class of technologies on an unprecedentedly global scale." 3. Entine - no GMO CT mention, only use of the phrase is in the title, "Why GMOs? Challenging anti-technology conspiracy theories," which is an excerpt from an Entine article, "GMOs, Yes! Why “Biotech 2.0” foods are safe, sustainable and critical to global food challenges."

• Generally, these conspiracy theories posit that GMOs are being knowingly and maliciously introduced into the food supply either as a means to unduly enrich agribusinesses or as a means to poison or pacify the population.

1/2/3 are same sources as previous statement, none make these claims, the words "poison" and "pacify" don't appear in any (Lyans does say, "would have dramatically reduced insecticide poisonings associated with that crop too, had the anti-GMO activists in India not succeeded in preventing its use"), and can't see how the text is a reasonable summary anything in any of the sources.

• American biologist PZ Myers said that anti-GMO activists were claiming the retraction was a part of "a conspiracy to Hide the Truth™".[

Only mention in source is the last sentence of that article (an editorial), "But too late: anti-GMO propagandists are now seeing the retraction as a sign that there is a conspiracy to Hide the Truth™, and are using the efforts to apply standards of evidence to the work as proof that Big Science is out to give everyone cancer." No description of who those anti-GMO propagandists are, are what their theory is.

• A work seeking to explore risk perception over GMOs in Turkey identified a belief among the conservative political and religious figures who were opposed to GMOs that GMOs were "a conspiracy by Jewish Multinational Companies and Israel for world domination."

Paywalled source.

• a Latvian study showed that a segment of the population believed that GMOs were part of a greater conspiracy theory to poison the population of the country.

Not clearly supported. Source is a brief paper, "Belief in the paranormal and modern health worries"; most relevant GMO CT mention, "The study managed to locate in internet sites such kind of conspiracy theories," and a mixed discussion of "Vaccines; GMO (GM food; GM crop); Contraceptives; Microchips; Microwaves; Antibiotics, psychotropic or other drugs; Dental fillings," no clear support for text, at best, a line in a list that may refer to vaccines or GMOs.

• In Monsanto section: Some anti-GMO activists claimed that Monsanto infiltrated both the American Food and Drug Administration and the American Association for the Advancement of Science which is why the two organizations have supported the scientific evidence for the safety of the genetically engineered food available for human consumption.

Source is a pro-GMO magazine article, "Unhealthy Fixation," the entire GMO CT coverage is: "To explain why scientific organizations and regulatory agencies had declared GE foods safe, the anti-GMO witnesses offered conspiracy theories. They said the Food and Drug Administration had been captured by Monsanto. So had the American Association for the Advancement of Science." "Captured by Monsanto" is linked to a 20-minute video on YouTube, where author Jeffrey Smith provides a standard, rational science-vs-politics and economics description of US GMO regulation, no conspiracy theory espoused; AAAS is linked to an editorial in Huffington Post] with a standard, straightforward critique of the AAAS Prop 37 anti-labeling statement, again, nothing like a conspiracy theory in evidence.

• Lead sentence to "Monsanto" section: A major aspect of many conspiracy theories is the fear that large agribusinesses, especially Monsanto are working to undermine the health and safety of the general public by introducing and promoting GMOs in the food supply.

Citation needed.

• "Monsanto" section: An example of Monsanto-based conspiracy theorizing were the claims by some anti-GMO activists that Monsanto banned GMOs from their cafeterias while promoting them for sale and consumption by the public.

Perhaps the closest to a conspiracy theory in this article, but more a case of disinformation as sourced. The source, a 2013 article titled, "Why We Shouldn’t Waste Time on GMO Conspiracies" describes how Greenpeace recycled a decade-old news story about one Monsanto plant in England where, in 1999, the externally-owned cafeteria operator had posted a sign saying it had removed GM soy and maize from its food. The closest the source gets to describing a GMO CT is, "The third hit is a 2012 post on the website of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones ... reads, 'Although it has never been proved, Monsanto constantly claims that GE food is harmless—so why wasn’t it serving it in its own office?'" Perhaps better sources would develop this as a deliberately manufactured conspiracy theory.

• The rest of the Monsanto section concerns various anti-Monsanto issues, not with conspiracy theories, and the sources still generally don't support the text, particulary Vandana Shiva, an anti-agribusiness activist, is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy, with no mention in the Lynas soure of what is in text, and Belief that Monsanto is particularly problematic ... has been identified as a salient feature of anti-GMO activism, which overly interprets a source that only points out that other biotech-involved companies like DuPont do the same, but Monsanto somehow gets he flak. Bill Maher is indeed criticized by science blogger Kyle Hill on the Scientific American website for promulgating Argumentum Ad Monsantum, but that article is in no way about conspiracy theories, and doesn't use the term—there is no verifiable reason why Maher is included here.

• The spread of the Zika virus is by GE mosquitos.

Any relationship to conspiracy theory is tenuously established. The main source, a newsmagazine article titled, "A wacky conspiracy is circulating about Zika and GMOs — and it needs to stop" has one GMO CT mention in the article, "When we chatted with Alex Perkins, a Notre Dame biological sciences professor, about the Zika mosquito conspiracy ..." No real conspiracy theory is described or ascribed to anyone in particular, and the first sentence of the article refers to "a wacky rumor ... about the Zika virus." The conspiracy tag seems to come from the fact that the rumor was discovered in a Reddit conspiracy board, and the Reddit connection is the only conspiracy theory mention in the second source, snopes.com.

• The "Ethical criticism" section makes the CT connection with ...compared the conspiracy theories supported by some in the anti-GMO movement to those supported in the anti-vaccination movement

The source is an opinion piece, that says, "Let’s look at three hot topics on conspiracy websites: vaccines, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and fluoride—or as one website put it, the three biggest human rights tragedies of our time." Regarding GMO CTs, no web sites are specified and no specific conspiracy theories established, only the phrase conspiracy theorists is used a couple of times. See the footnote for the relevant two paras.

Overall, the article seems to rely on keyword sourcing, where "conspiracy theory" appears somewhere in the source, but is not necessarily developed. This is consistent with common usage as a sensational and pejorative term - it's likely that the phrase will turn up where actually conspiracy theories are not discussed - and imo is alone not enough to establish what we can reasonably call a conspiracy theory. Also, the are a number of sources whose reliability for this material is questionable, including Mark Lynas, Jon Entine, and pro-biotech blogs and articles, wherein a subjective assessment of any speculation as a conspiracy theory is useful in discrediting opponents. Notably, there isn't a single reference to particular group promoting a particular theory.

Contrast this with Global warming conspiracy theory, where the section on "Claims" beings:

In a speech given to the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", Senator James Inhofe (Republican, for Oklahoma) concluded by asking the following question: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" He further stated, "some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor." Inhofe has suggested that supporters of the Kyoto Protocol such as Jacques Chirac are aiming at global governance.

That seems like a reasonable standard for establishing a particular CT, as far as description and sourcing; it goes on to identify notable proponents, and the reasoning behind the theory, including benefits and parties who stand to gain. Quoting from the Shermer article: A conspiracy theory, Uscinski and Parent explain, is defined by four characteristics: “(1) a group (2) acting in secret (3) to alter institutions, usurp power, hide truth, or gain utility (4) at the expense of the common good. It is reasonable to look in sources for at least these four criteria to be established in order to call something a conspiracy theory. --Tsavage (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

1. It is easy to draw comparisons between the anti-vaccination movement and the anti-GMO movement. Like preventable childhood diseases, malnutrition is another great moral failing of our time. GMOs such as Golden Rice—rice modified to contain high levels of beta carotene in order to compensate for the vitamin A deficiency which kills hundreds of thousands of children around the world and blinds many more every year—and drought resistant crops, which will become increasingly vital in the global south due to climate change, have vast potential to help those who don’t shop at Whole Foods. But real progress has been stymied by the paranoid and misinformed, who clamor that GMOs, which are biologically no different than “natural” foods, are somehow poisonous. Behind it all is of course an evil corporation: Monsanto.
2. James M. Inhofe - U.S. Senator - Oklahoma
3. Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate.The Facts and Science of Climate Change
4. "Senate Environment And Public Works Committee".

Notice -- Article under DS and 1RR

Please be advised that as part of the ArbCom decision on GMO's this article is under discretionary sanctions per and 1RR per . --David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Food and drink articles
• Unknown-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• Unassessed Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Unassessed Agriculture articles
• Unknown-importance Agriculture articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles