Misplaced Pages

Talk:Genetically modified food controversies

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Tornheim (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 23 July 2016 (→Scrubbing of views of scientists that have concerns about GMOs: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:03, 23 July 2016 by David Tornheim (talk | contribs) (→Scrubbing of views of scientists that have concerns about GMOs: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
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.
WikiProject iconFood and drink Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
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.
WikiProject iconEconomics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis 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.
WikiProject iconAgriculture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Orange stop-hand iconThe Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions regarding the language used to summarize the safety and regulation of genetically modified food on this and related articles (including talk pages).
Language per the RfC

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

Citations
  1. Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34: 1–12. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

    The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.
  2. "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
  3. Ronald, Pamela (May 5, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188: 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
  4. But see also:

    Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

    Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 1–32. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

    And contrast:

    Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 1–5. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

    The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

    and
    Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 1851–1855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).

    Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

    Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."
  5. "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2016. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: '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.' 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.

    Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could 'Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers'". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

  6. "A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010)" (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. 2010. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
  7. "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved March 19, 2016. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from original report by AMA: )

    "Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016. 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.

  8. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.
  9. "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects". The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). 2016. p. 149. Retrieved May 19, 2016. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.
  10. "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual 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.

    GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.
  11. Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21: 739–741. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.
  12. Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle: "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

    When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

    The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.
  13. Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 24, 2016. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.
  14. Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports. 2: 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC 1083956. PMID 11463731.
  15. Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  16. Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243.
  17. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  18. Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  19. Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time.
  20. Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
Genetically modified food controversies received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Genetically modified food controversies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Genetically modified food controversies at the Reference desk.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

? view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased? A1: Misplaced Pages’s official neutral point of view policy requires us to treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the relevant academic field. Some views about GM foods are not supported by the relevant field (biology), and the article needs to reflect this. Further information: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view § Undue weight Q2: Are GM foods dangerous to human health? A2: The scientific consensus is that GM foods currently on the market pose no more risk than their conventional counterparts. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. This conclusion has been reached by multiple independent reliable sources, including major scientific organizations and most regulatory agencies responsible for food safety.

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

The content in this Misplaced Pages article describing the scientific consensus, and the sourcing for it, was reviewed by the Misplaced Pages community in an open request for comment on three separate occasions. The first RfC (July–August 2013) evaluated a previous version of the language, concluding that that the statement and sourcing complied with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and could be included in our articles. A second RfC about a similar version (May–July 2015) was inconclusive, primarily for procedural reasons, and after considerable discussion ultimately led to a third RfC during June-July 2016. This resulted in the language currently used across Misplaced Pages articles related to genetically modified food. Because of the extent of the disputes leading up to the 2016 RfC, additional changes to this part of the article must follow one of the specific procedures described here. If you have a new proposal, the first step for each of these mechanisms is generally a detailed discussion with other editors at one or more of the relevant talk pages.

  1. Specifically, the wording at the time was "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."
  2. The formal result was "no consensus," a technical term that refers to an RfC outcome and not to the use of the word "consensus" in the articles. This outcome means that previous results remain in effect. Additionally, this comment by the closing administrator clarified that the evaluation of the merits was similar to the first RfC.
Q3: Aren't there studies that say current GM foods are dangerous to eat? A3: There are a small number, but the overwhelming majority of studies have found no safety concerns. The exceptions do not invalidate the scientific consensus, because no scientific consensus is absolute. Among other things, it is normal for scientific experiments to occasionally return both false positives and false negatives.

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

For the studies by Pusztai and Séralini, see Pusztai affair and Séralini affair. Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it? A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. Because of Misplaced Pages’s position as a trusted reference work, evidence for health-related claims must also follow the higher standard of medical reliability. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page, but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of GM foods, but the article talk page is not such a forum.
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.
Article policies
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 
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

RfC of interest

Editors here might find this RfC of interest too, Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#RfC_Is_including_a_quotation_which_describes_GM_food_as_.27poison.27_acceptable.

Protective effects

This content was recently inserted that has at least in part failed to gain consensus. Some conversation has already occurred outside this article talk page. The problem with but transgenic soybeans has protective effect to a lesser percentage (64%-101% for conventional and 23%-33% for transgenic diets) is that it is WP:OR. We do not engage in comparisons of numbers. We let sources do that for us, especially when you need a statistical test in scientific topics to compare percentages. If the percentages actually were different (or a difference worth noting) Domingo cited with the content would have said so.

Instead, Domingo clearly states, It was found that transgenic soybeans were non-mutagenic, having also protective effects against DNA damage similar to those of conventional soybeans (64%–101% for conventional and 23%–33% for transgenic diets). Until another secondary source comes along saying they are substantially different, we cannot engage in further editorializing of the statement than to say the protective effects were similar. I agree that including the actual percentages are undue weight (simply not needed information for our audience) that can be read in the paper itself if it so interests someone beyond the realm of encyclopedic knowledge. Tryptofish's edit here was probably the most in line with how Domingo describes the study, so I'm apt to restore that approximate version in the near future barring changes in what's been discussed so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

After all, the primary source is "Conventional (MG-BR46 Conquista) and transgenic (BRS Valiosa RR) soybeans have no mutagenic effects and may protect against induced-DNA damage in vivo." Including the percentages here seems misleading, since without consulting the study there's no way of knowing what they actually mean (effect size, dose response, statistical significance, mutagen, etc.) --tronvillain (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with both of you that the content needs revision. It seems to me to be trying too hard to make a difference out of something that is not really supported by the sources, unless one makes too much out of a primary source, when the secondary source takes a more measured position. At this time, the language on the page is: Research in 2012 found that both conventional and transgenic Roundup Ready soybeans (aroA:CP4 gene) were non-mutagenic, and also had protective effects against DNA damage in mice, to a larger extent for conventional than for transgenic soybeans. I suggest we change it to: Research in 2012 found that both conventional and transgenic Roundup Ready soybeans (aroA:CP4 gene) were non-mutagenic, and also had protective effects against DNA damage in mice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The only thing I would remove is the mention of the gene. Domingo specifically references that they are isogenic lines instead, and that's all we really should mention. This basically means the lines are very similar, but you usually need to do some additional work to say it's actually the gene causing an effect instead of something correlated in the overall genetics. Basically, this would fall into the same category as the percentages where it's a detail better left for the citations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, that's a good point. Perhaps let's wait a day or so, in case the editor who added the content wants to comment, and if not, then we can go ahead and delete those parts. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
but transgenic soybeans has protective effect to a lesser percentage (64%-101% for conventional and 23%-33% for transgenic diets) It is present in Venâncio VP at al article abstract (and in text of course). And Domingo gives number, comparison is easy and trivial, 23-33 lesser than 64-101 anyway, it is junior school or kindergarten computation Cathry (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
We generally don't take information from primary sources per WP:MEDRS. As I explained in my post above, this is nothing trivial or at a junior school or kindergarten level to make this comparison formally. One needs at a start an understanding of basic science at a college level to deal with the required statistical tests that we are not qualified to do as anonymous editors. At the end of the day, if a secondary source like Domingo says they are similar, that's what we'll report. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we really need to be guided by what Domingo, as a secondary source, concludes. In other words, let Domingo, not editors here, decide what is and what is not significant. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Domingo provides numbers. Cathry (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
As already mentioned above, Domingo does not make a statement that those numbers are statistically or biologically different, so we can't be making the claim that there is a difference. It is debatable whether including the numbers is too WP:TECHNICAL for our audience here, but the consensus so far has been that they aren't needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
To tronvillain from primary article text: "As shown in Fig. 1, the groups that received conventional soybeans had a more evident protective effect (64%–101%) than those that received transgenic ones (23%–34%).The MN test results show a correlation with another in vivo soybean study described by Azevedo et al. (12), where the transgenic soybean was less protective than the conventional one."Cathry (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know what the primary text says: with exposure to 50 mg cyclophosphamide, there was a decrease in the incidence of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in the bone marrow of mice compared with the positive control (for diets containing 1, 10, and 20% conventional or transgenic soybeans): 64%, 101%, and 85% for conventional (though 64% and 85% were not significantly different from each other) and 28%, 23%, and 34% for transgenic (not significantly different from each other). It's not apparent that justifies including the ranges without context and describing them as "but to a lesser extent for transgenic soybeans" or "to a more than two times smaller effect" when Domingo describes it as "having also protective effects against DNA damage similar to those of conventional soybeans." And Azevedo et al. didn't even find a significant difference in MNPCEs. --tronvillain (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It is apparent to authors. Cathry (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The authors aren't editing a Misplaced Pages article. --tronvillain (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
To Tryptofish I warned about a distortion of the text already Cathry (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
To Kingofaces43 gene modification is only original notable difference before study, so it is important Cathry (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making groundless warnings to me. Yes, Domingo provides numbers, but Domingo also says what conclusions he draws from those numbers. If editors were to say "Domingo draws one conclusion, but we are going to draw a different conclusion", then that would violate the core policy of WP:NOR. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Domingo gave figures and apparently did not think that it will be read by people who can not compare numbers Cathry (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
But along with those figures, Domingo said: having also protective effects against DNA damage similar to those of conventional soybeans. He was not saying that people comparing those numbers should conclude that the numbers were not similar. If he thought that they were dissimilar, he would have said so. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Similar is not same/equal. Cathry (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and that is why I advocate saying and also had protective effects against DNA damage in mice, and not and also had the same protective effects against DNA damage in mice. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This does not appear to be a controversy, or directly related to a controversy. As an animal study focused on one crop, I don't think it should be included in this article at all; inclusion gives undue weight. A statement about antimutigenic properties of soy could be relevant to the soy or gmo soy articles, but is too specific to belong here unless there is more coverage.Dialectric (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Now that you point it out, I think that's a very good point, thanks. It's basically a single study that found no statistically significant differences (per Domingo) between GMO and non-GMO. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the differences seem to have been statistically significant, but as Dialectric says, it's an animal study focused on one crop. And it was described as having a similar protective effect by Domingo (as has repeatedly been pointed out), in a section on soybeans in which essentially every other study found no difference. --tronvillain (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, right. Thanks for correcting me on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
"it's an animal study" there were only animal studies ever "essentially every other study" in fact it was only study which measured protective effects. Other were (from this Domingo review): 1. general toxicological Qi et al. (2012) Wang et al. (2016) (there were some significant significant differences but being attributed to incidental and biological variability), 2. ecological interactionsHorak et al., 2015 (note, Horak is from Monsanto) and study about Monsanto variety 3. not about glyphosat tolerant Chukwudebe et al. (2012), He and coworkers (2016),Herman et al. Fast et al. (2015) Cathry (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)(2011). And this study (Venancio) mentions it correlates with study of Azevedo et al Additionaly this study in reliable source shows compositional differences. Cathry (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You make a valid point, that the fact that it is an animal study is not decisive. For me, it's more important that it is a single study, and that it does not really illustrate the subject of this page, which is controversies. (As noted above, it would fit better at pages about soybeans or GM soybeans.) Where has there been a controversy about this study? In what way does it resolve a controversy? It seems to me the only way to make an argument to that effect is to infer that the numerical differences in the study actually demonstrate that GM soybeans are less desirable for the human diet than are conventional soybeans. And there are two fatal flaws with that argument. First of all, the one secondary source that picks up on the study, Domingo, concludes that the study does not demonstrate that there is any health-related difference in humans. Secondly, for editors to decide that there actually is such a difference in humans would not only be a logical stretch, but would also seriously violate WP:SYNTH. For me, I find it useful to think of primary scientific sources by remembering that a Misplaced Pages page is not like a school book report. We are not here to report everything that we find in journal articles. We are here to report what is notable by Misplaced Pages's standards. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is WP:Consensus (not unanimous consent) to remove the passage. I'd like to leave this discussion open another day or two, but then it should probably be removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree it should be taken out. I do agree that the text from Domingo carries more weight as a secondary review than that of the primary study. That Domingo cites the study gives the study more weight than if he had not cited it, so the primary study can be footnoted as Cathry has done.
I see no problem with adding the raw numbers provided by Domingo. Domingo does take exception to the substantial equivalence assessment technique in the same paper, even if he is not appear to be relying on this example to form that opinion. Although Domingo did say the protective effects were "similar", the inclusion of the raw numbers suggests they are not necessarily "equivalent", which I assume is why Domingo provided the raw numbers and why Cathry added the sentence.
I do think this is minor point that weakly calls into question whether the GM soy is "equivalent" to non-GM soy in its antimutagenic and mutagenic behavior. And, therefore, I see justification for including the sentence. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Have you carefully considered the comments above, about why the content makes more sense for pages about soybeans or GM soybeans, than here? Where has there been a controversy about this study? In what way does it resolve a controversy? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I read the discussion and do not see why the sentence should be moved to the soybean article. It makes sense regarding substantial equivalence. I have no objection to copying it to the soybean article. I already answered the second two questions in my response above. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I can see how this page should address controversies about substantial equivalence. But in this case, I think it would be much better to, instead, quote Domingo's criticisms of SE. By using the mouse study to serve that purpose, we are engaging in SYNTH. It requires synthesis to go from the fact that numbers for DNA mutations in mice were somewhat different, to saying that these numbers somehow cast doubt on SE. It really is SYNTH for us, as editors, to conclude that those data either raise or resolve any controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Remove the section. There is no controversy addressed by the section so it doesn't belong here. Capeo (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Pollan quotes

In my opinion, it's OK if the quotes from Pollan reflect his POV, because the quotes are attributed to him. Also, he is a food writer, not an environmentalist. But I have no objection to adding a bit of language along the lines of "what he says are...". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, he is a sufficiently prominent and respected expert on food that I think it is appropriate to devote a bit of space to his position in these controversies. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that each of these are common debunked talking points of various advocacy groups, so we need to be really careful about weight here. In this diff the edit under my name is at least concise. The edit your your name Tryptofish specifically mentions monocultures, yield, property rights, and research restrictions. Monocultures are not specific to GMOs, intrinsic yield hasn't been much of a promise yet, crop patents in general not specific to GMOs, and Monsanto does not restrict research. I actually agree with using food writer instead of environmentalist. I would suggest reverting everything after the but back to my last edit though to have a more balanced statement where we don't need to address the talking points further from a weight perspective. Basically: Food writer Michael Pollan is not against all genetically modified crops, but expressed concerns about biotechnology corporations holding the intellectual property of the foods we depend on restrictions on scientists studying genetically modified foods. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of the recent NAS source is that, in fact, GM yields have not been improved. So I see no reason to leave out what he said about yields. Perhaps there are ways to say things along the lines of "what he says are problems with (monoculture/research restrictions)". I'm not sure of that last point, but I'm open to either doing it that way or leaving those parts out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
That's not quite correct, but it's tricky because there's nuance on what yield means (the source I mentioned above goes into it). The selling point so far has really been protecting yield from pests, which is an increase in yield compared to being under pest pressure. It depends on location (I believe NAS covers this a bit), but most countries that currently use GM crops also tend to have used chemical controls previously instead. Typically, both protect yield the same amount or only a slight amount more with GM, but that there is a bigger yield bump is less developed countries. Even Monsanto acknowledges this.
Increasing intrinsic yield or the maximum output of a plant under no stress is what most non-scientists actually think of when they hear yield increase, but that's not super feasible with GM approaches (it's a multi-gene trait) and is just something still in the pipeline. NAS is generally referring to this aspect of yield when we're talking about no yield increase, but the argument about yield has actually become something of a strawman by those confounding the two terms. Some mistakenly think NAS's statement means that GM crops failed to deliver on yield when in reality they're just saying GM hasn't been applied to that aspect of yield yet. I don't think we really want to dedicate the space to explaining this here, so that's why I prefer the more concise version in my last edit. I do have some plans to work on agronomy articles soon though, so we could revisit this specific point to tackle yield in the context of GMOs head on at a later date. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Your link from Monsanto was meant to show that Pollan's claims about scientific agreements are mistaken. However, the page confirms that Monsanto has and continues to restrict scientific research with required contracts. Monsanto's page states:
The issue of academic research first gained major media attention in February 2009. A comment was posted in the Federal Register from a group of 26 scientists...who study insect-protected GM crops. The comment was sent to the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).... The scientists stated that Technology/Stewardship Agreements are a barrier to independent research. The statement reads as follows:
Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.
The page continues with Monsanto's surprise that researchers that got access to their seed and who they may have helped fund would complain like this. But the further quotes show the agreements are real and continue:
"Monsanto has agreements with universities that enable thousands of researchers to conduct research programs with our commercial products."
"Years ago, each time a scientist or group of scientists from a university wanted to study Monsanto’s products, both parties would sign a contract specific to that study. The sheer number of such studies for which we provided our seed made that model of contract signing cumbersome for both parties."
"As a result, Monsanto introduced the blanket agreement, which allows university scientists to work with Monsanto’s commercial seed products without contacting the company or signing a separate contract. This blanket agreement – the Academic Research License (ARL) – enables academic researchers to do research with commercialized products with as few constraints as possible. ARLs are in place with all major agriculturally-focused US universities – about 100 in total."
Yes, it is no surprise that their description of the contract sounds completely different than that of those who complained they were overly constricted. We can't judge what "as few constraints as possible" means. Regardless, it is clear these contracts exist and even Monsanto acknowledges that scientific researchers complained about how it restricted them. This page does not disprove Pollan's comment, but just gives a different subjective view of the contracts. Monsanto's "talking points" as you call them. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks like you're unfamiliar with the research agreement history. The "stewardship agreement" was intended for preventing competing corporations from doing their own research on a product, etc. but that was overly broad and did create some legal gray zone for scientists. For quite awhile now, researchers have been able to do mostly as they please with varieties., and that was even before these articles. Either way, it's straight from the horse's mouth what those agreements pertain to, so we really can't be saying Monsanto is suppressing GMO testing due to NPOV. If I wanted to at my university, I could do some testing on one of Monsanto's varieties (yield, efficacy, etc.) and publish it without Monsanto being able to lift a finger as long as I'm not doing breeding work and trying to make my own variety out of it. The last thing we need to do in terms of this content in question though is make hyperbole that conflicts with reality more prominent. That's why care is needed with statements from Pollan. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
We cannot verify statements about the kind of research you can or cannot conduct at an unnamed University. Only an attorney with expertise in the relevant area of contract law can. So your statements about what research you believe you can or cannot do under Monsanto's contract is irrelevant.
I do notice we have a section devoted to Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Restrictive_end-user_agreements. We should be looking at the law reviews to see what they say about these restrictive end-user agreements, rather than the opinions of non-attorneys. It appears Emily Waltz who you cited is not an attorney . Michael Pollun probably is not an attorney either. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
No, we are not limited to attorney's "with expertise in the relevant area of contract law". We are only restricted to using reliable sources, and we have two very reliable sources on the topic at hand,
Both of them are published in Nature Biotechnology; A highly ranked journal from a highly respected publisher that easily meets our sourcing requirements. Claiming that we should be looking for articles in "law reviews" (very few of which are peer-reviewed) for opinions on this topic—while ignoring high quality sources—has no basis in policy. If we are going to cover "restrictive end-user agreements" then we will need sources that confirm their continued existence as a source of actual controversy. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The Waltz article you link includes a clear indication that significant restrictions remain: Quote "Studies outside of agronomic research, such as breeding, reverse engineering or characterizing the genetic composition of the crop, require separate contracts with the company." Health research also appears to be outside the scope of the 'agronomic'.Dialectric (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any indication that the remaining restrictions are "significant", or that health research is restricted. Are there any reliable sources that we could use to support such information? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

FAQ update

I've made an attempt at updating the FAQ, which hasn't been changed since before the second RfC. Please feel free to edit further - the description of the second RfC is my interpretation, although I think a reasonable one. I think the most important point is to make it clear that "no consensus" refers to the RfC result and not to the scientific consensus. Sunrise (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

citation redundancy

From inclusion/replacement of the RfC language of Proposal 1 (here here) all the refs appear twice. Specifically 15-34 are identical to 137-156. Unfortunately, it appears none of the references were named. The only way I know to get out the redundancy is to give names to all 20 references and then refer back to them in the second instantiation. That is going to be a lot of work to do by hand, requiring 20 ref names to be made and 20 changes to the second instantiation. Are there any tools to simplify the task? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Same problem here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food#citation_redundancy. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: Did you see my note above? I wonder if there is an automated way to deal with this kind of redundancy. I posted the question to Wikid77 here: User_talk:Wikid77#Question_about_software_to_deal_with_multiple_references. I collected some data about the existing references to the article just prior to your edits. Thanks for your interest in this problem! --David Tornheim (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I did see your note above, but not the note on Wikid77 page. I don't have any automated way of handling this. I thought Citation Bot did this, but apparently no longer. Boghog (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on that. I was about to start, but was curious also to see if any of the citations already existed, so I made that list and decided to ask Wikid77 before moving forward. Can you document what you have done here, so if you don't finish I (and others) will know where to pick up? Once this article is done, we can just replace the text into the GMO food article, so we only have to do it once. (unless any of the existing references in either article conflict. That's why I made a list.) I can do the same thing for GMO food. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There may be a conflict with BMA for example. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Boghog: Here are the ref names to be careful about for conflicts, since the names already exist:
  • AAAS
  • BMA
  • domingo
  • EC
  • EC1
  • EC2
  • EFSA
  • EFSA2007 review of Seralini 2007
  • EFSA2007 Statistical Review of Seralini2007
  • EFSA-Cisgenic
  • Lynch2001
  • Marris
  • Pew
--David Tornheim (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think all the duplicated citations are now consolidated. It would have been somewhat less work if the ref tags were added before the the citations were duplicated. Also a several of the citations were extremely long which makes the raw wiki text difficult to read and overwhelms the paragraphs in which they are inserted. I have taken the liberty of segregating these refs using list defined references. Boghog (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: You accidentally clipped out a sentence from the mandatory RfC language. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I would fix it if I new what sentence it was that I clipped out. Some of the paragraphs in this article are so long that they are difficult to edit and diffs don't work properly. Boghog (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It's the sentence beginning with "Nonetheless...", about public opinion. I think you put the last cite from that sentence in with the cites of the sentence before it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is what that paragraph should look like, with the sentence restored:
The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food. There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.
--Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I accidentally moved the sentence to the reference section. I fixed it in this edit. Boghog (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Boghog: I hate to tell you this, but although the text is now correct, the references are still wrong. If you look at the lead of Genetically modified crops, and look at the cites that are numbered, there, as 15, 16, and 17, and as 18, 19, 20, and 21, you need to make the cites here be like the ones at the "crops" page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: OK, I think I fixed the problem in this edit. Some of the citations are extremely long making them hard to figure out when they end which makes editing error prone. This is a strong argument that we need to move at least the long citations to list defined references. Boghog (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Boghog, thank you very much! I checked it very carefully, and it looks perfect to me. Indeed, the citations are quite a morass, as I well know, and I recognize how difficult it is to edit them. Thank you for your incredibly helpful work throughout this article. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. I did not know about WP:LDR or I would have used that. That certainly has the potential to makes things like this cleaner! Are you doing it with the GMO food article too? Or you want us to do that?--David Tornheim (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Not everyone likes WP:LDR and we should get consensus before segregating all the references. I just segregated a few of the largest citations which I think is pretty uncontroversial. If there is consensus, I can do this for all the citations in GMO food with a script. But not tonight. I am tired and need sleep. Boghog (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

POV change

With this edit by Kingofaces43 there is strong POV change to the article. Please do not make changes like this to the lede without first gaining consensus. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

As directly stated in my edit summary, the text was completely redundant with the newly revised scientific consensus language and should be a relatively uncontroversial edit at this point. Referring to it as "POV" is highly improper. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
No. The paragraph talks about the views of medical organizations. That is not covered in the paragraph that follows. Without the paragraph the lede gives the misleading impression that only the confused ignorant public calls for more regulation, when the facts and RS show otherwise, which is why that language has been in the article for some time. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, this sentence:
Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States or Canada and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
is in fact very controversial and hence makes sense to be in the lede of the controversy article. It is covered in this high quality RS: Emily Marden's and Rebecca Bratspies' work on this is exceptional. See also this discussion with more RS. I have provided RS on this numerous times. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. Emily Marden, Risk and Regulation: U.S. Regulatory Policy on Genetically Modified Food and Agriculture 44 B.C.L. Rev. 733 (2003).
  2. Bratspies, Rebecca M. (2007). "Some Thoughts on the American Approach to Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms". Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy. 16 (3): 101–131.
We included the views of medical organizations in the scientific consensus RfC language already. The sources don't really matter here. What we're doing in a lede is summarizing the article or at least the concepts we do have somewhat summarized already. Pointing out sources doesn't matter. The totality of views of medical organizations are covered in the scientific consensus language already, that makes mentioning more medical organizations redundant and undue weight for a lede. Generally, the body of the article is where you would flesh out details like that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to make three points:

  1. Oh, shit!
  2. Please let me suggest that editors propose changes of this nature in talk before making edits to the page.
  3. It's probably OK to include a bit of additional information about controversies in the lead here, in addition to the RfC language, because this is a page about controversies. Instead of having an argument about it, I suggest that editors consider whether anything is redundant with the RfC language, and then consider reorganizing the lead. I would probably leave the first paragraph as it is, move the paragraph about safety assessment and the RfC language up to the second paragraph, and then reorganize the remaining material. I particularly think the last sentence, all by itself, looks lonely. It might be better to start with information about things like labeling and regulation, and then have the concerns, and not necessarily separate medical groups out from more general concerns in the population, but rather present them together. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about how to do a slight reorganization outside of the first paragraph too, which I was actually planning to bring up in the talk section I had edit conflicted here discussing my original change and further restructuring. I more or less agree with your general framework, but we'd eventually want to summarize the article sections. Probably best to stick with the current content though before adding anymore. As an FYI, it looks like the RfC language is now split up into two paragraphs, but I can't touch that today. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw the paragraph thing too, but it's just that Boghog is temporarily inserting line breaks as he goes through the citations, and he's fixing the breaks and then moving on as he goes along. But please, go slow, tread lightly, and propose changes in talk before making them. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh I'm indeed going slow (and a second minor copy edit that was edit conflicted was going to have the edit summary "Let's work through any disagreement slowly per WP:BRD"). My thoughts on reorganization were going to be started in talk page discussion first if it had been posted, but it looks like we got the ball rolling on that anyways. Now that things have relatively cooled off after the RfC, I'm hoping to be able to work through this lede section slowly piece-by-piece to see what we can tighten up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the accidental line breaks (I think these are all fixed) and for the edit conflicts. I am finished editing for today. Boghog (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I was referring to David Tornheim's revert that resulting my edit conflict above. Your edits didn't conflict while I was editing. The line break was a minor thing, but I just wanted to make sure no one got into trouble over that since that part is under DS. That ref improvements looks good. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this edit in clarifying what the original sentence meant before the RfC language was added. Whether the statement is accurate or the source is the best is another matter. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I too have some doubts about whether it may be too much of an oversimplification. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

As a general comment, I don't think redundancy is as much of an issue as neutrality here. The effect of the second and third paragraphs, in their current form, is to cast doubt on the consensus language and minimize its importance. For instance, "There is concern among the public about safety" is given a prominent place, and then the subject changes without further comment, with the full context not being given until the middle of paragraph four. A reader who isn't sufficiently careful could easily interpret this structure as directly contradicting itself, or even see only what they want to see, and neither of those should be possible. I think that keeping this type of language in the article (and especially in the lead) would be against the spirit of the RfC. Sunrise (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously so: the effect of such text is to niggle away at the NPOV safety text that has been so painstakingly arrived at. Have removed. Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Good call. Sources were atrocious. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all of that too. I like the edit that removed some of that language, and I think that the lead is quite tight now. The one thing that occurs to me to suggest is to switch the order of the second and third paragraphs of the lead. That way, the sentence about public opinion that is in the RfC language would come first, as an introduction to the idea of how controversies have become significant in the general public, and then the paragraph about what those controversies are would come after it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd be good with moving forward on this. It makes more sense from an introductory perspective starting with general aspects of safety instead, plus it helps with WP:WEIGHT with respect to the controversies too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Articles_on_controversial_topics. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations

@Lfstevens: Hi. Your latest edits have introduced a number of citation errors. It also appears that you have re-duplicated some citations that I worked hard at removing. I would appreciate if you would recheck your edits and also consolidate the duplicated citations. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I'll correct. Lfstevens (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Should be better now. Will fix anything else that comes up. Lfstevens (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the cites. Looks much better now. Boghog (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Scrubbing of views of scientists that have concerns about GMOs

About . Posted here. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Categories: