Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

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.[8][9][10][11] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food.[12][13][14] There is a scientific consensus[15][16][17][18] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[19][20][21][22][23] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[24][25][26] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[27][28][29][30] 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.[31][32][33][34]
--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)

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)

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[1] and Rebecca Bratspies'[2] 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)

Scrubbing of views of scientists that have concerns about GMOs

About [1] [2]. Posted here. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There are two different issues here. The first is relative risks to humans vs. the environment. The second concerns human health only. As the issues are different, they should be considered separately:
  1. Relative risks. The text Scientists tend to be more concerned about the potential for genetically modified organisms to cause ecological damage than about food effects on health was added in this edit without a source. This statement was deleted not to purge but because the source supplied was inadequate to support this conclusion. There is in fact some support for this statement[1] however I have been unable to identify a better source. The problem is that is difficult to find a single expert that is qualified to discuss both food and environmental safety and to weigh the relative risks.
  2. Risks to human health. There is ample evidence supported by reliable sources in the health section that the risks to human health are low. Boghog (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This source states that our knowledge of the impact on health and the environment is incomplete,[2] hence judging relative risks would presumably be difficult. There is still need for a better source. Boghog (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ackerman J (May 2002). "Food: How Altered?". National Geographic Magazine. Most scientists agree: The main safety issues of genetically engineered crops involve not people but the environment
  2. ^ Raney T, ed. (2004). "Chapter 5: Health and Environmental Impacts of Transgenic Crops". The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04 [Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). ISBN 92-5-105079-1. However, the lack of observed negative effects [of transgenic crops] so far does not mean they cannot occur, and scientists agree that our understanding of ecological and food safety processes is incomplete.

@Driftwoodzebulin: and @Alexbrn: Your edits are in the two diffs at the top of this discussion, so you have a right to know that your edits have been mentioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the use of the word "scrubbing" implies a deliberate attempt to suppress information, and I would suggest that the word "deletion" would be more appropriate. Given that this page remains subject to Discretionary Sanctions, I would also remind editors that casting aspersions on editors' motives without evidence to back it up isn't a particularly good idea. But it might be helpful to make specific suggestions of text to add back to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The removal of "Scientists tend to be more concerned about the potential for genetically modified organisms to cause ecological damage than about food effects on health" seems justified - it wasn't supported by its citation, which was about specific concerns of specific scientists about AquaAdvantage salmon, not about the concerns of scientists in general about GMOs in general. The statement may in fact be true, but that needs to be established, and to what degree. --tronvillain (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the removal of the medical association section also seems justified. Its first reference is a BMA statement from 2004 which no longer appears to exist on the BMA site, and even says 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. Then we have The Public Health Association of Australia, which isn't a medical association, as well as the "Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment" and the "Irish Doctors' Environmental Association." Not exactly much to justify an section called "Views of Medical Associations." --tronvillain (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's fine to talk about the individual topics of human health and the environment. Generalities about what "scientists tend" to think isn't helpful and probably isn't defensible either, much less sourceable. Lfstevens (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The relative risks to health vs. the environment is an important issue. If it is sourceable, then it is defensible. The problem is that it is difficult to find a reliable source to support the claim. Boghog (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Description for Mark Lynas

I have attempted to change the description of Mark Lynas in this article to ‘ author and journalist’ , as a more neutral description than ‘a famous former anti-GMO activist. Alexbrn reverted saying that “Per BLP nothing wrong with descriving(sic) people how they style themselves if it's not contentious ("I, too, was once in that activist camp"). In fact, Lynas’ self-styling as a prominent anti-GM activist is contentious. He was involved at some level, but was in no way famous for anti-GM activism, focusing more on anti-global-warming. The back and forth mentioned in this Discover blog entry shows the issue, as does this statement by prominent early anti-GM activists saying that Lynas has misrepresented his role in the movement. 'Author and journalist' better describes his current work than 'former activst'.Dialectric (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Those seem pretty dodgy sources for a WP:BLP. Why don't we use the wording from the lede of the Mark Lynas article and call him a "British author, journalist and environmental activist". Leaving out the last bit would seem a bit partial. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sense

"The antibiotic genes used in genetic engineering are naturally found in many pathogens, commonly used during animal husbandry and not widely prescribed."

I don't think "antibiotic genes" can be prescribed.

Does this sentence actually mean -

"The antibiotics produced by genes used in genetic engineering are naturally found in many pathogens, commonly used during animal husbandry and not widely prescribed to humans."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC).

Not quite. Antibiotic resistance genes are used to basically screen individuals to see that the transformation worked by exposing bacteria to an antibiotic. Anything surviving theoretically has both the inserted gene of interest and the antibiotic resistance gene used for validation. The sentence was poorly written, so I'll take a stab at fixing it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! That was an interpretation I considered, but had insufficient background knowledge to prioritise. It might be useful to provide some context of the type of field where GM bacteria are used, as this article si primarily about GM food. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC).

Zdziarski 2014 review

I believe that the following material should be deleted from the Health section:

2014 critical review of histopathology studies on rats (eating approved widely-eaten GM crops) states significant flaws, inadequacies and a lack of transparency in methodology and results. Published studies could be found for only 19% of these widely-eaten crops. Most of reviewed studies were performed after the approval of crop. Necessity of long-term animal feeding studies and thorough histopathological investigations has been ascertained.[1]
  1. ^ I.M. Zdziarski et al. GM crops and the rat digestive tract: A critical review

Aside from being in bad need of a copyedit for proper English language usage, it seems to me that it is a cherry-picked study, selected to contradict the community consensus in the recent RfC. As such, it is very much WP:UNDUE. An edit summary says that Domingo (2016) cites this study – and yet, Domingo's overall conclusions are opposite to this study's conclusions. During the RfC, the community carefully examined the issue of dissenting sources that claim adverse health effects of GM crops, and there was a clear consensus that we should go with the scientific consensus as established in the most recent secondary sources. As such, this material does not belong here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Undue and niggles away at the RfC consensus wording. Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Also agree this is undue. Yobol (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see where this research review claims adverse health effects. It seems like it's a useful critical appraisal of the animal studies. In what sense is it cherry picked? Are there other research reviews that praise the quality of the studies? It would be easy enough to fix the grammar. TimidGuy (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
We get into WP:FRINGE territory when it comes to demands for "long-term testing", so that's why the caution is warranted here. You can get arguments similar to climate change denial where people will go through goalpost moving saying no one has studied X+Y conditions over Z years, then Z+5 years, etc. when there isn't evidence to suggest a specific long-term study is warranted yet. Sometimes scientists will discuss the state of long-term literature while not intending to endorse the idea that it's challenging the scientific consensus too though, so that's why care is needed.
I do have to agree that this inclusion is undue. The scientific consensus language the assessment of any long-term concerns (of which no serious mechanism has been supported yet to trigger these specific studies), so this seems like a pretty straightforward example for removal. To actually become due weight, the scientific consensus would need to change (they can) and scientists overall would need to say they are valid and supported safety concerns as opposed to someone saying no one has tested XYZ conditions yet from the infinite pool of choices.Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The objections raised Zdziarski was not only the duration of the rat studies, but also the lack of transparency. On the later point, Domingo agrees with Zdziarski. Advocating the need for longer studies may be fringe, but advocating for improved standards for studies is not. Boghog (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Near all other reviews of studies are not critical reviews, they only collected conclusions from experimental studies. This study analyzed whole picture and revealed that available studies do not cover all varietes of crops and have flaws. Cathry (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
TimidGuy has a point. There is nothing whatsoever contradictory about the two reviews. Domingo (2016) summarizing the Zdziarski et al. (2014) review states "It was concluded, and I quite agree, that each GM product should be assessed with appropriate studies that indicate the level of safety associated with them. The necessity of establish detailed guidelines that allow the generation of comparable and reproducible studies was another interesting conclusion." Both reviews come to similar overall conclusions that additional reproducible long term studies are needed. Zdziarski did not conclude that GM foods pose a risk, rather that the published rat studies are inadequate. Because the two reviews come to the same conclusion, I think it is redundant to include both. Domingo (2016) is both more comprehensive and recent than Zdziarski et al. (2014), and on that basis, I would support removing the Zdziarski et al. (2014) review. The current text "recommended that further studies of long-term effects be conducted (Domingo 2016)" in the Health section is fully compatible with the conclusions of Zdziarski. Boghog (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do you cut off Domingo words before "it was" ?:

"Interestingly, among the 21 studies detected in their search, 14 were general health assessments of the GM crop on rat health, with most of these studies having been performed after the crop had been approved for human and/or animal consumption. Half of these were published at least nine years after approval.Most studies reviewed by Zdziarski et al. (2014) detected a lack of a unified approach and transparency in their methodology and results, making impossible to properly review or repeat these studies. "

Cathry (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Note, that Domingo 2016 review about last five years studies and reviews. Earlier studies were reviewed by Domingo in 2011 and 2007. And Zdziarski review is about all rat/most popular gm crops studies till 2014. Cathry (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also from Domingo

Kramkowska et al. (2013) indicated that examples arguing for the justified character of genetic modifications, and cases proving that their use can be dangerous, were innumerable.

What is cherry-picking - to reduce concerns from Domingo review to only "long-term studies are needed". Cathry (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

" to contradict the community consensus in the recent RfC." It seems scientific sources (both used in article and not) contradict the community consensus. Cathry (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The big picture is that Domingo agrees with Zdziarski's analysis and both reviews come to the same final conclusion that further studies are needed. The scope of the Zdziarski review is actually quite narrow (only reviews rat GI toxicity studies) whereas the Domingo review considers a broader range of evidence. The Zdziarski review is WP:UNDUE, not because it is a minority position (it is in fact a majority position), but rather because of the excessive depth of presentation for one line of evidence. Including the Zdziarski review is not cherry picking because it represents a majority view, but including it is both redundant and excessive. Boghog (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Seeing recent comments, it appears to me that it would be useful for us to distinguish between citing this source in terms of health effects of GM foods, and citing it in terms of scientific publishing practices. I would have no objection to having a better-written citation of this source in the section about "Scientific publishing/ Reviews", just so long as the criticisms of publishing practices do not get exaggerated. But I still see no point in giving it this kind of prominence in the Health section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. TimidGuy (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I revised it further. It's important to actually read the full text, particularly the Discussion section, of the source, in order to see exactly what the authors were saying, and I tried to make the text here more precise in that regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dicamba

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/01/487809643/crime-in-the-fields-how-monsanto-and-scofflaw-farmers-hurt-soybeans-in-arkansas

75.171.254.68 (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I heard that report on NPR this morning, and I agree that it should be added to this page. It is clearly noteworthy and relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And conflicts with organic

I just heard another report, that is quite interesting, and also well worth adding to this page: Organic Food Fights Back Against 'Non-GMO' Rival. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops

Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops (29 Oct 2016), The New York Times. Regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

As an FYI since it's been popping up a bit lately, this has more or less been debunked as an reliable source due to lack of understanding about basic agronomy among other things outlined by independent university scientists.[3] I don't think there's anything we could particularly include about the NYT piece. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
We would need a better source than an article in a newspaper. A good source would be a review study that summarized comparisons of crop yields and the use of toxins. I do not see in this article any claim that GMOs are more efficient than non-GMO. Efficiencies were already obtained in intensive farming by using fertilizers. TFD (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The NYTimes is a high quality source with a reputation for fact-checking. Reporting on such things as crop yields and the use of toxins can be cited in the article. weedcontrolfreaks.com is a two author blog with no independent editorial or peer review, and as such can not be used to 'debunk' a reliable source. At best, it could be used to offer an alternative perspective. Unless the nytimes offers a retraction, the statement that the article has been 'debunked' is an extraordinary claim which would require better quality sources to appear in the article.Dialectric (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
What would you use it as a source for, the yield section?--tronvillain (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't plan currently to use the nytimes piece as a source for anything in this article, but I have read it, and the weedcontrolfreaks.com response. I support the position that this nytimes article can be used as an RS in this article, and object to the claims that it has been debunked or is not of sufficient quality for inclusion.Dialectric (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
As a reminder, our science reliable sourcing guidelines make it pretty clear how popular press is not reliable for scientific topics because they do not engage in an adequate degree of fact checking. Even disregarding that, if someone wants to pit a reporter's personal non-peer reviewed "analysis" with multiple major flaws against criticisms from actual scientists trained in the field, the actual experts will hold more weight hands down, not to mention the actual reviews we have that are odds with this non-experts claims. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences), which is an essay. This has been pointed out to you several times. Essays do not dictate content.Dialectric (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware you've said that (though it's odd you still point it out). Arguments such as it's just an essay are invalid when an essay has a large degree of acceptance in the community such as SCIRS. If you have an issue with SCIRS though, this isn't the best place to address those problems, but rather at the SCIRS talk page. The reason a lot of us science editors reference it though is that it explains issues pretty well that editors sometimes have with understanding sourcing issues in science. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Despite the reputation of the NYT for news, it is not a good source for science. Standard science textbooks do not source to articles by reporters they use a scholarly writing. I do not know if Kingofaces43's source debunks the NYT article but it raises questions about methodology. Typically an article that made similar claims to the NYT article would attract attention in scholarly sources that would defend or attack its methodology and conclusions and compare its findings with similar studies. Review studies would then assess the degree of acceptance of its findings and would explain "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It would also tell us whether efficiency was a relevant criterion for assessing the value of GMOs. And don't forget, if we open the gates to newspaper articles, we will be swamped with highly biased studies financed by agribusiness that lack the quality for publication in academic journals, just as they do will global warming skepticism. TFD (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Genetically modified food controversies as a topic covers areas such as economics, politics, law, and public opinion. We all agree that review articles in high quality journals are the best sources available for science-based findings, but science papers seldom adequately cover these other areas.Dialectric (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Another criticism here from Stephen Novella. tronvillain (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
And also from the American Council on Science and Health. While the NYT is normally considered an RS, it's pretty clear that this particular article is not. SmartSE (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
As the wikipedia article makes clear, American Council on Science and Health is a pro-industry advocacy organization. As such, it should not be used to challenge high quality refs like the NYTimes.Dialectric (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
And then there's "What the New York Times Missed with its Big GMO Story." --tronvillain (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links

The external links section has been removed since was it was become way too long (i.e., turning into a WP:LINKFARM). These links have been restored several times over the objections of other editors. Most of the links in question fail WP:ELNO, namely Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. There are various view points expressed in these external links and these view points are already summarized in a better way in the article. They are redundant and hence I have removed them. Boghog (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Many people do not trust wikipedia articles, so they interested in the links section firstly. Cathry (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there is a slow edit war by a single editor to keep readding the links, being reverted by multiple other editors. Doing this goes against the spirit, albeit not the letter, of the 1RR restriction, so please do not add them back without consensus here on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"Birth defects in Hawaii"

there's this section in the article:

Chemical use

Birth defects in Hawaii caused a controversy, and public outcry of people concerned over heavy pesticide usage. Hawaii uses ten times the amount of pesticides compared to the rest of the U.S.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Pesticides in paradise: Hawaii's spike in birth defects puts focus on GM crops". The Guardian. 2015.
  • the wording fails to even suggest any relation between the "chemical use" and GMOs, and thus the topic of this page.
  • the source it cites (Guardian article) should probably be checked.

92.196.53.191 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I checked the source, and it does indeed make the GMO connection explicit. However, the text was inaccurate or vague on several other points, based on that source. I just made an edit to address that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Source article retracted

Reference 208: Tang G, Hu Y, Yin SA, Wang Y, Dallal GE, Grusak MA, Russell RM (September 2012). "β-Carotene in Golden Rice is as good as β-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 96 (3): 658–64. doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.030775. PMC 3417220Freely accessible. PMID 22854406.

Was retracted. The retraction states that:

1. The authors are unable to provide sufficient evidence that the study had been reviewed and approved by a local ethics committee in China in a manner fully consistent with NIH guidelines. Furthermore, the engaged institutions in China did not have US Federal Wide Assurances and had not registered their Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Review Committee).

2. The authors are unable to substantiate through documentary evidence that all parents or children involved in the study were provided with the full consent form for the study.

3. Specific eligibility issues were identified in regard to 2 subjects in the study.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:78bc:7800:c9e2:f5cb:e29a:3591 (talk • contribs) 05:00, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I checked and confirmed that the paper was retracted, and I have deleted that source from this page. The retraction is about procedural/ethical issues related to human subject participation in the study, and probably does not mean that the scientific conclusions were incorrect. However, a retraction is a retraction, and so we should no longer cite it. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

In all I thought this article was very well written. The writing was very easy to understand, and I didn't feel as though there was any bias in the writing of the articles. Especially at the beginning of the article I was impressed with how many sources there were to back up some claims, and from the sources that I looked at, they all seemed to be from very reliable sources. Another thing that I found very helpful was the thoroughness of the information. It covered all the important issues such as health and the environment, went into great detail. Where I thought here could be more information was in the "Public Perception" area. It contains a very brief paragraph about the history, and I believe that the history GM foods could use it's own sections and be elaborated more thoroughly. It also is extremely brief on explaining the view point of certain social groups. It feels very rushed, and I believe there is more information for all groups to be added. Then, the article could include subheadings for these certain sections. In all the article felt very thorough and organized.RonniL (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is incredibly comprehensive, but is consequently very dense. Because of this, it sometimes wavers on the border of being too detail heavy, in my opinion, and therefore difficult to digest. It is certainly a very thorough, and remarkably objective, perspective on the topic, however. Many primary sources are referenced, and frequently include prominent and/or reputable organizations and individuals such as Monsanto, Greenpeace, and the journal, "Scientific American." Making use of these specific authorities lends credibility to the text. There are a plethora of sources cited, and they are indicated very clearly both in the body of the text and in the References section at the end of the piece. The article is well divided into sections such as law, health, and the environment, but again, I feel that perhaps the subdivisions become too intricate and branched. It seems that if an individual were truly seeking to find a piece of information at the level of detail that this article reaches, they would have a difficult time finding it because there are just so many specifics to sort through. This article also includes many case studies and reviews, which are frequently named but not often given much context. Overall, the writing addresses all key points in a calculated, balanced fashion, and is not lacking in holistic depth. However, I sometimes feel it becomes overbearing and weighty, bogged down by minute details and brief references. Mckenth (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Addition of sources

In the second paragraph under the Gene Flow subheading there was the claim: 'In most countries environmental studies are required before approval of a GMO for commercial purposes, and a monitoring plan must be presented to identify unanticipated gene flow effects.', but this statement was made without any sources or further details about the extent of the studies. Is there a chance something like this could help the article? : http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/gmo/acgm/ecrisk.htm

GrimJimTim (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That looks OK to me. Do you mean to simply use the source to provide sourcing, or also to add more text? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

All you need to know about this article

At first glance, this article seems to be pretty good. However, upon further investigation, one sees that this article is - in reality - actually pretty good I guess.

I first examined the neutrality of this article. While it does seem that this article supports more heavily the side of the argument that claims that GMO's are just as adverse to health as conventional food, I feel that this is not the work of a biased editor - rather it seems that the weight of evidence, shifted more towards this viewpoint, is the cause of this perceived bias.

Backing up all of this evidence are the numerous citations. I feel that the citations are the strength of this article - there's a ton of them; enough for multiple citations per sentence. If the reader feels that a section of this article is biased, the reader can very easily find a number of articles from multiple different sources that support the idea in question.

Lazowsjt7759 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Lazowsjt7759. It seems you're a new Wiki Ed editor. I just wanted to give you a heads up that article talk pages are a space to discuss changes to the article, new sources, etc. They aren't the place for forum-like chat or general observations on an article that don't include some concrete way that you may think the article could be improved. The best way to do that is to suggest a specific wording change backed by a source on the talk page and see what kind of consensus builds around the idea of your change. On many articles you can often just make your change, called being bold around here, and if it gets reverted you take it to the talk page and try to gain consensus for it. There's a certain class of articles though, subjects that are particularly contentious, that fall under discretionary sanctions. It's always a good idea to check out the orange boxes at the top of talkpages to see if they're under discretionary sanctions. These boxes also usually contain helpful links that better explain specific policies.
To be clear, I'm not trying to hassle you at all, just giving you an idea how this place works before some editors start slapping down esoteric links to policy that you'd likely have no experience with. This article, and GMO articles in general, can give you a good idea about how conflicts get resolved around here. GMO topics were extremely contentious for quite a while. I highly suggest you check out the RFC linked in the orange box at the top of this page. It's a good primer on the level of sourcing, particularly in regards to articles that touch on the science, that's expected and how one of the bigger conflicts on Wikipedia was resolved through consensus. Bear in mind typical editing doesn't involve anywhere near this level of contentiousness but since you came quickly to this article it seems like a perfect situation to go through all those links above and acquaint yourself with some of the policies and guidelines you might not come across initially. It will hopefully make your experience here more enjoyable. Capeo (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad section

Environmental groups such as [[Friends of the Earth]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Genetic engineering |publisher=Friends of the Earth |url=http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/genetic-engineering}}</ref> include genetic engineering in general as an environmental and political concern. Other groups such as GMWatch and [[The Institute of Science in Society]] concentrate mostly or solely on opposing genetically modified crops.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-agriculture.php |title=GE-Agriculture |publisher=The Institute of Science in Society}}</ref><ref name=GMWatch>{{cite web |url=http://www.gmwatch.org/about |title=About GMWatch |publisher=GMWatch}}</ref>

This is entirely primary sourced. There's no evidence that GMWatch or the "Institute of Science in Society" (a tiny vanity project) are of any significance or importance. The section should either be removed, or supported by sources that meet the standard tests of reliability and independence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The content in question is in the Public perception section of the page. Normally, I'm in favor of removing fringe-y material about GMOs, but here, I think it's OK. It's presented as layperson perceptions, rather than scientific findings, and it's attributed. If these groups were minor members of the groups that feel negatively about GMOs, and other groups felt the same way but were much larger, then there could be a due weight issue, but I think it's very appropriate for a page about the controversies to present the perspectives of anti-GMO groups, so long as their views are attributed and not in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe I added that nearly five years ago.[4] While I agree that Primary sources are not ideal, they are also not prohibited. My purpose with that paragraph was to highlight that some groups were opposed to GMOs as part of a larger area of advocacy, while others concentrated purely on GMOs. I think this is still a fair and valid point. Those were some of the main groups protesting GMOs back then, but that might have changed now. I am open to changing the highlighted groups and would welcome better sources. AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
In this case they are primary and unreliable. If this is significant, it will be covered in reliable independent secondary sources, which should be used instead. If it is not covered in reliable independent secondary sources then it is not significant and should be omitted. There is no excuse for using crappy primary sources in an article like this, which is otherwise well sourced, and covers controversial content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Sources can be primary and reliable. In this case they are reliable for the positions of the groups they are citing. AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to piggyback, we are also usually very careful about creating [[WP:UNDUE] weight when we rarely use primary sources. This could be an instance where a secondary source would be helpful to list prominent anti-GMO groups, which would also likely include criticism of them being out of line with the science. I'm ok with the content as is though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not an issue of reliability but of weight. TFD (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
That is fair. In the scheme of things it is a pretty non-controversial statement (especially given the scope of this page), but we should aim for a higher standard in general. I have no objections to it being removed and at some point will look for some decent sources regarding anti-GM groups so we can get a better and maybe more nuanced section. AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I can envision some editors making the point that it's better to cite small groups than to cite none at all, in terms of balanced POV. I think it's also possible that there simply are no larger groups that are interested in the same issues. In the spirit of WP:There is no deadline, I think it would be acceptable to leave the material there until such time as better material can be put together, although I don't feel strongly about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Tagged for now. AIRcorn (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Scientific consensus for environmental safety

While this and similar articles state the scientific consensus is that GMO foods pose no greater risk to humans than non-GMO foods, is there a consensus for environmental concerns? I believe there is, so I’m surprised not to see it here. --That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good question. The food-related language arose from a mammoth RfC following an ArbCom case, and the controversy among editors at that time was focused on health, so the environmental aspects were pretty much set aside. My reading of the source material is that there is significant scientific evidence for environmental problems, so there clearly cannot be a consensus to the contrary of that. I'm not sure whether it would be accurate to say that there is a scientific consensus that there are problems, because some problems are well-substantiated while some others are much less so. I don't see any need to use the phrase "scientific consensus" for every aspect of the subject, out of a false sense of parity. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

I plan to edit in a section over golden rice controversy in China.

Controversial Studies

Golden Rice

A 2012 study in China over the genetically modified grain –Golden Rice- gained much public awareness over the fact that US researchers were being accused of feeding the children the grain without consulting their parents (). The researchers not fully knowing the full effects of how Golden Rice decided to use the children as their test subjects. The next year an institute of American researchers in Tufts University concluded that these researchers broke ethical rules during their study of Golden Rice in China.[1] Cesar.Salade (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/china.php
Thank you for posting here on the talk page first (and that's a great username!). You don't, however, have to format it as an edit request; it can simply be a talk page section.
I see a big problem with your proposed edit. The one source that you cited does not in any way contain the information that your proposed text presents. That's not acceptable on Wikipedia. Everything must be sourced, and the sources must actually contain the information. Unless you can properly source it, your edit will be rapidly reverted.
Assuming that you can fix that problem, you will also need to cut out some excess verbiage, blue-link several of the terms that you use, and fix some capitalization and punctuation to comply with Wikipedia's formatting. It would also be good to expand the citation with Template:Cite web.
I also want to make you aware that pages about GMOs are subject to some very strict rules, which may make these pages a bad choice for a student editing project. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Biodiversity section

What hasn't been mentioned on the biodiversity section is that the food production increase on the agricultural fields also means that less land needs to be put into cultivation (with GM crops you can attain the amount of food necessary to sustain the population with less agricultural land), so in theory free up space for nature to go about its business undisturbed (less rainforest for instance may need to be cut down for soy production, ...). As such, it can be argued that this way, it actually protects a lot of biodiversity from being eradicated due to agricultural activity.

Can someone mention this in the section. I can't find any sources for this (other than this[1], so can't add it myself. Genetics4good (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, can someone remove the "greenhouse gas emissions" word in the line "Potential effects include gene flow, pesticide resistance and greenhouse gas emissions." on this article ? Greenhouse gas reductions aren't mentioned here since they are not controversial, but the word is still mentioned here, which is confusing. Genetics4good (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ See: Biotech crops allow farmers to grow more without needing to use additional land -line

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

Under Chemical Use, under Pesticides, after second footnote in 3rd sentence 'That said, some still remains' .... should include the word disagreement or similar word, 71.55.191.153 (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added "doubt" to that sentence (and also removed "that said" as superfluous). SmartSE (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Biased Sources, bias text, and lobbying.

GMO is still a political hot potato, and this article appears to use evidence biased towards the promotion of GMO.

Take, for instance the data source used regarding a shift in EU consumer perceptions - https://gmoinfo.eu/uk/files/510-briefing-eurobarometer-19june-2019-.pdf

This material is fully funded by EuropaBio. It is imperative that any Encyclopedia article does not take sides in a debate; and, while there may be some justification that, for scientists within the field of GM, there is a consensus that GMO foods can be as safe as non GMO, this article tends towards using far more politicised claims.

Any consumer who actually lives in the EU will tell you that, given the choice between labelled GMO food and unlabelled GMO food - they will go for labelled. Secondly, given the choice, a majority of consumers will choose against it.

The survey cited bases it’s data on using open questions about food, rather than mentioning GMO as a focus. As there has been little press or media coverage regarding any changes in status of GM food availability (and corresponding legislation), it is not surprising that the survey shows a decrease in concern about GMO ingredients. The survey does nothing to support its premise, except in the context of ‘active need for concern’. Were, for instance.

In the end, this article is currently a thinly veiled attempt by the GM lobby to argue the GM case. I would edit, but it is not my field. 20040302 (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I like chips in brown gravy. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The source you link doesn't seem to exist in this article. Otherwise, please keep WP:SOAPBOX in mind. With that in mind, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. We reflect what is WP:DUE in scientific sources, similar to other "controversial" science subjects like climate change, vaccines, etc. and avoid WP:FRINGE POV. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
20040302 also started a discussion at a noticeboard, where more comments can be found: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Genetically modified food controversies. Crossroads -talk- 02:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV check, please?

I can't (yet) edit this semi-protected page, so I was wondering if someone might be kind enough to look at this sentence toward the end of the "Public Perception" section before "Reviews and Polls". "Food writer Michael Pollan does not oppose eating genetically modified foods, but supports mandatory labeling of GM foods and has criticized the pesticide-heavy monoculture farming enabled by certain GM crops, such as glyphosate-tolerant ("Roundup-ready") corn and soybeans." My problem is the phrase "...pesticide-heavy monoculture farming..." If that is what Mr. Pollan said in the reference (I can't access that either), then it seems that phrase should be in quotes. If he didn't actually use that phrase, then it doesn't seem very unbiased to me.

I realize this article is about the controversies, but I believe this kind of wording doesn't really fit the WP:IMPARTIAL standard. But as a new editor, I'd love to hear other thoughts. Thanks! SadderButWiser (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in the source about Mr Pollan, it is an op ed by Mark Bittman. Will see what others say, but it either needs a new cite, to be rewritten or deleted. AIRcorn (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that wording really pushes a POV, so I changed it slightly to make it more neutral. I'll look later to see if I can find a better source and possibly change the entire sentence. Kwagoner (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
We shouldn't use op-eds as reliable sources and hence that should be taken out. I will mention though that GMO crops are pesticide heavy. That's why they are genetically modified, so that they can resist more pesticides. But it's not clear from the phrasing if that is his objection. And if it is, we need to be clear what his objection is. TFD (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Reference to: "with approximately 100 universities that allowed for university scientists to conduct research on their GM products with no oversight.[128]" Cited link has broken hyperlink to "with approximately 100 universities." This citations is used by a number of other cites, all lead to same broken cite. Kstreete (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Eh... There's nothing much that we can do about this except that we can simply search for a copy of the original content of that broken hyperlink through archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20180605073115/https://www.monsanto.com/company/media/statements/academic-research-agreements/ – robertsky (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_12&oldid=1212792003"